Do you find that examples of specific behavior are more helpful or less?
I do. It's always better when you have concrete examples of either good plays or mistakes that you can see and understand. When you get back nothing but theory and rationale, it can make it harder to actually comprehend and incorporate into your future games.
Hmm. It does seem like the judge feedback from league games could be really helpful for newer players seeking to improve their game. I wonder if we should find ways to point new people in that direction and sell up that feature of the league.
@Iso: You can check my sig w/ Mafia Stats for the specifics of each judge review, but overall I find them to be beneficial overall.
The first one I got from Wheat_Grinder (who became judge post-game). There wasn't too much to be gained there, but I really had minor impact on the game and I knew I totally was awful and there was really nothing that could be said because my mistakes were glaringly obvious and he acknowledged it.
The second one from Zionite was more detailed for sure. It was supported by quotes that I snipped out but left the crux of the argument there. It was definitely very useful and I really thought he did a good job on that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ask the right questions in the right way and truth is inevitable."
—Lazav
Hmm. It does seem like the judge feedback from league games could be really helpful for newer players seeking to improve their game. I wonder if we should find ways to point new people in that direction and sell up that feature of the league.
That's why I just joined - I know that I'm not great and I wanted the chance to improve through feedback.
Hmm. It does seem like the judge feedback from league games could be really helpful for newer players seeking to improve their game. I wonder if we should find ways to point new people in that direction and sell up that feature of the league.
This is another bonus of turning Normals into simpler games that count for the League: everyone playing a Normal gets judged, and new players are more likely (I hope) to join the simpler Normals, as they represent a logical next step up from Basics. Emphasising this fact in signups and so forth can only help.
Hmm. It does seem like the judge feedback from league games could be really helpful for newer players seeking to improve their game. I wonder if we should find ways to point new people in that direction and sell up that feature of the league.
IMO, this might replace the Mentoring/Shadowing in Basic's, but I don't see that being an issue with how helpful the feedback is.
Either way though, the League is a great way to learn/develope your game here.
The reason I was asking was because when I eventually retire from the Secretary position (not likely for some time) that I wanted the queue to be basically self-sufficient at that point, needing only to be a list that gets updated instead of a keel-haul of work like it was when I took over - I've done a lot of work to implement stricter hosting guidelines to make it easier for future hosts and Secretaries, alike - and I wanted to see if the League could eventually become minimal maintenance with a Bookkeeper, a Scorer, and a Judge - guess not, unless that Judge has a lot of free time and a penchant for avoiding Normals.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
It's pretty important to divvy up player reviews simply because of workload. But playstyle and experience play a role too. A new judge might be suited to coach newbies, but wouldn't be able to provide valuable feedback to Azrael for example.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I feel like having a range of experience with us is important, though, along the lines of what Zionite said. While I put a lot of work into my reviews, and I think I can be a lot of help to most of the playerbase, I can't reasonably help people like Az, or RR, or Cyan get better at the game.
But Seppel might.
I personally quite like the idea of making this a next-level mentoring system. Perhaps starting in basics and getting mentored there as a starting point, but to actually track development over the course of time, using judges in the League.
I got bored, so I decided to make a Google Doc of the scoring and tinkered with a stat that might be interesting later on with more games of varying sizes. Basically, I wanted to see how strong a player played in a game when compared to the performance of all players in a game. So basically it's your score in the gave divided by the sum of all players in the game. Right now with two games, I don't know how indicative it is thus far and how effective it is, but it definitely does affect a few players in particular, mainly those of us who participated in OT2R, since a smaller game means each player has a more significant impact on whether or not a team wins or not. For example, TCM only playing in 1 game has a total weighted score of 0.714, which is significantly higher than all players (I'm second w/ 0.369). In contrast, AE has 8 points in league and a weighted score of -0.078 (He performed well in C&B 11 pts and 0.136, but his L1 lynch cost him -3 pts and in a small game held more weight with -0.214).
I wonder what overall will be a best tool of reflection but right now, we need a larger sample size.
@League Judges/Bookkeepers, etc. If you find this an acceptable medium to convey scores and stats for your use, PM me and I'll give you access to edit, etc. I mainly like using Excel and I felt like sharing with you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ask the right questions in the right way and truth is inevitable."
—Lazav
Prophylaxis has received a call to glory. He accepted the call and has joined the League.
Edit:
Cantripmancer drew two off an Explore. He has decided to join the League in penance. Welcome aboard!
Edit:
Kosakosa, abiding to the laws of Mafia and acting by his own will, hereby proclaims his disposition to be added to The League and play its games whenever the opportunity arises. (Tl;dr - Kosakosa joined the League.)
The purpose of the Beta season was to stress test a standardized rubric that could be applied to a variety of setups in the Mafia universe. As Chime is running and will be completed, the judges feel that we’re very close to a rubric that will account for all the eventualities and scenarios that a normal could throw at us. In this regard, the judges believe that we only need one or two more games after Chime to make sure the rubric is working as intended.
This means that the Beta season will be cut short so that we can officially move the league into the very first season. The Judges and Council both believe that the Beta season does not need to run out across all six games like a regular season would. There is a lot of discussion going on right now about how to best serve the League. However, the one thing the Judges and the Council seem to agree upon is that the league only needs a couple more games after Chime to make sure everything checks out. This will not affect the league season after the Beta; the first league season will have six games for participants to play in.
There is a variety of options here but the main question we have to the participants follows: while it was advertised as a six game tournament, how would you feel if the Beta season was cut short? Please let us know your questions, comments, and concerns. We know that the players in the League are the most important voice when it comes to decisions and matters affecting the League at large. This is why we are asking your opinions on the matter instead of making a retroactive mandate. Please let us know you feel one way or another.
We are trying to provide the most entertaining and fun atmosphere around Mafia as we can. And the people who judge whether or not the League is entertaining or fun are the players themselves. Let your comments be heard so that we can figure out how we need to move forward with the Beta.
There is a variety of options here but the main question we have to the participants follows: while it was advertised as a six game tournament, how would you feel if the Beta season was cut short? Please let us know your questions, comments, and concerns. We know that the players in the League are the most important voice when it comes to decisions and matters affecting the League at large. This is why we are asking your opinions on the matter instead of making a retroactive mandate. Please let us know you feel one way or another.
I don't mind if the Bet Season is cut short. This is all for fun anyway. IMO, the Beta League test has been successful thus far. Of course there were speed bumbs along the way, but that was to be predicted, and they were dealt with in a fair manner. I look forward to seeing what the first League Season will look like.
Just wanting to make whoever needs to know aware i will be happy to join the first league season when its up and running.
If there are signups then disregard this message
I apologize that this post is so late in reply. Been busy lately with stuff and it totally slipped through the cracks.
When the League begins it's first season we will announce sign-ups for it. It should be big and bold and hard to miss. (Meaning, we will probably have it stickied.)
Darn it Nyxu! I was hoping once Rhand was back I could get some league points for making the L-1! Oh, well...
Is this an issue? Shouldn't the League scoring system be as ungameable as possible and let us play the best "Mafia" possible without having to worry about playing the best "League Mafia" possible?
Feel like it's only a real issue with the setup we played, where it was mostly PoE/role interactions.
Though I would indeed like a change to this. It doesn't seem like a huge problem, but league points being doled out based on who's online at the time seems.. not okay.
As players in the League, we expect from everyone utmost sportsmanship. The rubric is intended to reward optimal Mafia play, and it's against the spirit of the League to farm points. That said, would it have really played out any differently had there been no points involved?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I'd argue that it's with the spirit of the league to farm points. If it has a negative impact on play, that's on the judges to fix, not the players. We can't offer up points for play and punish those who take advantage of it; that's what they're for. Thankfully we find these things now rather than later.
league points being doled out based on who's online at the time seems.. not okay.
And potential fixes to the current scoring system for this specific aspect of the situation are already being considered. -When all of the details to that are worked out, it will be announced for feedback along with a couple other small scoring changes.
It seems that situation is when the town is mostly unanimous on who the lynch is. The lynch system sets a cap for the number of players that can be on a lynch. Hammer protocol and clear lynches make it so that who casts the votes is less important. Situations such as a confirmed cop finding scum would cause this as well. Near-unanimous voting does happen and the point system doesn't take it into account.
It doesn't seem to change the outcome of mafia matches too much, but it causes the point awarding to not match what happened in the game.
And potential fixes to the current scoring system for this specific aspect of the situation are already being considered. -When all of the details to that are worked out, it will be announced for feedback along with a couple other small scoring changes.
While the judges are busy writing out their notes for the players in Chime Mafia, I am going to take the time to discuss some of the rubric changes we’ve been pondering. The first three are more cosmetic and have been adjusted due to what we believe are minor inadequacies in the current rubric. The last one is a debate that seems to be going on amongst judges AND players, which should bring a great deal of discussion to the player base while we try to figure out a solution to a perceived and possibly real problem.
Proposed Change # 1: Additional Bonus for NK’ed as Vanilla
We added a rule to the rubric after Overturn to Riddler that Vanilla Town gained a point for being NK’ed as a Vanilla. This was a change to the rubric we felt was fair due to the fact that Vanilla Town are not able to earn some of the points that power roles are able to. We believe that the point change is a step in the right direction, but that a single point is not enough to offset the balance of being Vanilla. As such, we propose the following change:
+1 point for being NKed; +1 point bonus for being the first NK; +1 point bonus for being NKed as Vanilla.
to
+1 point for being NKed; +1 point bonus for being the first NK; +2 point bonus for being NKed as Vanilla.
Proposed Change # 2: Penalty for Being Endgamed
Again, this is another change we feel is necessary to establish a more consistent scoring of Town. It has been discussed that “end-gaming” a game goes against the conventional wisdom of what makes a good town. Town should draw the NK away from potential power roles and should not be rewarded for mere survival at the expense of a Team. Furthermore, in a scum victory of the game, the surviving Town players ought to be penalized for making poor decisions that would lead to a scum victory. This change of rule is not going to be backbreaking on the scoring front, but it is a penalty against survival:
-1 point for being endgamed (being alive at the end of the game and losing.
Proposed Change # 3: Mafia Scoring Tweak
While we haven’t had a landslide Mafia victory yet, we have been tinkering with ideas on how to more fairly grade a Scum performance. Town are given blanket points for Scum deaths; we believe it is in the best interest in scoring Scum to also giving them a blanket point for Town deaths. While the current rules adjust to this in theory, there are certain corner case situations where Scum would not receive a point for successfully drawing out Town kills that they could have skillfully set up. (The best example of this would be a Vig misfire.) As such, we are proposing changing:
+1 point for each night period they were alive for.
+1 point for each non-mafia lynch they participated in.
to
+1 point for each non-mafia death that occurs while alive.
While this fix does help with the upper end of good Mafia performance, it does not mesh with the lower end of poor Mafia performance. As such, we believe the following adjustment is also necessary:
-1 point for leaving the game without fulfilling win condition.
to
-3 points for leaving the game without fulfilling win condition.
We believe that this is a fair compromise and adjustment to the rules to bring about Scum scoring totals to a point where Scum could actually earn the massive amount of points that a solid Town performance could acquire.
Proposed Change # 4: “The Elephant in the Room”
Adjusting Rubric to Not Reward Speed Lynches and/or Points Being Awarded to Being Online at an Advantegous Time
There currently is a reward for being on the lynch of a scum:
+4 points for each scum death they participated in (through a lynch or vig-like ability)
Many players have noted that this leads to an unfair scenario where Town can acquire points simply by being in the right place at the right time. Furthermore, it encourages speed lynches where players can pile on a wagon and earn points once a person is generally considered to be Scum. While the first scenario requires an adjustment due to the fact that we feel as if it violates the spirit of the rubric and what we are trying to accomplish under a largely fair system, the second point goes against the conventional wisdom of what is good town play and what is not. Speedlynches are not in the best interest of the town. In fact, it is considered better play to milk as much information out of the scum as a team can and not simply lynch as soon as possible.
These two concerns are major issues for the rubric. However, in our discussions we seem to be at a crossroads where we fully don’t know how to fix this situation. The rubric has been designed to be quantitative and not qualitative. Our inherent goal in the Beta league is to figure out how to create a scoring system that can be applied judiciously by a judge and come out with the exact same result as if it were scored by another judge. If we create some rule where we need to judge the intention of the player in a voting situation, it really goes against the inherent goal of the rubric.
One possible solution that has been discussed is to allow players a single “FOS” vote in lieu of a regular vote that would be scored like a regular vote. Players would only be allowed to FOS a single player, and it would be counted in the scoring totals (for all purposes) as a vote. The ability to vote and FOS are tied together; one can not "double up" on both by voting for one person and FOS-ing another. This change is meant to reflect that a person can have suspicion and express said suspicion on another without arriving to the precipice of a lynch. If you have a vote laid down, you will not be able to FOS; if you have an FOS, you will not be able to vote. We believe that this could avert speed lynches and prevent people from “gaming the rubric” and being “online at the right time.” We realize that this is not a perfect solution as it lends itself to a system unique to League games that wouldn’t be practiced in a normal mafia game. However, this is why we are discussing the proposed rule changes: so the player base has an active say in how the rubric is formed. This discussion is open and on the table (as are all the other proposed rule changes) to allow discussion as to what is and isn’t fair on the current rubric. We would really appreciate input from the player base on how to fairly adjust these inadequacies or if there really are inadequacies to adjust in the first place. We look forward to hearing your suggestions.
~Arn
Important: The following proposed changes #1 to #3 will be added to the rubric for WWE Mafia (the fourth league game) if consensus is reached. Please play accordingly.
I regret to inform that Seppel has stepped down from a judge position due to real life responsibilities. Seppel was a great judge and host and will continue to work on the League in a consultant-like quality due to his experience with the League.
Of course, this means that a spot has opened up on the Judge staff that needs to be filled as soon as possible. Judge responsibilities would begin immediately if you are interested in the position; you will be slated with writing play reviews for the four players that Seppel was responsible for judging in Chime Mafia.
We are looking for a Judge for the remainder of the Beta Season, although the responsibility could extend further if the person taking the position was interested. While there are no concrete qualifications for the position, it would be advantageous if any candidates met the following:
> Experience in playing multiple mafia games across the site
> A decent understanding of the League Rubric and an comprehension of how it is applied in League games
> A familiarity with the three League games already completed (Checks & Balances, Overturn to Riddler, and Chime Mafia)
> Hard worker and ability to meet deadlines judiciously
> Ability to work independently on Judge responsibilities without prodding
> Willingness to learn how to properly balance Normal setups or the ability to balance Normal setups
If you are interested in taking the judge position, please send a PM to Iso and myself. Include a brief description of qualifications as outlined above and also a statement of why you are interested in becoming a League Judge. Like I said, responsibilities would start immediately with the candidate being asked to provide four reviews for players in Chime Mafia so a familiarity with the game would be ideal.
Thanks for the time; and to the players: thank you for your continued patience in the Beta League despite these roadblocks and hurdles that pop up now and then.
The following are the final scores for Chime Mafia using Rubric 1.2. I apologize for the delays. Most players should have gotten notes by now. I think there are three players that have not received notes yet: EtR, Rhand, and Misting. If you have no received notes and are not one of the three, please PM me as soon as possible and we will work to rectify the situation. If you see an omission in points or have any questions, please send a PM to myself and KittyCupCake to discuss any problems with the current points.
I know it is late, but our goal was to have points completed before the next League game began. Thanks to the excellent player base for their patience (and continued patience) during this time. Here are the scores:
KosaKosa: 24
+1 (D1: alive for 7hawk77 death, no participation)
+2 (D1: voted The Cold Monarch)
+2 (N1: investigated Archmage Eternal's roleblock)
+4 (D2: lynched The Cold Monarch)
+4 (D3: lynched Void)
-1 (D4: alive for Cyouni lynch, no participation)
+4 (D5: lynched Archmage Eternal)
+4 (D6: lynched AtheistGod)
+4 (PG: won)
Nice game folks, let us hope history repeats itself and gives us another fine and fun game to play. Overall, thanks to W_G in particular. His review on my gameplay was much appreciated.
Very soon a survey about the state of the League will be going out to every player via KittyCupCake. The survey is meant to give us feedback on the entire League experience so far and ways we can continue to improve how the League functions at every level. The survey has been designed to take around fifteen to twenty minutes of your time. If you could give us feedback through the survey, it will be much appreciated.
Very soon a survey about the state of the League will be going out to every player via KittyCupCake. The survey is meant to give us feedback on the entire League experience so far and ways we can continue to improve how the League functions at every level. The survey has been designed to take around fifteen to twenty minutes of your time. If you could give us feedback through the survey, it will be much appreciated.
Very soon a survey about the state of the League will be going out to every player via KittyCupCake. The survey is meant to give us feedback on the entire League experience so far and ways we can continue to improve how the League functions at every level. The survey has been designed to take around fifteen to twenty minutes of your time. If you could give us feedback through the survey, it will be much appreciated.
Hey folks. There's a lot that needs to be discussed in the next couple of days, but I wanted to touch base for a moment.
KittyCupCake has been online but hasn't posted in the League Judge's Subforum in over a month. As such, the surveys she sent out have not been viewed by us and/or even tabulated by us. Also, since she was the scoring judge, I scored WWE Mafia using the rubric because I have experience scoring games with it. That being said, I'm not confident in my point tallies so I will be releasing the PROVISIONAL scores in the next 48 hours. These scores WILL NOT have judge's awards to attached to them and are not finalized. I am releasing them early to catch any mistakes I may have made in calculation.
Also, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be discussed soon about the "State of the League", and I'll be making a post when I have the time discussing our options for the future of the league, changes we are considering, and general items that we have been thinking about and want feedback on. Thanks for your continued patience with the League and, as always, feel free to hit me up with anything that needs answering either in this thread or through PM.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do. It's always better when you have concrete examples of either good plays or mistakes that you can see and understand. When you get back nothing but theory and rationale, it can make it harder to actually comprehend and incorporate into your future games.
The first one I got from Wheat_Grinder (who became judge post-game). There wasn't too much to be gained there, but I really had minor impact on the game and I knew I totally was awful and there was really nothing that could be said because my mistakes were glaringly obvious and he acknowledged it.
The second one from Zionite was more detailed for sure. It was supported by quotes that I snipped out but left the crux of the argument there. It was definitely very useful and I really thought he did a good job on that.
—Lazav
_______________________________________________
Mafia Stats
Summary:
Total Win %: 40%
Total Scum Win %: 60%
Total Town Win %: 20%
Total Neutral Win %: 0%
That's why I just joined - I know that I'm not great and I wanted the chance to improve through feedback.
This is another bonus of turning Normals into simpler games that count for the League: everyone playing a Normal gets judged, and new players are more likely (I hope) to join the simpler Normals, as they represent a logical next step up from Basics. Emphasising this fact in signups and so forth can only help.
IMO, this might replace the Mentoring/Shadowing in Basic's, but I don't see that being an issue with how helpful the feedback is.
Either way though, the League is a great way to learn/develope your game here.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I'm the best!
I feel like having a range of experience with us is important, though, along the lines of what Zionite said. While I put a lot of work into my reviews, and I think I can be a lot of help to most of the playerbase, I can't reasonably help people like Az, or RR, or Cyan get better at the game.
But Seppel might.
I personally quite like the idea of making this a next-level mentoring system. Perhaps starting in basics and getting mentored there as a starting point, but to actually track development over the course of time, using judges in the League.
I wonder what overall will be a best tool of reflection but right now, we need a larger sample size.
@League Judges/Bookkeepers, etc. If you find this an acceptable medium to convey scores and stats for your use, PM me and I'll give you access to edit, etc. I mainly like using Excel and I felt like sharing with you.
—Lazav
_______________________________________________
Mafia Stats
Summary:
Total Win %: 40%
Total Scum Win %: 60%
Total Town Win %: 20%
Total Neutral Win %: 0%
Prophylaxis has received a call to glory. He accepted the call and has joined the League.
Edit:
Cantripmancer drew two off an Explore. He has decided to join the League in penance. Welcome aboard!
Edit:
Kosakosa, abiding to the laws of Mafia and acting by his own will, hereby proclaims his disposition to be added to The League and play its games whenever the opportunity arises. (Tl;dr - Kosakosa joined the League.)
7hawk77 has swooped into the league. Welcome!
foursome... er 4 players of the League!Two Explores.
Misting emerged from the fog and joined the league. Welcome!
Edit:
The Most Curious Thing thought it would be curiouser and curiouser to join the League. Welcome.
This means that the Beta season will be cut short so that we can officially move the league into the very first season. The Judges and Council both believe that the Beta season does not need to run out across all six games like a regular season would. There is a lot of discussion going on right now about how to best serve the League. However, the one thing the Judges and the Council seem to agree upon is that the league only needs a couple more games after Chime to make sure everything checks out. This will not affect the league season after the Beta; the first league season will have six games for participants to play in.
There is a variety of options here but the main question we have to the participants follows: while it was advertised as a six game tournament, how would you feel if the Beta season was cut short? Please let us know your questions, comments, and concerns. We know that the players in the League are the most important voice when it comes to decisions and matters affecting the League at large. This is why we are asking your opinions on the matter instead of making a retroactive mandate. Please let us know you feel one way or another.
We are trying to provide the most entertaining and fun atmosphere around Mafia as we can. And the people who judge whether or not the League is entertaining or fun are the players themselves. Let your comments be heard so that we can figure out how we need to move forward with the Beta.
I don't mind if the Bet Season is cut short. This is all for fun anyway. IMO, the Beta League test has been successful thus far. Of course there were speed bumbs along the way, but that was to be predicted, and they were dealt with in a fair manner. I look forward to seeing what the first League Season will look like.
I apologize that this post is so late in reply. Been busy lately with stuff and it totally slipped through the cracks.
When the League begins it's first season we will announce sign-ups for it. It should be big and bold and hard to miss. (Meaning, we will probably have it stickied.)
Is this an issue? Shouldn't the League scoring system be as ungameable as possible and let us play the best "Mafia" possible without having to worry about playing the best "League Mafia" possible?
Though I would indeed like a change to this. It doesn't seem like a huge problem, but league points being doled out based on who's online at the time seems.. not okay.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Slightly. -Mostly because of this:
And potential fixes to the current scoring system for this specific aspect of the situation are already being considered. -When all of the details to that are worked out, it will be announced for feedback along with a couple other small scoring changes.
It doesn't seem to change the outcome of mafia matches too much, but it causes the point awarding to not match what happened in the game.
Cool, okay.
Proposed Change # 1: Additional Bonus for NK’ed as Vanilla
We added a rule to the rubric after Overturn to Riddler that Vanilla Town gained a point for being NK’ed as a Vanilla. This was a change to the rubric we felt was fair due to the fact that Vanilla Town are not able to earn some of the points that power roles are able to. We believe that the point change is a step in the right direction, but that a single point is not enough to offset the balance of being Vanilla. As such, we propose the following change:
+1 point for being NKed; +1 point bonus for being the first NK; +1 point bonus for being NKed as Vanilla.
to
+1 point for being NKed; +1 point bonus for being the first NK; +2 point bonus for being NKed as Vanilla.
Proposed Change # 2: Penalty for Being Endgamed
Again, this is another change we feel is necessary to establish a more consistent scoring of Town. It has been discussed that “end-gaming” a game goes against the conventional wisdom of what makes a good town. Town should draw the NK away from potential power roles and should not be rewarded for mere survival at the expense of a Team. Furthermore, in a scum victory of the game, the surviving Town players ought to be penalized for making poor decisions that would lead to a scum victory. This change of rule is not going to be backbreaking on the scoring front, but it is a penalty against survival:
-1 point for being endgamed (being alive at the end of the game and losing.
Proposed Change # 3: Mafia Scoring Tweak
While we haven’t had a landslide Mafia victory yet, we have been tinkering with ideas on how to more fairly grade a Scum performance. Town are given blanket points for Scum deaths; we believe it is in the best interest in scoring Scum to also giving them a blanket point for Town deaths. While the current rules adjust to this in theory, there are certain corner case situations where Scum would not receive a point for successfully drawing out Town kills that they could have skillfully set up. (The best example of this would be a Vig misfire.) As such, we are proposing changing:
+1 point for each night period they were alive for.
+1 point for each non-mafia lynch they participated in.
to
+1 point for each non-mafia death that occurs while alive.
While this fix does help with the upper end of good Mafia performance, it does not mesh with the lower end of poor Mafia performance. As such, we believe the following adjustment is also necessary:
-1 point for leaving the game without fulfilling win condition.
to
-3 points for leaving the game without fulfilling win condition.
We believe that this is a fair compromise and adjustment to the rules to bring about Scum scoring totals to a point where Scum could actually earn the massive amount of points that a solid Town performance could acquire.
Proposed Change # 4: “The Elephant in the Room”
Adjusting Rubric to Not Reward Speed Lynches and/or Points Being Awarded to Being Online at an Advantegous Time
There currently is a reward for being on the lynch of a scum:
+4 points for each scum death they participated in (through a lynch or vig-like ability)
Many players have noted that this leads to an unfair scenario where Town can acquire points simply by being in the right place at the right time. Furthermore, it encourages speed lynches where players can pile on a wagon and earn points once a person is generally considered to be Scum. While the first scenario requires an adjustment due to the fact that we feel as if it violates the spirit of the rubric and what we are trying to accomplish under a largely fair system, the second point goes against the conventional wisdom of what is good town play and what is not. Speedlynches are not in the best interest of the town. In fact, it is considered better play to milk as much information out of the scum as a team can and not simply lynch as soon as possible.
These two concerns are major issues for the rubric. However, in our discussions we seem to be at a crossroads where we fully don’t know how to fix this situation. The rubric has been designed to be quantitative and not qualitative. Our inherent goal in the Beta league is to figure out how to create a scoring system that can be applied judiciously by a judge and come out with the exact same result as if it were scored by another judge. If we create some rule where we need to judge the intention of the player in a voting situation, it really goes against the inherent goal of the rubric.
One possible solution that has been discussed is to allow players a single “FOS” vote in lieu of a regular vote that would be scored like a regular vote. Players would only be allowed to FOS a single player, and it would be counted in the scoring totals (for all purposes) as a vote. The ability to vote and FOS are tied together; one can not "double up" on both by voting for one person and FOS-ing another. This change is meant to reflect that a person can have suspicion and express said suspicion on another without arriving to the precipice of a lynch. If you have a vote laid down, you will not be able to FOS; if you have an FOS, you will not be able to vote. We believe that this could avert speed lynches and prevent people from “gaming the rubric” and being “online at the right time.” We realize that this is not a perfect solution as it lends itself to a system unique to League games that wouldn’t be practiced in a normal mafia game. However, this is why we are discussing the proposed rule changes: so the player base has an active say in how the rubric is formed. This discussion is open and on the table (as are all the other proposed rule changes) to allow discussion as to what is and isn’t fair on the current rubric. We would really appreciate input from the player base on how to fairly adjust these inadequacies or if there really are inadequacies to adjust in the first place. We look forward to hearing your suggestions.
~Arn
Important: The following proposed changes #1 to #3 will be added to the rubric for WWE Mafia (the fourth league game) if consensus is reached. Please play accordingly.
I hope that a League game that I actually want to play in comes along soon, given that I pushed for the League to happen for literally years on end.
Of course, this means that a spot has opened up on the Judge staff that needs to be filled as soon as possible. Judge responsibilities would begin immediately if you are interested in the position; you will be slated with writing play reviews for the four players that Seppel was responsible for judging in Chime Mafia.
We are looking for a Judge for the remainder of the Beta Season, although the responsibility could extend further if the person taking the position was interested. While there are no concrete qualifications for the position, it would be advantageous if any candidates met the following:
> Experience in playing multiple mafia games across the site
> A decent understanding of the League Rubric and an comprehension of how it is applied in League games
> A familiarity with the three League games already completed (Checks & Balances, Overturn to Riddler, and Chime Mafia)
> Hard worker and ability to meet deadlines judiciously
> Ability to work independently on Judge responsibilities without prodding
> Willingness to learn how to properly balance Normal setups or the ability to balance Normal setups
If you are interested in taking the judge position, please send a PM to Iso and myself. Include a brief description of qualifications as outlined above and also a statement of why you are interested in becoming a League Judge. Like I said, responsibilities would start immediately with the candidate being asked to provide four reviews for players in Chime Mafia so a familiarity with the game would be ideal.
Thanks for the time; and to the players: thank you for your continued patience in the Beta League despite these roadblocks and hurdles that pop up now and then.
~ Arn
The following are the final scores for Chime Mafia using Rubric 1.2. I apologize for the delays. Most players should have gotten notes by now. I think there are three players that have not received notes yet: EtR, Rhand, and Misting. If you have no received notes and are not one of the three, please PM me as soon as possible and we will work to rectify the situation. If you see an omission in points or have any questions, please send a PM to myself and KittyCupCake to discuss any problems with the current points.
I know it is late, but our goal was to have points completed before the next League game began. Thanks to the excellent player base for their patience (and continued patience) during this time. Here are the scores:
KosaKosa: 24
Rhand: 23
Voxxicus: 23
Prophylaxis: 18
Misting: 18
The Most Curious Thing: 14
EtR: 10
Cyouni: 10 (Edit 12)
Cantripmancer: 7
Archmage Eternal: 5
Atheist God: 4
Stormblind: 4
Void: 2
The Cold Monarch: 1
SharkFinnigan: -3
Raging Levine: -4
Truk: -4
Arianrhod: -8
7hawk77: -9
Nice game folks, let us hope history repeats itself and gives us another fine and fun game to play. Overall, thanks to W_G in particular. His review on my gameplay was much appreciated.
Knew I sucked that game.
Updated scores in Post # 1.
Updated Rubric with changes outlined in Post # 285.
But I'll note that I was voting hawk when he died.
That should be two points extra than your score. Changing it now.
Edit: Let me touch base with Kitty before I change anything.
Passed it by KittyCupCake. Here are your scores as they should be:
Cyouni: 12
Updating OP now.
Just checking: is this still in the works?
Checking on it. When I know, you'll know.
~
Thank you sir.
KittyCupCake has been online but hasn't posted in the League Judge's Subforum in over a month. As such, the surveys she sent out have not been viewed by us and/or even tabulated by us. Also, since she was the scoring judge, I scored WWE Mafia using the rubric because I have experience scoring games with it. That being said, I'm not confident in my point tallies so I will be releasing the PROVISIONAL scores in the next 48 hours. These scores WILL NOT have judge's awards to attached to them and are not finalized. I am releasing them early to catch any mistakes I may have made in calculation.
Also, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be discussed soon about the "State of the League", and I'll be making a post when I have the time discussing our options for the future of the league, changes we are considering, and general items that we have been thinking about and want feedback on. Thanks for your continued patience with the League and, as always, feel free to hit me up with anything that needs answering either in this thread or through PM.