I'm stopping the use because people want me to stop and I'm a nice person.
I wish they didn't want me to stop, but here we are.
Type: Posts; User: Zork
I'm stopping the use because people want me to stop and I'm a nice person.
I wish they didn't want me to stop, but here we are.
OK as a gesture of good faith, I'm not using the word "lynch" any more.
I'm done using it.
Now, don't ban it!
I'm going to offer this: If anyone who is of color finds the use of the word "lynch" offensive, I ask them to PM me and let me know. And if I get such a PM, I will never use "lynch" on here again. But I still don't want it banned. I want to CHOOSE not say "lynch." And I will if that happens. On my honor.
Your move, fellow members of the community.
And I would add that each player should be allowed to call it what they want, as long as they're not being offensive. Like, if you normally say "vote off," but only use the word "lynch" when talking about a player whose avatar is a picture of a black person, then you're probably not welcome in our community.
I disagree with you, so I'm a troll.
You win the argument, and the day. Well done.
I hope everyone pauses and really considers that amrock had to make 3 points and went 3 for 3 on strawman because I didn't argue the points he was ready to refute.
I feel like I'm town and he's Mafia in F3 or something. Ugh.
Chemist, if you think no one is trying to change what's allowed, I think you're not quite reading between the lines of these posts that they're making...
2) I also never claimed what you are arguing against in #2. Starting to sense a pattern of strawmen here. Amrock, you really can't help yourself. You just have to bring your Lefty politics from the Discord political site which bans all conservative viewpoints and bring it to our nice little gaming sanctuary. Ugh.
3) You're not a nice person. You're just not.
At the risk of being called "trolling" simply for disagreeing with you, here goes:
All of the above words have had a place in the history of the oppression of people of color. A lot of genuinely guilty folks also experienced those words, of all colors. Were they also used to perpetuate injustice at times? Absolutely. So there is no better term if you're trying to remove all taint of oppression.
I care more about having a fun time with a game than taking over what the word means. Every time we use the word lynch as we play this game, we create another example in the (Mafia) Universe of that word being a connotation for moving one step closer to winning a fun game among friends or at least people friendly to each other of all colors of the rainbow. So everyone should be allowed to call it what you want, but the default is and should remain "lynch," and the day that word is banned on Mafia Freaking Universe, I will do a JerrySeinfeld.MehIDKleavingTheatre.gif and scoot on out of here.
This thread is just an example of the Left trying to silence speech. Like a wise man once said, "The Left considers violence it likes as speech, and considers speech it doesn't like as violence."
The whole "context of the community" is a strawman argument. Of course the balance should be sought based on the community. But in the case of Champs, I look at the community as a hybrid of the MU community and the temporary community of those playing in Champs.
As for conclusions, yes it's premature for this year to be firm in any conclusions, but the trends we are seeing are consistent with the trend we've seen for years--discernibly mafia-sided.
I mean, if you want to try next year to have a setup that is slightly town-sided balance for round 1 players and a slightly different setup in round 2 that is slightly mafia-sided, I'm all for such an experiment. I think I'll be proven right but I want to get it right, not be right.
I find it hard to believe there is even a question of whether balance is "even possible." Of course it is possible--it is essential.
Make the game balanced without differentiation between qualifiers and semis. The roles are distributed randomly between alignments to all players. Sure, the skill of the Town is greater in semis than in qualifiers, but so is the skill of the Mafia. Additionally, these skilled future semis players are also populating a significant chunk of the qualifiers.
Name: Best Served Cold--A Dish Served by Zork
Player Count: 21
Game Type: Closed
Start Date: Mon Jun 22
(see post 13 of the thread I started in the Game Review section, please)
Or maybe have an option in one's preferences to hide the non-Mafia games tab for those folks who know they only want to play Mafia.
The standard mafia numberings depend on cops being a part of the roleset. If you're saying that you add 2 Townies as compensation for no cop, that is woefully insufficient. Look at a cop 13er, which is a balanced setup. Adding two townies hardly ameliorates the massive swing toward scum when you remove the cop.
We aren't just starting with Mafia. This isn't the first Champs season. Folks are in denial about the fact that they keep approving setups that keep trending almost exlusively mafia-sided, and in some cases extremely so. Why do I say they are in denial? Because they aren't adjusting their sense of what constitutes a balanced setup based on the feedback that all these results are providing, admittedly from different setups, but still, the one constant are the folks who said, yes, this is a balanced setup, and they just consistently are not.
I am in the bottom half in terms of Mafia-playing ability primarily because I really haven't played as many games as you would expect someone with years on this site and years before that on another site. What I have done is host and design. But many others have done even more of that than I have, a few have done a ton more, and they are a ton better at it than I am. But may I just say that if I could brag a claim to fame about only one thing, I'd have to say it's my ability to determine a balanced setup. I've offered my services as an official reviewer many times and have not been accepted (or denied, so I guess that's good) to this day. I think part of the reason might be that the powers that be think I town-side my setups. I haven't done an official tabulation of the win-loss records of the games I've run over the years, but I'm quite sure town WR is between 40 and 60% and probably a lot closer to 50% than that. I have a feel for what constitutes a balanced game. I'm good at playing scum. Everything else, below average, I admit it. I don't suck as a host any more, so there's that, too, I guess.
TLDR: Trust my judgment on whether a setup is balanced. I'm not good at much wrt Mafia, but that I am good at.
If the vote count as of the last post before Sun Jun 7 at 9:01pm ET, Mon Jun 8 at 9:01am ET, Mon Jun 8 at 9:01pm ET, or Tue Jun 9 at 5:01am ET contains 6 or more votes for a particular player, it is the duty of each player to post "Majority night; do not post" unless that was already done. I will close the thread as soon as possible thereafter.
You keep it in the closet.
Mine's been waiting several days with no input even after PMing the reviewers. Please advise.
Please, whoever is posting votecounts, if you're gonna post a votecount, at least make a substantive post to go along with it. Or better yet, just do the substantive post and click "get votecount" instead. Otherwise, we see there is a new post, we click on it, and see there is absolutely nothing to see.
In the interest of common sense, and at no one's prompting, I am hereby changing the following rule in post 1:
If the vote count as of the last post before Thu Jun 4 at 9:01pm ET, Fri Jun 5 at 9:01am ET, Fri Jun 5 at 9:01pm ET, or Sat Jun 6 at 5:01am ET contains 8 or more votes for a particular player, it is the duty of each player to post "Majority night; do not post" unless that was already done. I will close the thread as soon as possible thereafter.
Lollipopz was licked (heh heh, get it? licked?) by the wolves. Lollipopz was Vanilla Town.
First off, Towns can SPK via the lynch. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Secondly, while there are more and less skillful players, the difference is not that great. It doesn't take much to be good at Mafia. It takes a lot to be even a bit better than "good."
Thirdly, I simply can't engage with any argument that says the present Champs setup is "very town-sided." It's an assertion that's beyond my ability to dispute. It's that out there. It's like saying zero is a very large number. It just isn't.
Finally, I think your speculation is unsupported by any evidence that semis and finals would be--you don't even say inbalanced, you say "unplayable" which is hyperbole on top of hyperbole. Again, these strong players have to deal with each other. Have you forgotten that the roles on both sides are distributed among these strong players at the semis and finals? Do you not think that both alignments are aware of the strategies that could be employed so that they can defend against them? For every strategy there is a counter strategy.
I think your players will enjoy the setup as you have it and will have fun, and who knows, town might sweep.
I wish you all the luck.
Honestly, at the end of the day, for as much as I am the crazy wild-eyed prophet that no one listens to on balance, we're going to find a way to have fun regardless.
Those sorts of public statements should not be read into too much imo. At risk of perhaps being too blunt... People are polite. Also they've just come off of winning a game and are much more likely to want to spread merriness and cheers. Not that I'm saying their feelings aren't authentic. It's very natural that when the town sweeps, they will say "Man I wish the whole winning team could move on, we all deserve it". It's exactly what people say in wolf sweeps, and I again question your experience if you haven't seen it happen, because I have seen it many times. (And I mean in previous years when the set up was undeniably wolf-sided)
I hear you.
And that's my Mafia University article, where's my badge?
When one side consistently wins a particular roleset more often than the other side, it tells me when I get my role PM of the side that loses more often that before day 1 even begins I am getting an unfair shake, and by folks who purposely designed it to ensure that I would get an unfair shake. By that I mean a situation where the designer says "seems mafia-sided, meh imma roll with it." You're removing skill from the equation of who wins and who loses, and you're turning it into a partial luckfest. The "partial" aspect becomes quite pronounced once you stray into a 40% win rate, because at that point the other side has a 50% greater chance of winning than you do--not a 20% greater chance. This is because 20 points is half (50%) of 40.
But (you may say) Zork, I agree with everything you say, but what about the challenge of being behind the 8-ball at the start? The game itself should be the challenge, and the competition of the players within it. Let the rand giving you a bunch of noobs as your fellow Mafia goons while the town is packed with SPK-eligible legends--let that rand be the 8-ball you can be behind, and the challenge you can overcome. It shouldn't be forced by a mod who enjoys trolling the majority of a roleset's players by watching Towns crumble far more often than they should. And it is a majority because when a roleset is Mafia-sided, the majority of people randing into that game rand Town--they rand probable losers.
(yay good grammar!)
One should assess a new roleset as "town-sided," "wolf-sided," or "balanced." Then one should see who won. Over time and many, many games, you will start to notice a pattern in which too many games you thought were "balanced" are won by the wolves. If this happens to you, and you don't adjust your expectations of the pool of players, your expectation that the next roleset to come along is 50/50 is no longer reasonable.
The fact that some pooh-bahs around here don't get (and I stress only "some" not "most" or "all"), perhaps in part because of the messenger more so than the message itself, is that the presence of an unadulterated (no framer/godfather) cop is the #1 impact on considerations of balance. A cop changes the very essence of Mafia from an uninformed majority to an at least somewhat informed majority. There is a reason mountainous is called what it is--it is quite the uphill battle for a Town that remains forever ignorant. All Mafia has to do is bus hard and they win the vast majority of the time. This extends even to non-mountainous setups like the current Champs setup, which was the LEAST wolf-sided of the experimented setups. This is because there is no Cop in that setup, either. I wanted to do more to balance it, but was grateful to have had some part to play in nudging the balance of the Champs setup in the right direction, at least. The difficulty of Mountainous lies more in its absence of Cops than in its absence of PRs in general. I would go so far to say as I would bet 4 figures of cash money in an honest experiment of a 13:2 mountainous that Town would not win those greater than 55% of the time over 50 honest games. That's how bad 12:3 is. I don't think there is much debate on the 12:3 being inbalanced.
Going into deep psychoanalysis here, I think the drive to keep setups mafia-sided around here stems from the fact that we have some of our best experiences in Mafia playing the bad guys as part of a cohesive known team as opposed to the paranoia we usually endure as Town, not knowing who is friend and who is foe. The strategy, the conniving, the pulling off of the con, even for folks who prefer randing Town is rich stuff, the stuff of friendships formed. Winning as Mafia makes it all the sweeter. So there is an instinctual "looking out for" the interests of the Mafia, and that's my unscientific theory as to why it seems so cool and in-crowd to be "oh yes, of course a setup should be slightly mafia-sided." Plus there is some Emperor has no clothes aspect to it, as we want to be seen as accepted by the group, so we go along with what the in-crowd thinks, which is definitely not what I think LOL.
Look at the most recent Town-win. You can tell that deep down everyone knows it's not a town-friendly roleset, and that's being diplomatic. And because it was a sweep, they are talking about automatic promotion to semis to the extent possible. That should be a clue. Yes, it was mostly because of the sweep aspect, but there was no such similar talk when Mafia swept and near-swept their wins.
None of us should be satisfied with giving Town merely "enough" chances to win. Town should have just as much chance to win as Mafia. It's a shame I have to type that out.
Whenever you gravitate to set up toward a more mountainous approach the balance in terms of numbers between town in Mafia must be altered proportionally.
I'm not saying your setup is mountainous I'm just saying it's moving in that direction when you neuter the cops investigative function.
As you originally posted your role set it will be hard for town to win just being honest.
Why would you make no changes after perceiving the roleset as scumsided? I would at least give the cop a backup if not also split the cop into two players as well. This preserves the cop-framer battle you seek.
I would definitely keep the option for Mafia to decide who is who n1.
I would keep the Super Framer role as it's pretty neat.
I'd just add a bit of power to Town. Just one VT changing to PR will do the trick.
--Change Cop to Even Cop with n0 random town.
--Change a VT to Odd Cop without a n0 peek.
--Change a VT to Cop Backup (inherit).
Then you don't need to change any VT to Roleblocker or any other PR. You never have more than one cop. There is no guarantee that the Backup will live to back anyone up. And if Cop is nightkilled, the Town loses a peek that night even with a Backup because the Backup doesn't become effective until dawn. So it's not as overcompensating as first blush.
I think what gets lost in a lot of discussions on balance is the fact that Town rarely plays optimally. That fact must be included in the analysis of balance. If you get a bunch of super-players on both teams, a roleset that leans too much toward town will become a stomp very easily. But with a group of average players, the Mafia team will play better with its perfect information than a Town team with its nearly complete ignorance. Balance must reflect this.
So I'd correct my feedback to say slightly wolf-sided as-is and you can balance it nicely by changing a VT to a roleblocker or something like that. No need to change the Super-Framer role. Remember that you are adding to wolf-power by letting them decide who is who after a whole day of play instead of dictating in advance. This ensures the PR survives to act n1 whereas normally there would be no such guarantee.
If you really like the idea of a Super Framer and don't mind having this be a manual game as a result, then it would be sufficient to add a particularly strong PR to Town that is even stronger than Roleblocker. Since your game would be manual anyway, feel free to use your imagination on that. Or just pick from the lengthy list in modbot.
I would not make the Framer super-powered and would rather make him a regular Framer. You could then run this game automated. I would add a roleblocker to Town to counter the reduced power of its Cop and to counter the power of the Mafia's Role Cop somewhat.
So mafia-sided as is.
Slightly mafia-sided if you add a roleblocker* to Town.
Balanced if you add a roleblocker* to Town and reduce the Super Framer to a Framer.
*or some other useful PR