EPTHammer Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
The Strongest Chain ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8frwy.jpg) Things we know about the setup 1. If someone dies, all actions to him are canceled. All of his votes disappear 2. Vote power is public 3. You can only give one vote to one player. Mafia Objectives 1. Accure votepower 2. Try not to lose votepower through lynches Town Objective 1. To gain, or keep voting power Individually if I had the option to not trade, I would obviously do it, since there is a chance that I would give it to a mafia. If I kept my vote I can insure that it will stay with the town. The best plan will attempt to replicate this, while building some sort of advantage. Here is the plan, it is quiet simple. Circlevotes*! (*But better) Now the actual plan and why it works The Plan Everyone will transfer their votes. Palmar will give a vote to Jackal58, NetStalker will give a vote to me so on so forth until LayAbou gives a vote to Palmar. In addition, there will be something called the Self Correcting Fixing Mechanisms Each day afterwards, votes will be adjusted so that everyone will end up with 3 votes the day after. Because KP is set at 1, at the end of every nights there will be one person with 4 votes, and one person with 2 votes (as their trades to the killed person will be canceled). For the next night, the person with the 4 votes and the person with the two votes will be removed from the circle and they will trade votes. The person with the 4 votes will give the other 2 votes, and the person with 2 votes will give the other 1 vote, leaving each of them with 3. + Show Spoiler [Example] + DAY 1: A:3 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:3 F:3 A->B 1 vote B->C 1 vote C->D 1 vote D->E 1 vote E->F 1 vote F gets killed DAY 2: A:2 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:4 A->E 1 vote E->A 2 votes B->C 1 vote C->D 1vote D->A 1 vote The self-correcting mechanism has a ‘flaw’ though, in the above example, if person A dies night two, mafia will net an ‘extra’ vote. BUT: this isn’t a real flaw. It’s actually is an Advantage. First of all, it will strongly green E as a townie. Second of all, the person with the four votes could be protected by the doctor / slightly greened during the day before he dies. Mafia is left with a choice. Either to give us information, or to give up a vote, or to keep everything the same. All of which at least break even for town Why this plan is better than all other plans 1. It neutralizes vote movements from mafia. Mafia can no longer transfer votes between members. Defeating Mafia objected 2 2. It is better from ordinary circle-jerks because if the mafia chooses to exploit the ‘flaw’ with self-correction we will be able to green someone. On the other hand, if mafia exploits the flaw with chain voting, we would not be able to get as good data 3. It is better than passing 2 votes. Passing 2 votes is very pro-mafia. There is no reason to pass two votes if you only have 3. Remember, you can only pass votes to one person, so just passing one vote neutralizes any other vote passing actions you have. The only reason why you would want to pass two votes would be to make a two vote swing for the mafia. (in-addition passing two votes eliminates a self-correcting mechanism) 4. Giving one person all of the votes is an extremely risky endeavor. It is an instant lose if the person is mafia. And even if you gave all the votes to me, there is no guarantee that I can live the night. 5. Random passing is a bad idea. First of all, statistically speaking a portion of the town votes will end up in mafia hands, while very few if any mafia votes end up in town hands. This means that mafia will always gain vote power each night | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Please be wary of anyone supporting a "Passing two votes" plan, and a "Giving everyone all the votes" plan | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
There are three main options we have available to us 1) Circlejerk (1 vote) 2) Circlejerk (1 vote) + Self Correcting Fixing Mechanisms 3) Do our own things. + Show Spoiler [Rejected plans] + 1) Give everyone all the votes - easiest way to lose a game 2) Circlejerk (2 votes) - allows mafia to build up 2 VP a night First of all, I will say this, we need to decide on a plan and hold people accountable to the plan. This may be obvious, but until we have this explicitly spelled out, what we are going to get are mafia going day 2 "Oh I didn't circle jerk because I don't want to follow the plan". My case for the second plan is located here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=15#287. My plan is a direct improvement over plan 1. Plan 1 makes it a normal game at best, at worse it gives mafia 1 VP a night. My plan at works is a normal game, at best we receive lots of insight or town gains VP. Plan 3 (the sheep plan) is just a horrible idea. First of all, mafia will steadily gain VP from unwary townies. Second of all the townies with the most vote power will be night killed by the mafia. Sheeping looses you games | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 27 2012 13:02 Paperscraps wrote: @LSB I am glad you are in agreement with the circle trading plan, but you need to read the rules a bit more carefully. Wrong Correct Good idea, but this isn't correct. I am correct, pm ROL about it or green font your question. I've already ran it through ROL Even if I am wrong, it is incredibly easy to see if anyone gave their votes to more than one person... Here is the rule how deaths affect trading. Player A will have 3 votes after the night, assuming Player F traded properly. The only imbalance after the day will be Player E since his trade will not go through to Player F, thus Player E will have 4 votes. 2 votes are lost due to Player F's death. This means there will be an imbalance after N1. We may be able to use your self correcting plan after two nights pass. This is WIFOM. We can't know if Player E is a townie or mafia. Okay I will re-evaluate this. However you cannot forget the most important part about denying mafia additional vote power I made a post about how this circle trading will work. The advantages and disadvantages of trade just 1 vote or more than 1 vote. I cover the WIFOM aspect as well. @Everyone I have another idea for trading votes. I want to bounce it off you guys to see what you think. The main idea behind the circle trading system is to keep an even spread of votes across all players. They way we have it setup, the mafia will get to pick and choose who they want to give more vote(s), either townie or fellow mafia. One way to kind of keep the mafia on their toes is to split up everyone into 5 groups of 3. Then during the night you choose at random who you would like to give vote(s) too. Let me guess, you'd determine these groups of 3 'randomly'? | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
I am correct, pm ROL about it or green font your question. I've already ran it through ROL | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
All circlejerk/circle group/announce who you are transferring systems are fundamentally the same. Because they allow the mafia to generate VP advantage because they are guaranteed to receive ½ votes from a townie. For announcing plans, transferring 1 vote is preferred, because transferring two votes creates a D3 LYLO. Assuming Mafia would be able to build (at least) +2 Vote power per night simply because they can stop (with a bullet) whoever they will transfer votes too, if we miss on day 1+2, day 3 would be 11 total people, Mafia-16 Vote power, Town-21 vote power. If town messes up, mafia will gain +5 vote power and win. But that puts town at a disadvantage at best, so what about giving votes without announcement? What is the alternative plan? The best plan would transfer almost all of the votes (so less VP is lost per day), and would not guarantee mafia VP. Proposal: Balancing Act Night 1: Give all but one vote away to who you think is the most town. Announce who you gave the votes to the next day. Because only one person died, we should be able to figure out who that person gave their votes to. The main issue is if 3/4 people attempted to transfer to the dead person. That’s where night 2 comes into play Day 2: We would account for all vote transfers, and suspicious behaviors would be checked on. Night 2+: All people with 3 votes continue to transfer votes to anyone with only 3 votes. People with 1, 5, 7+ votes will not be included. All people with 5+ votes will be assigned to transfer all but three of their votes to someone with only 1 vote. This will have a normalizing force so people who have a vote advantage one day will no longer have a vote advantage the next. Day 3: More suspicious activity should be present. This is a very rough proposal, however this is the only option besides 1 vote circlejerking There are many benefits and harms. Benefit one: Encourages people to play pro town and not do stupid things, so they can get more votes and keep votes away from mafia. We’ll have a higher level game without people trying to lie or ‘fish’ which confuses the waters Benefit two: Allows us to get soft confirmation of the top 4 vote holders at times. This is because if 4 people control over half of the vote and the game is still continuing, that means that one of the has to be town. Neutral: Less vote power is lost per night. Only 1 or 2 vote power is lost a night. Harm: Potential for interference. If a mafia ends up with a lot of vote, there is a potential for the mafia to enact plans. However this is limited by counter interference from smart town members and the lynch | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Doesn't that remind you of some other game? Circle-jerk reduces smart play a bit by always guaranteeing that the mafia will be able to gain or break even on VP. Also IMO I think it's less fun. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 27 2012 18:32 Dirkzor wrote: Risk: Why can't you see that a votecircle (atleast night1) is the best way to make sure that mafia don't get a big amount of the votes? If everyone just give away 1 vote to whoever they want mafia will most likely give votes to themself and some town will give a vote to scum. This means scum will get an increase in votes. That increase could be anything from 0-11. If you can't see that you are either not very smart or scum deliberatly trying to make us not follow this plan. Because although circle-jerking is the 'safer' path to take, it automatically gives the mafia an advantage. It is inherently pro-mafia as it denies the town access to a powerful mechanic, and it also lets the mafia build up incremental VP every night. I can already tell you what 'information' we'll get from a circle jerk night one. Assuming the setup is balanced without vote swapping (50% of mafia win), you are increasing the win percentage of mafia if you support circle jerk. I'm not accusing you of mafia, however I am explaining why I am working on trying to make a proposal that gives an edge to the town In addition, there is another inherit advantage, mafia can only eliminate 1 VP from the game a night rather than the 2 VP. This means that the Town KP (lynches) are much more effective as they take out more influence. As for your concerns about mafia gaining absurd amounts of votes, the 'balancing' act portion is there to prevent the mafia from making such large swings. After one night of large swings, everything will be reset so that any advantage a mafia makes will be reset the next day. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 27 2012 18:50 Palmar wrote: What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why. Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions. Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen. If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway. I have arrived at the same conclusion as Palmar after analyzing the game, at first I did not give much weight because I thought I had the perfect plan (but Paperscraps corrected me). I have a Green read on Palmar because 1) he's sticking out his head too much, and 2) he's arriving at the plan that mafia would not be guaranteed an advantage Next up is the leading lynch, risk.nuke On January 27 2012 00:44 risk.nuke wrote: I think I would prefer a system where you can send your votes wherever you please. Obviously you will have to tell us what you do. Why is this a better idea then everyone gets the same amount of votes? Mafia can't lurk. Cause lurkers will likely end up on 1 vote and be useless. I didn't think about this point, but I really like it. One of the major problems of any game is mafia lurking till the end. This forces mafia into the limelight should they ever want to try to acquire votes. Note, mafia will not be able to transfer votes to their lurkers because people would need a good explanation why NetStalker should be receiving votes from multiple people. On January 27 2012 04:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: 3 takes more management, but will be better in the end. I suggest Day 1 and 2 circle trading to start stability, then once the game starts intensifying and we get more information we can switch to plan 3 when everyone's ready. Given that 1) is trading 1 vote and 2) is trading all but 1 vote, I'd have to go with 1 because if mafia somehow gets ahold of votes and don't give them away, we give them less VP to vote with and can stop them before it's too late. I don't like this post. In fact this plan is very bad. If I was mafia, I would love this plan and support it, because of an easy counterplan. First of all, look at the concept of stability. Sentinel proposes that stability is more important in the early game than in the late. This is very wrong. Stability is more important in the late game than in the early. In the early game, although it is bad if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it. However if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 3, it could suddenly lose the game. Day 1/2 we have the freedom to try to achieve information at the risk of loosing vote power, day 3/4+ we do not simply because there is the high chance of loss My plan accounts for that because it focuses on stabilizing the late game, after a very tumultuous night 1. Secondly, look at information. Sentinel makes the fundamental assumption that circle-jerking will provide meaningful information. It won't, but it will provide a lot of WIFORM. However vote transfers will always have lots of information because every vote transfer is known. People will need to account for their votes. Sentinel's plan achieves neither of his goals of stability. In fact, there is a very dangerous counterplan that guarantees mafia an overwhelming advantage day 3 Counterplan: Between Day 1 and Day 2, give town 1 VP, and give mafia 1 VP 1: All mafia live. N3 Mafia has 13 VP, town has 17 VP. If town gives up 2 VP.If one townies mistransfers, mafia wins 2. 1 Mafia is lynched. N3 Mafia has 10 VP, town has 20 VP. If town gives up 5 VP, mafia wins. More likely, 1-2 townies will mistransfer leading to Mafia entering with 12-14 VP, and town having 15-16 VP. This sets up lylo as the town has to be unanimous in order to unseat mafia. I believe this flaw is intentional and therefore I have a Red read on Sentinel Conclusion: I should read the thread before posting. And ##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 28 2012 02:40 layabout wrote: if you are suggesting that we do this then it needs further fleshing out because as it stands i am still much happier "circle jerking" night1. When players announce their votes to what extent would they be expected to justify their decision? How do we ensure players do this? How concerned are you about unknown roles interfering with this plan? Do you think that we can determine whether players are telling the truth about their votes and make them accountable if they lie? If you were scum how would you react to this plan? You bring up a valid point. I will need to clearly flesh out the plan. Night 1 Everyone will transfer 2 votes to anyone as they wish. Day 2 Everyone wakes up and announces who they transferred their votes to and post a short justification. It should be easy to figure out all vote movements. A few things to note Votes to and from lurker A justification is crucial because no townie would randomly give votes away. We can ensure that people will follow this as this is the correct play to do. Someone who insists that they didn't follow the plan is immediately under suspicion. Unknown roles- I don't know much about this setup, but I am assuming it should be pretty standard, since one new mechanic has already been introduced. However if there are roles that directly interfere with vote trading, this would allow us to see exactly what happened and provide the town with a more accurate description of possible mafia interference. Night 2 People with 5+ votes will give all but three of their votes to people with 1 vote People with 3 votes will give all but 1 of their votes to people with 1 vote or 3 votes. If there is too much imbalance in the voting and we are in danger of Day 3 Repeat Day 2, and so on so forth. The purpose of the plan is to deny mafia a good counterplan since there is so many uncertain variables Mafia counterplan: Very day focused. Attempt to gain trust of the town and play power roles and very high profile in an attempt to gain large VP swings during N3. However, this is difficult since people with 1 vote are the most likely to receive votes. During the night there is very little you can do. Mafia lurkers- Transfer votes to high profile mafia members. High profile members- Try to keep as much votes inbetween each other, however it shouldn't be an issue loosing 2 VP if to gain a little trust with the town. Problems: This may result in the bleeding of a few VP from the mafia. This is because lurkers will only have 1 vote, and active members would need to constantly rebalance any votes they received. Why you should prefer this plan -Lurkers become less important in the game, mafia lurkers will be neutralized, town lurkers will not cause as much damage -Circle Jerk is inherently mafia supporting town has no benefit besides "can't mess up too badly". This plan inherently has town supporting elements -Re-balancing automatically brings stability over the longer term, the nights where it is most important. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
The Perfect Plan Harry Potter Mafia - Perfect mass claim. Host gave each player a unique name that was tied to their alignment, and then revealed all of the names. Through workarounds, town forced people to nameclaim and win easily. (Mafia had no chance of winning) Mafia XXX- Although I wasn't mafia, if the mafia D1 Night kills the person playing his first mafia game because they don't know how to deal with the plan, I'm assuming the plan was pretty good. Perfect information Diplomancy Mafia- We knew everyone's vote power. We would have won through perfect movement the next day but the game ended due to inactivity (which was also part of the plan. PYP3- Information is beautiful pre-game plan. I made a plan beforehand, if I was town, I would severely modify it, maybe even scrapping it. If I was mafia, I would modify it to benefit mafia. If I was SK, I would just need to know where the tracker and gun cop was. I rolled SK and proceeded to kill the tracker, then people caught on that I didn't follow the plan because I made a bad play Typically perfect information plans are easily to exploit and build an advantage Uncertain Plans PYP2- With a large portion of the game being unknown, it was very difficult to do anything. In addition, our power role was locked out and used against us. We lost that game. My first attempt at a 'perfect plan' obviously had problems, so I'm now defaulting into developing an uncertain plan | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 28 2012 03:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town? Person with 1 vote who you most trust as town. So if N2 it is A: 3 B: 3 C: 3 D: 1 E: 1 F: 1 G: 7 H: 5 I: 1 J: 1 K 3 L: 3 A, B, C, K, L will transfer 2 votes to one of A,B,C,K,L,D,E,F,I,J G will transfer 4 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J H will transfer 2 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 28 2012 03:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: If I'm understanding you correctly, your logic on why my plan is bad VP-wise is based on the fact that if we give mafia power Day 1, then by giving them more power Day 2 it's lylo Day 3. I'm going to post these because when people brought up Day 3 lylo scenarios over the 5 pages of text in this thread since I made the accusing post (that was page 13, now we're on 18) I changed it to one day only. And in your own words, And to that extent, my original plan was this. Everyone posting their thoughts on the plan agreed up until Palmar's post, then the debates on what to do began. I'm not saying that first plan was flawless, and it's bad for the exact reasons you've said - after two nights, mafia has too much of an advantage. I'm still keeping my opinion the same, circlejerk night one. Let me simply it Your first plan is the obvious plan. It is really obvious. It doesn't say anything about your alignment Your second plan circlejerking night 1 and night 2 but free for all night 3 is deceptive and has a very effective counterplan. That's why I think you are mafia Your third plan is like your second plan, but the counterplan isn't as easy. It is still worse than my plan | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 28 2012 03:23 layabout wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 28 2012 03:14 LSB wrote: You bring up a valid point. I will need to clearly flesh out the plan. Night 1 Everyone will transfer 2 votes to anyone as they wish. Day 2 Everyone wakes up and announces who they transferred their votes to and post a short justification. It should be easy to figure out all vote movements. A few things to note Votes to and from lurker A justification is crucial because no townie would randomly give votes away. We can ensure that people will follow this as this is the correct play to do. Someone who insists that they didn't follow the plan is immediately under suspicion. Unknown roles- I don't know much about this setup, but I am assuming it should be pretty standard, since one new mechanic has already been introduced. However if there are roles that directly interfere with vote trading, this would allow us to see exactly what happened and provide the town with a more accurate description of possible mafia interference. Night 2 People with 5+ votes will give all but three of their votes to people with 1 vote People with 3 votes will give all but 1 of their votes to people with 1 vote or 3 votes. If there is too much imbalance in the voting and we are in danger of Day 3 Repeat Day 2, and so on so forth. The purpose of the plan is to deny mafia a good counterplan since there is so many uncertain variables Mafia counterplan: Very day focused. Attempt to gain trust of the town and play power roles and very high profile in an attempt to gain large VP swings during N3. However, this is difficult since people with 1 vote are the most likely to receive votes. During the night there is very little you can do. Mafia lurkers- Transfer votes to high profile mafia members. High profile members- Try to keep as much votes inbetween each other, however it shouldn't be an issue loosing 2 VP if to gain a little trust with the town. Problems: This may result in the bleeding of a few VP from the mafia. This is because lurkers will only have 1 vote, and active members would need to constantly rebalance any votes they received. Why you should prefer this plan -Lurkers become less important in the game, mafia lurkers will be neutralized, town lurkers will not cause as much damage -Circle Jerk is inherently mafia supporting town has no benefit besides "can't mess up too badly". This plan inherently has town supporting elements -Re-balancing automatically brings stability over the longer term, the nights where it is most important. Does it have to be 2 votes? We can change the policy of 2 votes on later days (possibly when stability is more important, especially on night 3). But it is preferable to have 2 votes on Night 1 because this will mean that mafia can only eliminate 1 KP at night. You are essentially suggesting that we create choas to prevent the mafia from being able to exploit our actions If we do this Every town aligned player needs to put real effort into justifying themselves. This will force mafia to post in a way that helps us to determine their alignment. If we do not then we will have created a choatic situation that mafia can take advantage of. Exactly, mafia will be forced to post in a way that helps us. If they do not (almost every game has a mafia lurker), their lurkers will be neutralized. Also, it's very hard to control choas. If mafia tries to transfer votes between members, that gives us more information. If mafia plays power roles, that gives us more information. My best line of attack is stay green for D1/D2, and play power D3. If you mean sitting back and hoping to get lucky, yes that is a plan, but it has a very high chance of failing. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 28 2012 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: ' Alright then, sounds good. In that case, one more question. This is probably the last thing that's keeping me attached to circlejerking. If mafia are acting pro-town and get votes (say G and H are mafia, other two could exchange votes), couldn't they possibly have a lylo day 3? Say A B G and H are all mafia. Day 3, 43 VP left in the game. Day 2 mafia had 18 VP, if either B or C receives votes (and G and H circulate to B and C as well), it would be 20 mafia and 23 town. I'd be perfectly happy with that. G, H deviated from plan, obviously mafia. B/C is revealed to be mafia. 3/4 mafia are found. Town wins. I was concerned more about how many votes to circle (1 or 2), and again I said first 2 nights before everyone started talking about day 3 lynch or lose scenarios. The third plan... answer my question and I'll agree with that statement. The thing is this, although there is a possibility of lylo Day 4, it is a small possibility and relies on all mafia surviving and gaining multiple votes. Remember, mafia cannot pass the votes to each other all the time or else it would be very obvious who they are, even after just two rounds. It is much more likely that they won't control enough votes. If they attempt lylo, it makes our job very easy. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 28 2012 04:24 Paperscraps wrote: Also what is the point of the free trade plan + justifications if we are just going to make people balance the votes back out the next night to those with 1 vote. The people with 1 vote should be weaker townies and mafia. What is the point of not trading to them N1 if we are just going to give them votes back N2. Note this, if only weaker / inactive players have 1 vote, that means the majority of players either have 3 votes or 5 votes. The three votes would trade with each other (or with a 1 vote with proper justification), and personally I would rather have an Active person with 3 votes, rather than 5 votes, because of the danger of people holding too much votes (as you have stated). | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 28 2012 11:47 Paperscraps wrote: Why try and balance at all though, if you are supposed to be trading votes based upon your reads. All the players that have 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would you want to give votes back to those players? I understand that LSB doesn't think the votes will go back to perfect balance. What if players with 5+ votes don't want to trade to any of the 1 vote players? D1 we are 3-3-3-3-3-3-3 Then D2 we could be 1-5-3-1-3-3-5 or more probably 1-7-1-1-1-3-7 (due to town usually have a generally unison perception of pro-townies) Alright so the people above with 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would we want to give votes back to them again? I know the players with 7 have to trade 2 votes no matter what, but why wouldn't the 7's trade with each other being, both pro-town to keep the advantage with town? Am I not seeing things clearly? Also I didn't take into account the fact that one of those players will die, screwing up the votes. Possibly leaving potential 1's with 3 votes still if they traded to a 7 that was killed. I have already addressed your concerns here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=18#358, please at least respond to my answers You are doing nothing but repeating things you have already typed before and ignoring responses. As for your situations, for a " 1-5-3-1-3-3-5" distribution, it will end up with a 5-3-3-3-3-3 distribution after night 1, no matter who the mafia kills. See? Balancing works 1-7-1-1-1-3-7 will be a bit more complex, however it is difficult to imagine that there are only 3 good players, and personally I am scared by the fact basically two people's votes matter (the people with the 7 votes). This would need to be fixed as soon as possible. Balancing will probably have the person with the 3 vote only give one vote away, and the person with the 7 votes give 4 votes away. It will be hard to predict the end result, but most likely it will not be as disastrous. Honestly, people have a variety of different reads, and results would be all over the place. On January 28 2012 11:51 wherebugsgo wrote: Alright, if we go with the "trade to whoever you want" strategy, IMO one of two things happen: 1. The majority of the votes shift toward "more townie" townies, with "less townie" townies getting less votes. Mafia votes either go down by a couple or stay the same. 2. Mafia gains like 5 votes due to one of their members looking town. Neither is something that is particularly great, although obviously #1 has its advantages. Is it very useful? IMO not really, since in a no-flip setup we can't tell the difference between 1 and 2. Wait. Why is #1 bad? Assume that Netstalker wasn't replaced, with circle-jerk he would always have 3 votes. If he is town, this isn't so great. If he was mafia, this would be even worse. Remember, re-balancing will mean that any advantage that mafia has built up over night will be taken away. However this is not true for the town, the town can still gain advantage by trading with each other. If mafia constantly trade with each other it is easy to tell patterns | ||
| ||
