Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 401 to 425 of 425

Thread: Offseason Champs Discussion

  1. ISO #401
    Most Likely Asleep Secondhand Revenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Beyond the Wall of Severance
    Posts
    45,429
    Community
    Mafia Universe
    AKA
    Secondhand Revenant
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by JaggedJimmyJay (#400)
    Is there a reason why the following logic must hold:

    Premise: Mafia is a team game
    Premise: Mafia is a different kind of team game from other team games
    Conclusion: The champion should be one person

    I don't think it's valid.
    Not to be overly hostile but what is with this strawman?

    I'm pointing out that your comparison to other team games doesn't really hold. Are you that threatened by actually coming to this honestly?

  2. ISO #402
    Soul Reader JaggedJimmyJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Athens, Ohio, US
    Posts
    2,105
    Community
    The Syndicate | RateYourMusic
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Secondhand Revenant (#401)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaggedJimmyJay (#400)
    Is there a reason why the following logic must hold:

    Premise: Mafia is a team game
    Premise: Mafia is a different kind of team game from other team games
    Conclusion: The champion should be one person

    I don't think it's valid.
    Not to be overly hostile but what is with this strawman?

    I'm pointing out that your comparison to other team games doesn't really hold. Are you that threatened by actually coming to this honestly?
    I’m confused by this response. I intend no hostility or strawman (it wasn’t directed at you, it was a response to the general sentiment that others have also expressed). If that’s not the argument, I’m wondering what the argument is. What is the importance of the nuances that make Mafia a different kind of team game to other team games?

    I don’t even suggest there is no importance. There could be importance. I’m literally asking what it is, as an open question.

    I don’t think any of this is important enough for a spirited argument. Champs is fun as it is. I’m just sharing my perspectives.

  3. ISO #403
    Most Likely Asleep Secondhand Revenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Beyond the Wall of Severance
    Posts
    45,429
    Community
    Mafia Universe
    AKA
    Secondhand Revenant
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Other team games are on an even field where teams are presumably given equal chance to win. Examining champs it does not seem to hold true that that is the case in Mafia. Entire teams winning is off the basis of teams being on even ground presumably. Further teams are known to each other and practice together, they are not individuals tossed together. This isn't saying that there should be a single person as champion and I never said that. It is an argument that it is not comparable to other team games

    If anyone would like to address that and not just pretend I said this means there should be a single champion that would be great. Anyone overly attached to their proposal such that they can't acknowledge that is free to not

  4. ISO #404
    Most Likely Asleep Secondhand Revenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Beyond the Wall of Severance
    Posts
    45,429
    Community
    Mafia Universe
    AKA
    Secondhand Revenant
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by JaggedJimmyJay (#402)
    Quote Originally Posted by Secondhand Revenant (#401)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaggedJimmyJay (#400)
    Is there a reason why the following logic must hold:

    Premise: Mafia is a team game
    Premise: Mafia is a different kind of team game from other team games
    Conclusion: The champion should be one person

    I don't think it's valid.
    Not to be overly hostile but what is with this strawman?

    I'm pointing out that your comparison to other team games doesn't really hold. Are you that threatened by actually coming to this honestly?
    I’m confused by this response. I intend no hostility or strawman (it wasn’t directed at you, it was a response to the general sentiment that others have also expressed). If that’s not the argument, I’m wondering what the argument is. What is the importance of the nuances that make Mafia a different kind of team game to other team games?

    I don’t even suggest there is no importance. There could be importance. I’m literally asking what it is, as an open question.

    I don’t think any of this is important enough for a spirited argument. Champs is fun as it is. I’m just sharing my perspectives.
    I don't see the open question in your post. I see a logical argument no one made.

  5. ISO #405
    Soul Reader JaggedJimmyJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Athens, Ohio, US
    Posts
    2,105
    Community
    The Syndicate | RateYourMusic
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    My post extends from a prior dialogue with Radishes. I should have clarified that.

  6. ISO #406
    Thread Analyst NateTheLesser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    476
    Timezone
    UTC-05:00
    Community
    The Avocado
    AKA
    Nate
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Cool, I see we're talking about possible changes to how advancement works. I had an idea during the season that I figured I'd toss out there. It keeps the same basic structure, the biggest change is advancement from qualifiers. The summary is this:

    1. Increase the number of semifinals (from 3 to 4 in this thought exercise).
    2. Advancement from qualifiers is by player vote, BUT, across all qualifiers. So players still vote for the "top x" in their game like usual, but the top 60 overall advance to semis (maybe have people vote for a top 8 or top 10 to spread more points around and have fewer ties). Sub pool for semis is just the next 15 people on the list.
    3. Jury decides who advances from semis to the finale.

    I made a spreadsheet for point #2 and ran some numbers, so more on that below. But first some of the overall benefits IMO:
    - Jury would only have to read 4 semifinal games instead of 8 qualifiers. Much less volume to work through, and a higher standard of play to base their decisions on. I think advancement to the final should be based primarily on how well people played in the semis (and those would be the only games the jurors are expected to read), but if needed they'd have the qualifiers to look back at for deciding between players that are closely matched.
    - More people would have a chance to play a second game. I think this is important for a cross-community event like this, especially since for a fair number of players, the qualifier is their first game on MU or even their first forum game period. Culture shock is real, and as a result I don't think the qualifiers are always the best representation of someone's overall skill.
    - I think it's a good thing to limit player votes to the qualifier stage where it doesn't matter as much, and have the jury handle the more important advancement at the semifinal stage.
    - Not sure if it would help with champs hero syndrome, but maybe? With more semi advancement slots, if you play a solid qualifier game you have a decent shot at advancing (rather than playing extra hard for one of the top spots). And I think having the jury pick the finalists could have an effect on how people play in the semis, depending on what qualities the jury says they're looking for.

    Now, the obvious concern with using player votes for qualifier advancement is whether it would overlook anyone who normally "should" advance. So to see how that might work out, I took all the player vote totals from this year's qualifiers and put them in a spreadsheet so I could sort them and see where that 60-person cutoff line would fall. This is all of them, spoilered for being long:

    Code:
    G6 1st (Psycho)      62
    G2 1st (Anne)        60
    G5 1st (Datisi)      58
    G7 1st (Illario)     50
    G1 1st (Koba)        47
    G2 2nd (Vernon)      44
    G8 1st (Ratchet)     44
    G3 1st (Jack)        41
    G4 1st (Fext)        40
    G1 2nd (Blade)       38
    G6 2nd (Windward)    35
    G4 2nd (Caps)        33
    G7 2nd (Lumi)        33
    G6 3rd (Poyser)      32
    G8 2nd (Arete)       31
    G6 4th (Yami)        29
    G2 3rd (DoctorZeus)  28
    G3 2nd (Dobby)       27
    G6 5th               27
    G3 3rd (Sothys)      26
    G5 2nd (Guillo)      26
    G8 3rd (Saint)       26
    G4 3rd (Pretender)   25
    G7 3rd (Wisp)        25
    G5 3rd (Hedin)       24
    G8 4th (Dangerhaz)   24
    G3 4th (Nanook)      23
    G4 4th (Ephemera)    23
    G2 4th (Alana)       22
    G5 4th (Theallieza)  22
    G7 4th (Schiavetto)  22
    G1 3rd (Cobalt)      21
    G2 5th               21
    G7 5th               20
    G1 4th (Shad)        19
    G5 5th               19
    G7 6th               19
    G3 5th               18
    G4 5th               18
    G8 5th               18
    G8 6th               18
    G1 5th               16
    G3 6th               16
    G4 6th               14
    G1 6th               13
    G1 7th               13
    G2 6th               13
    G8 7th               13
    G1 8th               12
    G3 7th               12
    G4 7th               12
    G3 8th               11
    G3 9th               11
    G4 8th               11
    G5 6th               11
    G1 9th               10
    G4 9th               10
    G8 8th               10
    G5 7th                9
    G2 7th                8
    --- The 60 players above here would advance to the semifinals ---
    G7 7th                8
    G7 8th                8
    G3 10th               7
    G6 6th                7
    G5 8th                7
    G4 10th               6
    G6 7th                6
    G7 9th                6
    G1 10th               5
    G1 11th               5
    G2 8th                5
    G4 11th               5
    G5 9th                5
    G7 10th               5
    G6 8th                4
    --- The 15 players above here are the semifinal sub pool ---
    G6 9th                4
    G5 10th               4
    G5 11th               4
    G4 12th               4
    G2 9th                3
    G4 13th               3
    G5 12th               3
    G8 9th                3
    G2 10th               2
    G2 11th               2
    G3 11th               2
    G3 12th               2
    G4 14th               2
    G6 10th               2
    G6 11th               2
    G5 13th               2
    G5 14th               2
    G8 10th               2
    G8 11th               2


    To summarize by qualifier,
    g1 - top 9 advance + 2 subs
    g2 - top 7 advance + 1 sub
    g3 - top 9 advance + 1 sub
    g4 - top 9 advance + 2 subs
    g5 - top 7 advance + 2 subs
    g6 - top 5 advance + 3 subs
    g7 - top 6 advance + 4 subs
    g8 - top 8 advance

    Basically what you see is that games where the player vote was more spread out end up advancing more players than games where the player vote was more lopsided, which... I think is exactly what you want. What I can't answer is whether anyone who was a semifinalist this year would have failed to advance doing it this way (since only the names of the top 4 are made public), but that's a question that someone who has access to the full vote info could answer if they wanted to.

  7. ISO #407
    Hype! Arapocalypse's Avatar Discord Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    40,038
    Community
    Mafia Games Discord
    AKA
    Ara
    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorZeus (#375)
    I think Arete and Neo are right, I'm over valuing that part of the game.

    I guess I'm being heavily influenced by how after every game when town lose people they always zone back to "were my reads good" and not "did I help town" which is "post-game-salt" salt.



    But I think my ultimate suggestion is right:
    - Do more game in qualifiers (3-5) for all entrants, like a group stage in the Champions League
    - Have a single final, with all the winning team becoming champs

    This way:
    - It should be less wolf sided via nature of everyone knowing each other better and becoming more used to the set ups
    - It has some modicum of balancing against variance in the run up to finale
    - It decreases load on juries and individual players
    - It encourages everyone to play for the win as much as possible, as consistently as possible
    For what it's worth, on the point of feasibility it is just barely possible to get people into a few sets of games already that they're actually able to play; adding more/expecting people to be available even more frequently on already cramped schedules is simply not feasible!!!

    That is a different argument for a final, the handling of which is a touch more feasible!!

  8. ISO #408
    Hype! Arapocalypse's Avatar Discord Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    40,038
    Community
    Mafia Games Discord
    AKA
    Ara
    Quote Originally Posted by katze (#373)
    I have opinions but idk how to rly articulate them so fragmented thoughts ahead

    I would happily split my title/trophy among my two wolf partners, they were just as instrumental as I was

    advancing every member of the winning team feels awkward with the massive difference between wolf players and town players numerically

    I think I would rather the finale be more of a show match than a “finale”. If champs continues as a social event, at least.
    You could do awards similar to the yearly ones but maybe not open to the whole site. Not too sure on that bit. Point is that the semis games feel like the best games because the finales are tainted with the mindset that THIS IS ALL THE MARBLES when it should just be a $%#!in game.
    Probs controversial tho. Maybe even a terrible take, idk

    Something I’ve seen a lot is “champs is wolfsided” and I kind of think it only is in practice because village is much much more fragmented than they should be because advancements exist. Again this kinda ties in to “imo the semis games are better quality than the finale recently”. Probably less controversial but I’ve not rly read the thread
    Think the bolded in particular is fair/not necessarily a terrible take, relatively speaking!!

  9. ISO #409
    Most Likely Asleep Secondhand Revenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Beyond the Wall of Severance
    Posts
    45,429
    Community
    Mafia Universe
    AKA
    Secondhand Revenant
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by NateTheLesser (#406)
    Basically what you see is that games where the player vote was more spread out end up advancing more players than games where the player vote was more lopsided, which... I think is exactly what you want. What I can't answer is whether anyone who was a semifinalist this year would have failed to advance doing it this way (since only the names of the top 4 are made public), but that's a question that someone who has access to the full vote info could answer if they wanted to.
    Why is this desireable? Honestly my first thought on seeing this was that it would cause this and that was *bad*, but as it appears to be more in your goal I gather you have a different view of this?

    To me it's not a good way to compare players across games because it means that playing with one really great obvious vote player in your game can disadvantage you score-wise in a way that really doesn't say anything about your play relative to other games

  10. ISO #410
    Thread Analyst NateTheLesser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    476
    Timezone
    UTC-05:00
    Community
    The Avocado
    AKA
    Nate
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Secondhand Revenant (#409)
    Quote Originally Posted by NateTheLesser (#406)
    Basically what you see is that games where the player vote was more spread out end up advancing more players than games where the player vote was more lopsided, which... I think is exactly what you want. What I can't answer is whether anyone who was a semifinalist this year would have failed to advance doing it this way (since only the names of the top 4 are made public), but that's a question that someone who has access to the full vote info could answer if they wanted to.
    Why is this desireable? Honestly my first thought on seeing this was that it would cause this and that was *bad*, but as it appears to be more in your goal I gather you have a different view of this?

    To me it's not a good way to compare players across games because it means that playing with one really great obvious vote player in your game can disadvantage you score-wise in a way that really doesn't say anything about your play relative to other games
    That's interesting, because I was actually more worried about the opposite before I ran the numbers. Like imagine a game that's stacked with good players who all end up playing really well. I'd expect the player vote to be more spread out, meaning each individual player is getting a smaller share of the total votes. Would that result in fewer of them advancing? That to me would be bad, which is why I thought it was good to see that games with a wider vote spread would actually advance more players.

    Your concern is definitely valid, though. Game 6, for example, there was almost a 30-point difference between 1st and 2nd, and sure enough it would have advanced the fewest players. Is that a problem? I don't know. I think having the player vote be a top 8 or 10 instead of a top 4 would help even out those vote distributions though, and hopefully make sure deserving players aren't overlooked.

  11. ISO #411
    Most Likely Asleep Secondhand Revenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Beyond the Wall of Severance
    Posts
    45,429
    Community
    Mafia Universe
    AKA
    Secondhand Revenant
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by NateTheLesser (#410)
    Quote Originally Posted by Secondhand Revenant (#409)
    Quote Originally Posted by NateTheLesser (#406)
    Basically what you see is that games where the player vote was more spread out end up advancing more players than games where the player vote was more lopsided, which... I think is exactly what you want. What I can't answer is whether anyone who was a semifinalist this year would have failed to advance doing it this way (since only the names of the top 4 are made public), but that's a question that someone who has access to the full vote info could answer if they wanted to.
    Why is this desireable? Honestly my first thought on seeing this was that it would cause this and that was *bad*, but as it appears to be more in your goal I gather you have a different view of this?

    To me it's not a good way to compare players across games because it means that playing with one really great obvious vote player in your game can disadvantage you score-wise in a way that really doesn't say anything about your play relative to other games
    That's interesting, because I was actually more worried about the opposite before I ran the numbers. Like imagine a game that's stacked with good players who all end up playing really well. I'd expect the player vote to be more spread out, meaning each individual player is getting a smaller share of the total votes. Would that result in fewer of them advancing? That to me would be bad, which is why I thought it was good to see that games with a wider vote spread would actually advance more players.

    Your concern is definitely valid, though. Game 6, for example, there was almost a 30-point difference between 1st and 2nd, and sure enough it would have advanced the fewest players. Is that a problem? I don't know. I think having the player vote be a top 8 or 10 instead of a top 4 would help even out those vote distributions though, and hopefully make sure deserving players aren't overlooked.
    Oh, that's also a fair problem

    I do think that top 8/10 would help soften the blow at the top, but find it less predictable near the bottom

    Overall I think my wariness is this system just doesn't feel set up to compare across games, while currently jury cover all the games to try to make their advancements take that into consideration explicitly. You are right it is a lot for jury to do though, and it's so much that not all of them manage to do it. Keeping track across games to compare is pretty difficult regardless ime there. It might work out to do it like this though.

  12. ISO #412
    Galaxy Brain Jaleb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    27,259
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    EpicMafia/DailyMafia
    AKA
    Onuzq
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by JaggedJimmyJay (#394)
    That already happens. Fixing that probably demands a different setup each round.
    I once again am advoocating for semi-closed 25 like they did in year 1 of champs.

  13. ISO #413
    Soul Reader Centuries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,989
    Timezone
    UTC+01:00
    Community
    Hypixel
    AKA
    Conroy
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    my opinions that nobody asked for

    Champs as a whole:

    A) Champs isn't a true competition, I'm all for creating a different event that is truly "competitive mafia" under a different format
    B) Champs is a community gathering, I'd rather have champs be played alongside a cool Mash/Team Mafia/Hydra game and focus less on being "tryhard"

    More current champs focused things:

    A) I don't see the "We should go from 150 to 100 postcap" argument, at all, the players from communities that are unable to keep up with the pace of 3 150 posters and a few 80 posters aren't going to suddenly be able to follow through the game even with 150 less posts
    B) Majority is a hard topic to tackle, I've been on the receiving end of "I went to sleep and a TR of mine got maj'd" and it sucked, I think it's moreso on the "good players" to vote smartly than it is on the "less experienced players" to get punished(?)
    C) Different setup between Quals and Semis+, agree but it needs to be proper "Quals are easier on towns and Semis+ remain as hard for the towns"
    D) Diaries, I think spec chat doesn't need to look at that, literally half of it will be people gaming the system for votes, I'm all for host communication though but that's already a thing

    Votes I guess:

    A) They're bound to be biased towards the typical "Prime MU player", I think the form is valued too much though, there's a difference between being "messy" and "toxic" and I'm not saying because aren't making the difference but "messy but correct" player archetype feels underrepresented in Semis+
    B) "X amount of players have received a vote" is a very bad thing to unveil because it made me kinda sad when during my semis of the year I played, I saw that everyone minus two people received votes and it made me think I was one of the two because game just went terribly for my team or maybe I'm literally making stuff up rn?idk actually
    C) I agree that known quantities usually get a pass even if they played a fairly lackluster game, that's just bound to happen though because known quantity versus unknown quantity is a thing

    Spec chat:

    A) I've been on the receiving end of "LOL OBVIOUSLY WOLF SO EASY" once and I was a villager that was correct so it made me feel good but I TOTALLY agree that you don't say that to a wolf that wins, that's so incredibly $%#!ty, and I've done that before for sure in every specchat I've been apart of, it's just bad habits and you being invested, I think mods should intervene in those kind of situations, keep it cool the result doens't truely matter
    B) I think separate DVC and SC is a great thing

    forgot a few things midway through typing this lolderp

    oh yeah, teams should win champs, not players, split mvp and winning team, make mvp an award that you don't chase for? might be very hard

  14. ISO #414
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaleb (#412)
    Quote Originally Posted by JaggedJimmyJay (#394)
    That already happens. Fixing that probably demands a different setup each round.
    I once again am advoocating for semi-closed 25 like they did in year 1 of champs.
    I'm going to piggyback onto this one

    I've argued for a while that I think the best solution is a variety of games instead of a uniform setup across all qualifiers. It usually doesn't get much traction because a uniform setup seems more fair to everyone on the surface, but I want to take a moment and argue my case in a bit more depth.

    First, I don't believe a uniform setup across all games is as fair to all players as people think. This year was mountainous so it doesn't really apply, but I think last years set up is a good example because your experience was vastly different depending on whether you rolled a pre-bucket or post-bucket game. In post-bucket games you saw power roles outing, taking the free N1/2 kill later, not really having any interactions with people suspicious of them, and having very little agency in the solving as they got pushed to the side for “being solved” (some players who randed PR discussed this after their games last year). They felt stifled in ways people in earlier games didn't. Wolves in later games got boxed in harder via setup than wolves in earlier games. In essence, these games are not played in a vacuum and the players in later games have more information about the set up than those in early games because they've gotten to see how it plays out. I believe having a small variety of games keeps things on a more even field.

    Second, the biggest issue set ups see is trying to balance them. Qualifiers are naturally pro wolf environments due to lack of familiarity with expectations, experience with each other, and the hodgepodge of different community theories butting heads. Semi/Finales are much more even like standard games as those issues mellow out. We've talked about these struggles before and how we need to skew things pro-villa in qualifiers more or else wolves just run wild. With a uniform set up you have to somehow come up with something that's pro-villa early and more balanced late which is obviously extremely difficult. I believe having a small variety of games gives you the ability to tweak qualifier games to be slightly pro-villa while having the semis/finale properly balanced.

    Third, it lacks comfort for large chunks of the player base. Champs is a huge event with a wide variety of communities coming together. These communities all are used to different types of games. Some are role madness. Some are vanilla. Some are open. Some are closed. Some would be considered standard at their home forum while other places would call it bastard. No matter what set up you pick, large chunks of communities will be out of their element. We typically try and find something lower powered to accommodate those who would be overwhelmed by more because they normally play vanilla, but those who normally play high powered formats are just as out of their element in mountainous imo. I believe having a small variety of games can help accommodate more communities and – maybe, if my theory is correct – help make the qualifiers not so wolf sided as more people are in their comfort zone for set up.

    Finally, I think it helps with one small thing that I've observed in previous years: the feeling of running out of steam towards the end of qualifiers fro ma spec perspective. The start of the season is always super hyped and in the years I've been around, once you've seen the same set up play out a handful of times and had the same chats of optimal strategy theory, you just kinda sputter out during the back 1/3 of Q's just going in circles waiting for the Semis, which get hype again. I believe a having a small variety of games will keep conversations fresh instead of “solved” and repetitive and result in a more fun event to spectate.

    [Side note: I wasn't sure if I wanted to add the fourth point. It seemed a bit more subjective than the rest of the stuff. So I decided to give a quick glance to the last couple of seasons and see if anything could be shown as evidence supporting the theory that people keeping up with champs might get burned out towards the back half of qualifiers. The only mildly concrete thing I could think of testing was whether the jury – who are the people most invested in keeping up with the qualifiers – might be sputtering out at the back half. (it's a $%#!load of work to keep up with it all and I appreciate all the work they do, but it'd be understandable if they did given the whole, you know, $%#!load of work it is to keep up with it all. Did I mention it's a lot to keep up with?). Initial findings were that once you removed the automatic bids and focused simply on jury advancements (initial lists before subs), 62% of the advancements this year were from first half games (18 out of 29) and 60% of advancements last year were from first half games (15/25). This does not prove the theory or anything (small sample, different players in games, lots of variables) but it did make me feel ok floating that fourth idea to see if others felt similar].


    Now, I'm not advocating for 10 qualifiers, 3 semis, and a finale of closed role madness games. Nor a different set up for each of them. Maybe a few low powered open set ups, a couple high powered closed set ups, and a vanilla game or two would be possible though? It does come with its own issues: finding a single set up is already a dumpster fire so the idea of doing multiple is ominous. Ideally it'd be easier knowing it doesn't have to be for Qualifiers and Semis but idk if that's the case. It also probably adds stress to scheduling work behind the scenes by adding another group of things to try and fit peoples preferences in. I do think the idea has a lot of positive things though and maybe even something as simple as “qualifiers and semis/final can be different from each other” could be a nice middle ground to try out.

  15. ISO #415
    Thread Analyst NateTheLesser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    476
    Timezone
    UTC-05:00
    Community
    The Avocado
    AKA
    Nate
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Secondhand Revenant (#411)
    Quote Originally Posted by NateTheLesser (#410)
    Quote Originally Posted by Secondhand Revenant (#409)
    Quote Originally Posted by NateTheLesser (#406)
    Basically what you see is that games where the player vote was more spread out end up advancing more players than games where the player vote was more lopsided, which... I think is exactly what you want. What I can't answer is whether anyone who was a semifinalist this year would have failed to advance doing it this way (since only the names of the top 4 are made public), but that's a question that someone who has access to the full vote info could answer if they wanted to.
    Why is this desireable? Honestly my first thought on seeing this was that it would cause this and that was *bad*, but as it appears to be more in your goal I gather you have a different view of this?

    To me it's not a good way to compare players across games because it means that playing with one really great obvious vote player in your game can disadvantage you score-wise in a way that really doesn't say anything about your play relative to other games
    That's interesting, because I was actually more worried about the opposite before I ran the numbers. Like imagine a game that's stacked with good players who all end up playing really well. I'd expect the player vote to be more spread out, meaning each individual player is getting a smaller share of the total votes. Would that result in fewer of them advancing? That to me would be bad, which is why I thought it was good to see that games with a wider vote spread would actually advance more players.

    Your concern is definitely valid, though. Game 6, for example, there was almost a 30-point difference between 1st and 2nd, and sure enough it would have advanced the fewest players. Is that a problem? I don't know. I think having the player vote be a top 8 or 10 instead of a top 4 would help even out those vote distributions though, and hopefully make sure deserving players aren't overlooked.
    Oh, that's also a fair problem

    I do think that top 8/10 would help soften the blow at the top, but find it less predictable near the bottom

    Overall I think my wariness is this system just doesn't feel set up to compare across games, while currently jury cover all the games to try to make their advancements take that into consideration explicitly. You are right it is a lot for jury to do though, and it's so much that not all of them manage to do it. Keeping track across games to compare is pretty difficult regardless ime there. It might work out to do it like this though.
    Yeah I think having more advancement slots by adding a semifinal helps with this too. Like in my example, every game ends up sending at least 8 people between direct advancements and subs, which is over half the player list. Player vote is never going to be perfect, but with enough advancement slots it doesn't matter as much.

  16. ISO #416
    pfft pfft pfft moth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tree
    Posts
    16,769
    Community
    the sock drawer
    AKA
    brainbomb
    Pronouns
    moth
    Gender
    a few proposals
    1. if a game ever goes silent for over an
    hour the game should automatically just post pictures of moths and moth emojis. and a smiling face and a quote saying “gottem”

    2. if someone is hammered early there should be a laughtrack video that autoposts regardless of the flip and then gifs of sea lions rolling around.

    3. the voting should be public open ballots where if anyone votes in any way that is not consensus by spec chat that person be banned for vote gaming and then thrown into mount doom

  17. ISO #417
    Soul Reader Art3mis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    1,629
    AKA
    Definitely not a cyberpunk themed alt nope not at all
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by moth (#416)
    a few proposals
    1. if a game ever goes silent for over an
    hour the game should automatically just post pictures of moths and moth emojis. and a smiling face and a quote saying “gottem”

    2. if someone is hammered early there should be a laughtrack video that autoposts regardless of the flip and then gifs of sea lions rolling around.

    3. the voting should be public open ballots where if anyone votes in any way that is not consensus by spec chat that person be banned for vote gaming and then thrown into mount doom
    real talk all but point 3 should be adopted immediately even for current ongoing games

  18. ISO #418
    pfft pfft pfft moth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tree
    Posts
    16,769
    Community
    the sock drawer
    AKA
    brainbomb
    Pronouns
    moth
    Gender

  19. ISO #419
    Galaxy Brain DoctorZeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    20,196
    Timezone
    UTC+00:00
    Community
    pog
    Pronouns
    he/him/his/his/himself
    Gender
    Finally, somemoth is talking sense

  20. ISO #420
    Quote Originally Posted by supershorty (#268)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eren Yeager (#257)
    Quote Originally Posted by supershorty (#204)
    Woop I'm late to the party but I'm an introvert and usually don't show up to the party at all so weh, but I wanted to chime in on a couple things.

    (also hi, you're all great, and I really appreciated getting to be part of champs this year)

    1.) I hate the idea of publicizing how people voted, I think that puts inordinate pressure on players to vote for what they perceive as being the socially acceptable choices and if they feel differently and want to vote otherwise, they should be able to do that without fearing consequence/ridicule/etc. I can understand bringing this suggestion up if it seems like the player votes went in a really weird/obviously manipulated way - but I know at least from the games I was in, that didn't really happen? I know some other games had more controversial vote results, but ... I feel like this makes more problems than provides solutions.

    2.) I think the idea of lifting cap but having a cap on the lift is really interesting. I feel like I was maybe one of the people who had a harder time keeping up in my games (especially finale because my real life was a dumpster fire at the time lololol), but that last hour before vote close was always the hardest. I'd rather see this kind of limitation than lowering cap overall.

    3.) Can someone explain the diarying thing to me more? On my home community, we have our role PMs that are open with the game mods and we can yammer in there to our heart's content - some people use it a ton (heh, it me, my role PMs can get to 20+ pages of me talking to myself), some people don't use it at all. Is that what is meant by diarying here?

    If it is that, I'm not sure that would be a great metric to evaluate people because of the differences in who will/not use it, but as a player, I would have liked having that for me to organize my thoughts instead of chattering to myself in a Google Doc and hoping the formatting would copy over if I decided to post some of what I was muttering about.

    4.) I'm happy to loan myself as a therapist sentient supportive being (like a wall you can lean on, but I'm occasionally smarter than a brick) for any speccers or humans in general who need to vent/scream/cry/rant/whatever at (whether it's related to a game or not - I recognize I can't offer myself up for this role for champs next year b/c of being on jury, but putting it out there just as a general offer).
    first, i agree it can potentially bring up more problems than it can solve. thats a fair point.

    second you're admitting weird votes is something you've noted, but that it just wasnt in your games. even if thats true, that doesnt change the fact that it did happen in some games because you even admit other games had controversial results.

    thirdly, it did also happen in your games, probably every single one of them. One easy example, and i mean this in the nicest way possible but "6th place-Arogame in SF1" is something that should never have happened.
    I mean, I didn't read the game I was thinking of when I said there were more controversial votes. I just saw all the comments in spec chat about it. So I can't comment on whether I feel like those votes were actually problematic or not. My general impression was that it seemed like the winning wolf team was punished by player vote - which I don't feel happened in any of the games I played.

    4th, 5th, and 6th in that game were all separated by like a single point. And one person didn't get their votes in at all, which could have changed the outcome, who knows. I agree that aro should have advanced, but I don't agree that that's an example of manipulated voting like what I think publicizing player votes would be trying to prevent. That game and those vote results reflect that ranking the town players was pretty difficult. /shrug
    yeah its difficult when players dont vote objectively lol

  21. ISO #421
    like you say that it was separated by a point and one person voted doesnt really help your case at all, its irrevelant. it shouldnt have been close at all to begin with

  22. ISO #422
    Soul Reader supershorty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    1,810
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Student Doctor Network
    AKA
    shorty
    Pronouns
    she/her/her/hers/herself
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by Eren Yeager (#421)
    like you say that it was separated by a point and one person voted doesnt really help your case at all, its irrevelant. it shouldnt have been close at all to begin with
    Bruh, why are you still talking about this? You didn't agree with the vote, good for you. It's been literal months. Move on and grow up...

  23. ISO #423
    Soul Reader supershorty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    1,810
    Timezone
    UTC-06:00
    Community
    Student Doctor Network
    AKA
    shorty
    Pronouns
    she/her/her/hers/herself
    Gender
    I'm glad I can live rent-free somewhere, but the commute from in your head to my job on the other side of teh world really just isn't feasible for me each day, so I'm gonna have to pass

  24. ISO #424
    Hype! Arapocalypse's Avatar Discord Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    40,038
    Community
    Mafia Games Discord
    AKA
    Ara
    If you have issues with specific votes and want to talk about it, feel free to pm me about it!!

    This thread isn't the place for arguing about who you think should/shouldn't have advanced, move on!!!!

  25. ISO #425
    pfft pfft pfft moth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Tree
    Posts
    16,769
    Community
    the sock drawer
    AKA
    brainbomb
    Pronouns
    moth
    Gender
    I keep waiting for the calls for moth was the only person to case neopest accurately. and I win some new fangled award like the old oaken bucket or paul bunyans axe

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  •  

Keyboard Shortcuts

about us
Mafia Universe is a community hub for people who enjoy playing the forum variant of Mafia (also known as Werewolf). We offer fully automated Mafia games and a wide variety of customized features crafted to optimize your game experience. We also proudly host the Internet's only database of Mafia/Werewolf communities.

We hope you stick around!
Role of the Day
Beguiler

The Beguiler may every night hide behind a target. Any actions targeted at the Beguiler on this night will instead affect the Beguiler's target. This ability can be used a maximum of 3 times.