I'm a proponent of cardflips off
it's what I was raised on for some time
I'm a proponent of cardflips off
it's what I was raised on for some time
I forgot that forum mafia has flips
flipless is a different skillset like how mountainous is a different skillset
it's not like you never get alignment info. flipless setups are designed so that you get alignment info in other ways
Completely flipless makes no sense. I mean, the last wolf is always flipless because it ends the game when you kill them so that doesn't matter.
You have to have 3 wolves for flipless to make sense, and the best challenge is to make only the second one flip, DUCY?
Helps ensure that players get as much chance to show off their skills as possible!!
3 Townies in F3.
You'd have to let it go to the bitter end each time because otherwise they'd know they got the wolf.
It's genius actually.
Visor you might get that chest hair after all...
So he really does nothing
This might be more structure related, but I'm going to map out potential tournament structures based on setup size (15, 13, 17) to see how they may differ, and see how they look when you try to align them as much as possible (using GH's proposed structure for 15 as a baseline).
Label Slots Qualifers QT VSPG VA VA % JA JA % Wildcards WCT WCTA % FAPG FAR WCFA % FA % TG 15er 15 10 150 2 20 13.33% 25 16.67% 3 45 30.00% 5 0 33.33% 3.33% 14 13er (Up) 13 12 156 2 24 15.38% 28 17.95% 4 52 33.33% 3 1 25.00% 1.92% 17 13er (Down) 13 11 143 1 11 7.69% 28 19.58% 3 39 27.27% 4 1 33.33% 2.80% 15 13er (Nearest) 13 12 156 1 12 7.69% 27 17.31% 3 39 25.00% 4 1 33.33% 2.56% 16 13er (Same) 13 10 130 1 10 7.69% 29 22.31% 3 39 30.00% 4 1 33.33% 3.08% 14 13er (Same 2) 13 10 130 2 20 15.38% 19 14.62% 3 39 30.00% 4 1 33.33% 3.08% 14 17er (Up) 17 9 153 2 18 11.76% 33 21.57% 3 51 33.33% 5 2 33.33% 3.27% 13 17er (Up 2) 17 9 153 3 27 17.65% 24 15.69% 3 51 33.33% 5 2 33.33% 3.27% 13 17er (Down) 17 8 136 2 16 11.76% 18 13.24% 2 34 25.00% 8 1 50.00% 5.88% 11 17er (Same) 17 10 170 2 20 11.76% 31 18.24% 3 51 30.00% 5 2 33.33% 2.94% 14
Label = Structure Label
Slots = Number of players per game
Qualifiers = Number of qualifier games
QT = Qualifier Total => Total number of players in qualifier games
VSPG = Voted slots per game => how many players advance to wildcards by votes
VA = Vote Advanced => Total number players advanced to wildcards via votes
VA % = Vote Advanced % => Percentage of total number of players advanced to wildcards via votes
JA = Jury Advanced => Total number players advanced to wildcards via Jury
JA % = Jury Advanced % => Percentage of total number players advanced to wildcards via Jury
Wildcards = Number of wildcard games
WCT = Wildcard Total => Total number of players in wildcard games
WCTA % = Wildcard Total Advanced => Percentage of total number of players advanced to wildcards
FAPG = Finals Advanced Per Game => Total number of players advanced to finals per game
FAR = Finals Advanced Remainder => Total number of players leftover after FAPG * Wildcard Games; if this value is non-zero, the number of players advanced per wildcard game does not produce enough players and the number represents how many players will need to be advanced using some other method
WCFA % = Wildcard Finals Advanced => Percentage of players in wildcards to advance to finals
FA % = Finals Advanced % => Percentage of total number of players to advance to finals
TG = Total Games => Total number of games
Labels are the size of the setup followed by how I rounded the numbers relative to the number of players in each round determined by the 15er structure. For example, 13er (Up) I rounded the number of qualifiers up to get over 150, and the number of wildcard games up to get over 45. 13er (Nearest) chose the number games that resulted in the closest values to the 15er values. 17er (Up) also happens to be 17er (Nearest) so I only listed it once.
13er (Same), 13er (Same 2), and 17er (Same) used the same number of games per round as 15er (10 and 3).
13er (Same 2) advances 2 players per game by vote rather than 1. 17er (Up 2) advances 3 players per game by vote rather than 2.
The number of players advanced by votes was always less than the number of players advanced by jury except in 13er (Same 2).
Without knowing exactly what the priorities are for a good tournament structure it's difficult to provide a truly useful analysis, but if the 15er structure is assumed to represent ideal or close to ideal numbers, the best choice for setup size would be... 15. Obviously. The closest non-15 player setup structure to the 15er one is unclear, and still depends on what is prioritized.
Of the 13er structures, 13er (Nearest) produces the closest qualifer and wildcard totals (+6 and -6) respectively, but advances significantly fewer players to wildcards via voting and adds an additional 2 games to the tournament by requiring 12 qualifier games. 13er (Same 2) has 20 less total participants, but advances the exact same number of players via votes and a fewer, but similar, number of players via Jury. The number of total games remains the same at 14.
All 13er structures (and 17ers in fact) have a similar problem in that you can't advance an even number of players from each game to the finals. You would have one slot that you'd need to fill somehow.
17er (Up) and 17er (Up 2) is closest overall numbers wise with 153 (+3) and 51 (+6) with similar ratios of players advancing to wildcards and finals, and has 1 fewer game overall (13). 17er (Up) more heavily weighs Jury advancement than voting relative to the 15er whereas 17er (Up 2) has much closer ratios of players advanced by vote/jury, but more players are advanced via vote than Jury (27 to 24).
17er (Down) reduces the number of games total by 3 (11 total), and wildcard games by 1 (2 total) a much smaller percentage of total players to wildcards, and larger percentage of total players to finals. The number of players overall is reduced by 14 as well. I feel like fewer players in wildcards is not really a desirable property for the tournament structure.
17er (Same) is reasonable, but increasing the total number of players to 170 seems potentially difficult. This could be mitigated by giving some communities a second slot, or having some other qualification though, and it's numbers/ratios seem pretty good otherwise.
17er (Up), 17er (Up 2), and 17er (Same) all have 2 slots remaining for finals after wildcard voting which seems marginally more difficult to resolve than 1 slot remaining, but can probably be handled by taking a couple of 6th place finishers from wildcard games.
Something I had thought of to solve/mitigate the "night 1 problem" was more or less automatically advancing N1 kills to wildcards or some kind of intermediate "redemption" round. I ran the numbers for those like I did in my last post:
Label Slots Qualifers QT N1A VSPG VA VA % JA JA % Wildcards WCT WCTA % FAPG FAR WCFA % TG 15er 15 10 150 10 1 10 6.67% 25 16.67% 3 45 30.00% 5 0 33.33% 14 13er (Up) 13 12 156 12 1 12 7.69% 28 17.95% 4 52 33.33% 3 1 25.00% 17 13er (Down) 13 11 143 11 1 11 7.69% 17 11.89% 3 39 27.27% 4 1 33.33% 15 13er (Nearest) 13 12 156 12 1 12 7.69% 15 9.62% 3 39 25.00% 4 1 33.33% 16 13er (Same) 13 10 130 10 1 10 7.69% 19 14.62% 3 39 30.00% 4 1 33.33% 14 17er (Up) 17 9 153 9 2 18 11.76% 24 15.69% 3 51 33.33% 5 2 33.33% 13 17er (Down) 17 8 136 8 1 8 5.88% 18 13.24% 2 34 25.00% 8 1 50.00% 11 17er (Same) 17 10 170 10 1 10 5.88% 31 18.24% 3 51 30.00% 5 2 33.33% 14 15er + 1 WC 15 10 150 10 2 20 13.33% 30 20.00% 4 60 40.00% 3 3 25.00% 15 13er (Up) + 1 WC 13 12 156 12 2 24 15.38% 29 18.59% 5 65 41.67% 2 3 20.00% 18 13er (Down) + 1 WC 13 11 143 11 1 11 7.69% 30 20.98% 4 52 36.36% 3 1 25.00% 16 13er (Nearest) + 1 WC 13 12 156 12 1 12 7.69% 28 17.95% 4 52 33.33% 3 1 25.00% 17 13er (Same) + 1 WC 13 10 130 10 2 20 15.38% 22 16.92% 4 52 40.00% 3 1 25.00% 15 17er (Up) + 1 WC 17 9 153 9 3 27 17.65% 32 20.92% 4 68 44.44% 4 1 25.00% 14 17er (Down) + 1 WC 17 8 136 8 2 16 11.76% 27 19.85% 3 51 37.50% 5 2 33.33% 12 17er (Same) + 1 WC 17 10 170 10 2 20 11.76% 38 22.35% 4 68 40.00% 4 1 25.00% 15
With the same number of wildcard games (or really just post-qualifier games) then voting takes a pretty big hit in terms of significance if you always keep the number of players advanced by Jury greater than that of voting. Adding a 4th WC/post-qualifier game helped significantly to make the voting/Jury advancement ratios closer, and there is some room to tweak numbers. Seems potentially viable though if a few of the details are ironed out.
Does the setup matter if the jury is still just a bunch of MU voices?
Wants It More
but what about role madn-
Mafia (mandatory assigned nightly factional kill except n2):
x1 Arsonist | Cycles 1, 2
x1 Arsonist | Cycles 2, 3
x1 Goon | x1 Ninja
x1 Jack of All Trades | Tracker x9, Doctor x9, Motion Detector x9
x1 Firefighter | Cycles 1, 2, 3
x1 Innocent Child | Cycle 3
roro__b cares but I guess I'll bring this up again anyway because why not.
Wouldn't happen this year, but it seems like the invite survey thing would be a good way to gather data to see if this would be well-received next year? Like the thing the rep from each community fills out where they give game preferences and stuff could have a question asking if, instead of participating in the regular tournament with no/very high post restrictions, they could participate in a lighter version with a 100 post restriction or something, would they want to do so? And give actual numbers for what postcounts looked like with the 175 post restriction last year (especially from the wildcard games) along with it.
If a lot of reps answer "yes" then it could be something to do for next year and if not then we have actual data that this would not be that well-received, which I don't think we really have at the moment since I don't really think sites where players are used to lower-volume games are all that well-represented among the MU regulars.
dobby pls thank post so i don't feel like i'm screaming into the void
I think a light version would be good, not only for a sake of data but to put more people across the interwebz to play together.
The issue is logistics I guess, getting people to host etc.
I cannot PM thingyman is something wrong with the site ?
You need 3 posts or manually given permissions to PM; it's a spam/etc preventive measure, sorry!
I actually already do have WorstGen on the invite list, it's just a bit of a process to work through the list; I'll hit you up with the invite and you can share it there!
edit: looks like Ara did this already, so I won't double up
Last edited by Lissa; April 5th, 2020 at 12:54 AM.
Hi Lissa. Nice to "meet" you. How do I check in representing CivFanaticsCenter?
Can we play DDR instead
Just personal preference maybe, but non-themed, known setup games with very few PRs are not only a snooze-fest, but they take a lot of skill out of the equation too. Mafia skill isnt just about blind reads. That plays an obvious part, but part of the skill in being scum in more advanced setups is making your own believable fake claim, or deciding what to do with the limited (or no) info on what the town PRs are. Part of the fun and skill of town in advanced setups is figuring out the setup too.
Removing those things actually limits skill in my view, and it's a main reason why this type of setup is usually only found in Newbie games on most dedicated mafia sites.
Yes, there is RNG in what role you get in role madness games, but that's also part of playing mafia. It takes skill to win with a subpar/$#@!ty role and skill to not lose the game with a good one. Even bad situations can be salvaged by good players, and that's the only real way to separate people imo. Putting a bunch of VTs against a couple goons in a known setup is as basic as it gets and limits the plays people can make. I personally dont like it much.
I guess mostly I think there are skilled games to be had both with and without PR's. Just different skillsets at play :P
But I do relate especially to the part about the difficulty of faking claims as a scum in a PR-heavy game. I know that my proudest accomplishment ever having played mafia was winning as mafia vs. 16 townies in a game that not only had lots of PR's, but also a lot of mechanics and events that every single day rewarded the townies with more powers. It was super difficult to navigate in that and I spent probably 3-4 hours every night planning how to best use my own abilities and the in-game reward system etc., so that I was both advancing my win condition and also playing a believable town game. It definitely added an extra dimension to the game, and I can see why most players would find that to be one of the more exciting parts of the game.
But I guess I don't totally agree with saying "mafia isn't just about blind reads", as in, mafia was at its core developed to be a non-role-heavy game, and what it's become since then is whatever those playing it want it to become. So essentially, there are many ways to play mafia, and I personally appreciate them all :P
Last edited by Thingyman; April 25th, 2020 at 07:24 PM.
Maybe that's a bit of a ridiculous comparison, but I think it illustrates my point. It's just my opinion anyway.
It's worth noting that you can't have a championship where each game has different rules, so closed games are already entirely impossible, completely negating any idea of "figuring out the setup".
Personally, I'd argue that a championship designed around Mafia should focus more on the core aspects of Mafia than mechanical extras that have been added in for extra fun factor over time, but I also believe that the champs should have a diverse range of setups from year to year, if if you go look at the Mad17 setup that ran last year you can see that they are trying to do just that.
So if this year's game isn't your cup of tea, then maybe check in for Season 8 or 9 and see if it's something more to your liking.
I think a Role Madness setup might be a good idea -- for a future tournament. There are, as I see it, three main problems:
1) Any Role Madness setup would have to be the same for all games -- this cuts away a core appeal of the concept. It would not be possible to have a closed setup unless every game had a different setup, which would be especially hard because:
2) Any Role Madness setup would need an extensive balance check. Any setup that's going to be played a dozen times for tournament needs a lot of scrutiny, especially because all the best strategies will get worked out by the crowd in advance. This ends up being a conceptual problem, because:
3) Most roles and setups are not suitable to an open setup large crowd. Cop tends to unbalance large setups just by existing, Vigilante is very swingy and inherently unsuitable for tournament play. Framed that way I think it becomes a bit of a new task to make an open or semi-open tournament setup that would be suitable.
I have some ideas about how to solve these problems, which I might outline in a follow-up if anyone is interested. I think once you solve the conceptual question about what the setup should look like it becomes mostly a matter of testing and balance.
2. True, although I'm not sure role madness mafia can ever be completely balanced, but neither can mountainous. Player ability in each role alone can wildly swing games, but since this tournament is about individuals in the first place, I dont really see an issue with it. A degree of luck is always involved too. For instance, anyone that gets perpetually NKed on N1 will always be screwed by voters, no matter what you do. That's not balanced either, yet it's something everyone accepts.
3. Yes, some PRs massively swing games. That's why you have modifiers to help solve that issue. Instead of a Vanilla cop, maybe you make it an X-shot. Maybe you even make multiple, with one naive or paranoid or something. Theres a lot more you can do in role madness to balance things out than you can in mountainous. Modifiers help balance role madness setups more than anything else in my experience.
Now, the question is, are games that 'advanced' (relatively speaking) suitable for all communities? Idk, but I'd think if communities are sending their best, then those people can learn if certain roles are unfamiliar to them.
Also, I'll be playing in this year's setup, but my personal enjoyment level wont be nearly as high as it could be. Some people do love mountainous games and deserve to have those represented, but I'll never understand them. Some people love vanilla ice cream with nothing added too, but I'd rather be able try all the flavors I can. To each their own I guess.
Having different setups at different stages is an interesting idea. Logistically that would still require more devtime than having one standard setup, and it would lead to some uneven tournaments. Could work if the very last game, the Championship Finals, was the only one with a special setup. In those circumstances you could actually have a closed setup -- since it would only be used one time. Then the main problem would be getting enough eyes to make sure it was balanced, not any problem with the format itself.
I like your metaphors about three-point lines and standardized tests. It's a good point -- we tend to think of mafia without always considering how it's changed.
From a practical standpoint, I still don't think even a Role Madness setup should be too complicated. If we're catering to a range of players who would be bored with too little variety, I think too much would also be overwhelming for many. There's probably a balance here somewhere between full vanilla and the wide panoply of possible flavors. Besides, complex setups for sizes of more than a dozen take a lot of time and thought.
It could be an idea to do one season where the setup changed from the qualifiers to the semi finals to the finals. So that was the concept and idea for that season.
But I wouldn't want to make it a permanent thing. Because as a general rule, I think we do better by not half pleasing everyone and instead fully pleasing some segments/communities every year, and then switching it up the next year so that other communities/segments are pleased. That's been the idea, at least, so far.
I consider my games to be an unintentional, ongoing, longitudinal study on the feasability of using an open role madness setup with Insta-Snipe anticlaim for a Mafia Universe Championship series someday.
Last edited by Zork; April 26th, 2020 at 12:48 PM.
It is about blind reads, but not exclusively so.