I don't think this is a bad thing, because not heavily penalising a poor lylo for town ends up being at the expense of other townies who died early and had no influence in this decision, yet still end up with roughly the same score as those who lost the game in lylo.
Sure, but you're neglecting that
1) pretty much ALL LyLos are bad for Town
2) this hits vanillae a lot harder than power roles because, as evidenced here, the power roles should be dead by LyLo.
Usually a 50/50 scum lynch ratio results in a town win. But in a 12-player game where the vig missed twice, also taking away one of your mislynches, it wasn't good enough. Why should the town deserve better than poor-middling scores in a loss?
If you lynched DYH and won the game, the scores would look completely different, and players like you and Cyan who lived deep would have scored the most.
Note that you're saying that the scores fluctuate wildly based on whether you win or lose. Let's hold in mind that Mafia is an inherently scum-sided game - something you yourself are famous for statistically demonstrating.
Now consider that not a single Town vanilla who lynched Fate got more points than him. I'll repeat that. Not a single Town vanilla who lynched scum Day 1 got more points than the worst score a scum could get without losing. So from a vanilla point of view, you either win or your score takes a huge dive - and as this game shows, winning can be pretty arbitrary at times.
Contrast Goofball drawing huge volumes of points, due entirely to drawing (and claiming) Doctor. She literally maximized her score by dying N1, which isn't something you'd want to encourage in your Town power roles.
So your approach isn't an improvement. Same problems. The bottom line is that if you want to have a fair metric, you have to tailor it with the notion of getting a good result as Town being considerably more difficult than getting a good result as scum. And to be honest, I'm not sure there's a good objective way of measuring good Town play.
--
There's also no deadline extensions
I'm not necessarily in favor of this.
In re: Twilight -
1) Design your Governor as a Day action.
2) Twilight wasn't originally intended to be a right; just a necessity of the mod's availability.
In re: suicide - I don't think the Town needs less help.
I wasn't really following the game but I felt very strongly that the pace was glacial, come on how many days we had on Day 1? I think we broke a new record or something. I think Zion should've been stricter with the deadlines and maybe prods
I do not think the lengthy days were any fault of Zions
I also think the long Day 1 was very important all around because there was an extensive feeling out stage about the meta play differences - if it had been enforced as shorter it would have been an unfair advantage to scum.
so I want to ask about feedback for you guys about my rule set. So please check it out and provide feedback until I'm still able to tweak it. I've created this rule set mixing some things I found enjoyable from mods both from MS and here.
The first rule #4 seems terrible to me and alters game balance. Scum should be allowed to self vote, no more, and no less.
The second rule 4, I would note, by the way it is worded precludes talk in the Dead QT. I'm just pointing that out because I'm OCD (as are most mafia players, it seems) so...y'know.
Rule 6 and 10 - I have issue with enforced mafia kills. Mafia no-killing is a strategy, and one I have used to good effect in the past. I see no reason to rob them of that choice, if they think it benefits them to no kill, they should have the right to do so.
I don't like the bold part of rule 14 - functionally, this means a town replacement in lylo equates to an auto scum win. Also it's just odd - the slot still exists, I am unsure why this would be a benefit to even bother with the book-keeping on, nor do I understand why a replacement should become immune from votes during the search, I like getting people to replace into slots with pressure - heck, I like replacing into slots with pressure.
15 seems random and punishes a team for matters that are likely out of their control. Blacklist players who flake, don't punish teams who had flakers.
@about ISO feature, actually we have a way to do MS style ISOs here, it's just more complicated than there (btw it would be sweet if Curse implemented MS's ISO). Just create a blank search with just the name of a player, all his posts will be shown in inverse time order.
That is a bit like saying that a McRib sandwich is like eating a rack of ribs.
Yes, there are similarities.
No, it is not an MS style ISO.
I have discovered I am very elitist about our ISO feature.
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
When we were organising the tournament, the key problems I had with the scoring was scum and PR's ability to accrue points if played well, while seemingly not punishing them heavily enough if played poorly. When the rubric is more focused on rewarding players, it's generally at the expense of VT's and players who die early. Their scoring is generally capped at a range between -3 and +5 (although you see occasional outliers like Kami pop up which stilt things). Players who live deep into the game generally won't be scoring much lower than that, but they have all the upside of potentially scoring a lot more, which if players cared about points, would start favouring more survivalistic strategies, which is obviously not ideal for some roles.
I think a better points system requires a greater balance between rewarding and punishing players. Zero points should be baseline, and anything above that means you played well, were generally accurate and helped town win (or in scum's case survived long and helped scum win). But in this system it's possible to be relatively inaccurate, lose the game and still record a positive/middling score.
Limited opportunities as a player who dies early will obviously always limit their scoring potential and not reward them enough, but it should also absolve them from a crushing loss and allow them to fare better than players' who influenced the game more and had more chance to prevent it. Too often with this system, it doesn't generate appropriate distinctions (especially for town players) in losses. The potential to score bigger as a town player should you lynch a high ratio of scum/win the game should be offset by punishing them more than an early-death player when they do lose in lylo or lynch a lot of townies.
When this tournament was being set up and we were still negotiating conditions, I had adapted my own points rubric that aimed for a greater balance. I was tailoring the points off of our 13p mini normals, which generally will have an extra day phase or two, so I still don't think what I'm proposing is ideal for this particular tournament, but I thought it would be interesting to share anyway.
Here is my system:
Townie Scoring System:
-1 points for being lynched as Vanilla.
-2 points for being lynched as a limited powerrole.
-3 points for being lynched as a powerrole.
-3 points for being lynched in mylo/lylo (overrides previous lynch penalties - not in addition to).
-2 points for each townie death they participated in (through a lynch or a vig-like ability).
-1 point for each townie mislynch they did not participate in, but were alive for.
-1 point for each unsuccessful end-of-day vote on town.
-1 point for being alive during a no-lynch that occurs before mylo.
-1 point for being vigged.
-2 point for being endgamed.
+1 point for each scum death they did not participate in, but were alive for.
+1 point for each unsuccessful end-of-day vote against scum (including Mafia or SK).
+1 point for being NKed; +2 point bonus for being NK'ed N1 as Vanilla; +1 point for being any other scumkill as Vanilla
+1 point for being alive D4 (or surviving) as a non-investigative PR or limited PR.
+1 point for surviving as a VT.
+2 point for each scum role or ability investigated.
+2 points for each townie death prevented with an ability.
+3 points for each scum death they participated in (through a lynch or vig-like ability).
Mafia scoring system:
-4 point for being lynched or killed.
+1 point for each night period they survive (not counting night phases directly after a no-lynch)
+1 point for each non-mafia lynch they participated in OR +1 point for being alive for a non-mafia lynch and having no town end-of-day votes on them.
SK scoring system:
-3 points for being lynched or nightkilled.
+1 point for each night period they survive.
+1 point for each threat's death they participated in (this is anyone that can kill them or obtain information against them with an ability).
Post game scoring:
+3 points for a scum win; +1 point for each surviving member of their mafia team.
+4 points for townie win.
+8 points for SK win.
Penalties:
-3 points for replacing out (gains no points or bonus after receiving this).
~~
And here is what this game would have looked like under this system:
Town did relatively well during the day, at a relatively even pace (scum lynch, then town, scum, town) which produced an even spread of middling to poor scores outside of DGB (who had a 1/1 scum ratio) and Voxxicus who played his PR very well.
Key changes in this system include rewarding VT's over PR's more for being NK'ed, and punishing PR's for being lynched more than a VT. Endgame penalties for town players who make the final losing decision are also steeper, which help shape responsibility/influence a bit more, although in this case, the penalties would be somewhat harsh given Traitor shenanigans.
There are a lot of other minor tweaks aimed to reward/punish accuracy and influence in the game, and it's hard to explain one without explaining everything it interacts with, but if anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
There's some good design here, and it addresses the fair criticism of our current rubric favoring PRs. Were you basing this on ours or is this completely original?
I'm not sure how I feel about punishing end-gamers more heavily, especially when you take into account the reason they made it that far. Scum tend to kill off good analysts or PRs and leave the "easy lynches" for later. I feel like simply losing is enough punishment to the score.
It's also worth mentioning that the lead designer of the rubric has been MIA for months. Originally KCC was going to head up revisions so we're looking for someone to help fill that role.
[quote]
Contrast Goofball drawing huge volumes of points, due entirely to drawing (and claiming) Doctor. She literally maximized her score by dying N1, which isn't something you'd want to encourage in your Town power roles.
I earned it for the krapwagon on me when I was putting all my energy trying to get Thorscum lynched and even asked for an extension to get the job done!
...this is why I say I'll just totally ignore scoring.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
If you start caring about scoring, it definitely affects the way you play the game. Town will refuse to be lynched even if it would be the best option, and will instead actively attempt to force no-lynch over their own lynch. Scum will react negatively to bussing (even necessary bussing) and are far more likely to eschew teamwork in favour of their own continued existence.
To me, Mafia is a team game. My best win as mafia was a product of excellent teamwork. I think this kind of scoring detracts from that, which is a reason I never intended on joining the League here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
I think it's worth trying to figure out how to gauge a player based on a collection of games without having to read them all. Do you think that's entirely impossible to do or just that we haven't found the right way to implement it yet?
I think it works effectively when looking at a full season.
It's not necessary a strong marker in each individual game, unless there's a healthy chunk of judge/moderator points awarded for subjective valuation of play.
Note that you're saying that the scores fluctuate wildly based on whether you win or lose. Let's hold in mind that Mafia is an inherently scum-sided game - something you yourself are famous for statistically demonstrating.
Now consider that not a single Town vanilla who lynched Fate got more points than him. I'll repeat that. Not a single Town vanilla who lynched scum Day 1 got more points than the worst score a scum could get without losing. So from a vanilla point of view, you either win or your score takes a huge dive - and as this game shows, winning can be pretty arbitrary at times.
Contrast Goofball drawing huge volumes of points, due entirely to drawing (and claiming) Doctor. She literally maximized her score by dying N1, which isn't something you'd want to encourage in your Town power roles.
So your approach isn't an improvement. Same problems. The bottom line is that if you want to have a fair metric, you have to tailor it with the notion of getting a good result as Town being considerably more difficult than getting a good result as scum. And to be honest, I'm not sure there's a good objective way of measuring good Town play.
Points are swingy because the game of mafia is inherently very swingy. You seem to be annoyed at how influential the outcome of the game is in awarding points. I understand that, but it's the most efficient way to represent influence in the game -- by giving players' who live deepest in the game a wider range to earn or lose points than early-game players (rather than just more potential to earn) -- they have many more opportunities to influence the game with their decisions and skill, as such, they should reap the rewards or take the brunt of the punishment.
No Vanillas got more points than Fate because they were all wrong about others at different points in the game -- although, another point to consider is the Thor modkill which removed a decent amount of points that townies' could have received. This is artificially lowering the overall point spread for townies, so this game may not be the best representation of the system.
Conversely, DGB got more points because she was deprived the opportunity to lynch more scum, collect more points and otherwise influence the game. There is definitely an issue of PR's getting a "get-out-of-jailfree" card which can prevent their lynch -- in this instance, if DGB had been vanilla, she would have likely been lynched and not gotten Fate lynched. Her claim saved her. This issue is offset by higher penalties for being lynched as a PR as opposed to a VT (your claim isn't always going to save you) -- so if you actually do get lynched as a PR, you will suffer for it. Obviously not all instances of poor PR play will get punished adequately, but it will occur more often in my system. I think this feature is an important improvement on the current system.
You seem resigned to the fact that we play in inherently scum-sided games, but I was under the impression our 13p games are getting quite close to a healthy winrate for towns, and the MTGS crew seem convinced that 12p invitationals are fair because of the better town play (I'm still skeptical on that bit though). If this is your belief, then obviously you can't expect to see a good points system. I am operating off a belief that we have roughly balanced games, and as such, a roughly balanced points system can be discerned that will reward accuracy and other basic tenets of good town play. Obviously it misses a lot of context in games, in the same way a player's overall winrate doesn't say everything about them, but I think there is a points system possible that would reward better/more accurate players in the long run, and you'd see these players rise to the top. It's kinda like trying to predict if a game is balanced just by looking at that one game in isolation -- it doesn't really work, and you need to look at the whole. I think a points system could work over a long span of games, and is just simply a fun exercise for a single game.
There's some good design here, and it addresses the fair criticism of our current rubric favoring PRs. Were you basing this on ours or is this completely original?
It was based on your design, but then tweaked to suit our 13p Mini Normal games as they are relatively balanced, and I'd personally played in or read many so it would be easier to spot when the system was doing something obviously wrong. This was when we were considering running 13p games for this series, and I wanted something suitable to use for it. I went through about 15 games I knew well to test out some basic systems/changes and was going to refine it more based on more games, but you guys decided to do 12p and I sort of left it at that. I just thought it would be interesting to share now. It's obviously not perfect, and objective scoring will still produce questionable outcomes sometimes, but there are definitely ways to improve the current system.
If you start caring about scoring, it definitely affects the way you play the game. Town will refuse to be lynched even if it would be the best option, and will instead actively attempt to force no-lynch over their own lynch. Scum will react negatively to bussing (even necessary bussing) and are far more likely to eschew teamwork in favour of their own continued existence.
I agree with this at the same time. A publicly known rubric will always have potential loopholes that could affect play if people take points seriously.
I think it's worth trying to figure out how to gauge a player based on a collection of games without having to read them all. Do you think that's entirely impossible to do or just that we haven't found the right way to implement it yet?
The former. An arbitrary scoring system will never be able to account for "good play" in all situations.
--
but I was under the impression our 13p games are getting quite close to a healthy winrate for towns
I think one of us hasn't been reading MD too closely. Either way, it's still not close to 50/50. It's not going to be 50/50 without making the game come down to power role distribution (Pie E7).
No Vanillas got more points than Fate because they were all wrong about others at different points in the game
Isn't that part of being the uninformed majority? We're (to some degree) good players; we're not frigging clairvoyant.
I agree with desCoures and think that continuing this line of discussion will be both fruitless and frustrating.
--
Goofball can stuff it. Her wagon was highly warranted.
I think it's worth trying to figure out how to gauge a player based on a collection of games without having to read them all. Do you think that's entirely impossible to do or just that we haven't found the right way to implement it yet?
Probably nothing is impossible, and even if it is then it's still worth striving towards.
That said, I think the current concept has some rather meaty built in flaws.
Consider that in this game town did lynch with a roughly 50/50 accuracy rate.
That is objectively "good"
They lost due to the missed Vig shots (only one of which was subjectively bad by a majority consensus) and also making an incorrect presumption about the setup.
Functionally, they played above average across the board.
They scored a mediocre spread of points.
Many scoring worse or little better than a scum who openly admitted to playing extremely poorly and who was lynched Day 1.
DYH may have played an excellent distance game, but was thought of as highly scummy by many players and only survived due to a cop clear that people took as sacrosanct through no effort of his own. Functionally the best part of his play was doing a PM request for an extension.
He received a monstrous amount of points.
These truths hold out across both the original scoring system and across your modified one (albeit, yours offers a smaller overall spread...which at least suggests people were playing more at a like skill level...so is probably a bit more true across the board. Though it then also suggests that Fate (and sorry for picking on you buddy) the one player who openly admits to bad play in this game - was even *closer* to the average of the so called "good" players.
That speaks, to me, pretty sharply that there is something off here.
That said, I will also note there is debate amongst the playrs themselves as to what constitutes "good" play.
Many are positive about DYH and Voxx to levels I don't consider legit.
Some are negative about Voxx and Llama to points I don't think they deserve.
Some are negative on themselves to levels I don't find right.
Probably many players disagree with my own expressed opinions about who played 'best' or 'good' versus who underperformed.
This suggests that even the definition of "good play" is in debate here, which further brings strain to an objective scoring system.
Is being lynched, as town, always a negative?
Is being lynched as scum always a negative?
I would answer 'no' to both, and could probably find games that were won because of these acts - the rubrics would punish both unilaterally.
Heck, I have been town and the victim of a speed lynch perpetrated by scum - I would have been punished harshly for, functionally, having dumb team mates and being the target of a focused effort by scum to kill me.
They then NKed a lurker to give 'no info to town'
That player would have been rewarded.
I am suspicious that a subjective judging system is needed in a game with this many variables, exceptions, and odd interactions.
That, or we need an objective system that is substantially more complicated.
Goofball can stuff it. Her wagon was highly warranted.
Yeah right. I was barking for a SCUM lynch the whole time, then I get derp-wagoned out of nowhere, this after asking for an extension which I would never asked for as scum since we were well on our way to a mislynch, while I was at the time of the extension request under scant scrutiny myself.
3. Lynching will require a simple majority of votes. Once the lynch threshold has been reached, nothing can prevent that lynch and the game is considered to be in "twilight" for 24 hours. Posting during twilight is allowed.
I'm talking about this from a player's perspective (not a modding perspective) but I know I have been *extremely* anxious to check a player's alignment after a flip as town, to the point of checking the thread multiple times each Day to see "has the host put Night up yet?".
While I understand your point of governors, I feel as though the cost outweights the benefits, as I feel as though governors are used sparingly enough to not make every twilight period 24 hours.
4. The Scum have a communal 1-shot suicide pill. Meaning, once per game a scum player can request a suicide in the thread ending the day.
I understand that this is a controversial rule but, personally, I dislike it. I can understand the reasoning why you'd include something like this (to prevent situations like Arianrhod in WWE, where a outed scum has no reason to post) but I disliked the rule in USUDM and the quick Days 2 and 3 were a huge part of my apathy towards that game.
Again, we have the player vs mod spectrum, where as a mod, I understand why you'd include a rule like this, while my player side dislikes it intensely.
The Mafia must always kill if possible, if they haven’t chosen a target by the deadline ending one will be randomly chosen for them.
What is the purpose of a rule like this? I don't see it solving any existing problem and I feel as though it takes away the strategic element of a no-kill.
12. Only information roles will receive results of their actions for the nights. This means there will be no confirming or denying of successful night actions except for those. Example: a doc targets someone, he will not be informed of what happened with his protect so if he’s: roleblocked, redirected, successful protect a kill, successful target but don’t protect, he will never know. In the end, non-investigative roles will probably never receive a night PM.
I do not like this - I feel as though a protective role should know if they were roleblocked or redirected. If you were designing a game based around hidden information then I could see myself using this but I feel as though a power role should know that a roleblock is present in the game.
---
I know you disagree with me on this for modding philosophy, but I feel that a rule regarding changing the rules at any time should be present. I understand that you like sticking to the rules no matter what and hate to break them, but I feel like you should allow yourself some leeway on the rules to prevent a trainwreck situation (USUDM says hi again).
I'll second the calls to eliminate the mafia suicide rule, the forced kill, as well as the 24-hour twilight - basically for all the reasons Prophylaxis listed.
As far as deadline extensions are concerned: as long as the ruling is consistent - I expected to be granted my request in this game because of the ruling on Day 1, for example - I'm okay with them. I'm also perfectly okay with the rule being stated upfront "no extensions" and rolling with it.
12. Only information roles will receive results of their actions for the nights. This means there will be no confirming or denying of successful night actions except for those. Example: a doc targets someone, he will not be informed of what happened with his protect so if he’s: roleblocked, redirected, successful protect a kill, successful target but don’t protect, he will never know. In the end, non-investigative roles will probably never receive a night PM.
I do not like this - I feel as though a protective role should know if they were roleblocked or redirected. If you were designing a game based around hidden information then I could see myself using this but I feel as though a power role should know that a roleblock is present in the game.
I actually am totally fine with that rule, and on MS it's, more or less, the norm.
I actually dislike the idea that a Doc would be told if he was roleblocked or not - that seems too town advantageous. I don't even understand why they remotely should be told - they protected a player, either that player lives or that player dies; what deeper information do they deserve than that? They're not an information role, they're a protective role.
As far as deadline extensions are concerned: as long as the ruling is consistent - I expected to be granted my request in this game because of the ruling on Day 1, for example - I'm okay with them. I'm also perfectly okay with the rule being stated upfront "no extensions" and rolling with it.
I would prefer that extensions be given when the mod feels it's conducive to gameplay (e.g. the moderator or two players are not available when the deadline falls) and not because the Town can't get their act together.
---
I continue to agree with Thor. mafiascum vetos telling all roles that they were roleblocked, not least because it's mod-confirmed information being given out when it should not be.
The second rule 4, I would note, by the way it is worded precludes talk in the Dead QT. I'm just pointing that out because I'm OCD (as are most mafia players, it seems) so...y'know.
Rule 6 and 10 - I have issue with enforced mafia kills. Mafia no-killing is a strategy, and one I have used to good effect in the past. I see no reason to rob them of that choice, if they think it benefits them to no kill, they should have the right to do so.
I know it's a strategy but this was not done randomly, mafia is penalized here but gain elsewhere.
I don't like the bold part of rule 14 - functionally, this means a town replacement in lylo equates to an auto scum win. Also it's just odd - the slot still exists, I am unsure why this would be a benefit to even bother with the book-keeping on, nor do I understand why a replacement should become immune from votes during the search, I like getting people to replace into slots with pressure - heck, I like replacing into slots with pressure.
You misunderstood, I've written that part again for clarity purposes.
15 seems random and punishes a team for matters that are likely out of their control. Blacklist players who flake, don't punish teams who had flakers.
Hehehe, yes it punishes teams with flakers but has other side effects as well.
1)When someone replace in I warn him about his situation, so he will know exactly where he stands, he has not the option to replace out. I think this has a positive influence in his responsibilities as a player, I believe when the punishment is palpable and instantaneous the peer pressure is much higher and is much harder for flakers to play. So far I haven't replaced any slot twice in my games.
2)Blood invigorate games, it gives info for the town no matter what and keeps games more active. Replacement feists greatly reduce the morale of the players and has negative repercussions on the game.
This one is staying and is unlikely to matter particularly in this game with highly regarded players, and remember there's always the failsafe "barring exceptional gamebreaking situations".
I'm talking about this from a player's perspective (not a modding perspective) but I know I have been *extremely* anxious to check a player's alignment after a flip as town, to the point of checking the thread multiple times each Day to see "has the host put Night up yet?". While I understand your point of governors, I feel as though the cost outweights the benefits, as I feel as though governors are used sparingly enough to not make every twilight period 24 hours.
That's actually a very good point as I know this feeling very well, the governor point was very minor. The real point is:
I want consistence, players want consistence. It's very bad to have randomly variable twilights because they do have an impact in games. Imagine you have reread a game in twilight or is doing some twilight gambit that require time, written a big wall of text and when you are about to post, the mod comes and ends the day. With a pre-determined time you know exactly where you stand.
Also I need time to write and stuff to prepare, so the twilight cannot be very low because I may be busy and I hate breaking rules, particularly the ones I've created myself :D.
That being said I think we can improve this, so the twilight now will be a 12 hours minimum and 24 hours maximum. I'm sure that with the help of my co-mod I can do this.
I understand that this is a controversial rule but, personally, I dislike it. I can understand the reasoning why you'd include something like this (to prevent situations like Arianrhod in WWE, where a outed scum has no reason to post) but I disliked the rule in USUDM and the quick Days 2 and 3 were a huge part of my apathy towards that game.
Again, we have the player vs mod spectrum, where as a mod, I understand why you'd include a rule like this, while my player side dislikes it intensely.
Yeah, I will just remove this, there's no defensors of this one, just detractors so there's no reason to keep this one.
What is the purpose of a rule like this? I don't see it solving any existing problem and I feel as though it takes away the strategic element of a no-kill.
There's a minor problem it solves, the "no-lynch, no-kill" stalemate. This rule does a lot of good things for the games.
a)Increase the viability/power of no-lynches (no-lynches are always polemic and they usually bring up good conversation).
b)Does open up possibilities for the mafia to trick the town into a no-lynch for their own personal gain.
c)Greatly reduce the WIFOM possibilities about a no-night kill, removing a lot of unmafia talk. Btw I know this weakens the mafia and strengthens the town.
d)Reduce the chances of a no-kill night (unfun). More blood = more happiness. Games with no blood = boring games.
I do not like this - I feel as though a protective role should know if they were roleblocked or redirected. If you were designing a game based around hidden information then I could see myself using this but I feel as though a power role should know that a roleblock is present in the game.
And here is the part where the town gets the shaft. Actually I got this from MS and while it makes no sense from a flavor standpoint, when flavor gets in the way of a good game, flavor always loses. In the end we need to rely more in real mafia and not in mod-confirmation townies, get mad-confirmed by your behavior not because the mod said "Hey John, last night Mary doc protected you, she's now the confirmed doc". The truth is that our playerbase has got lazy and spoon feed because of such moderation styles, there's so many games here that are determined just because of confirmed power roles existance and not behavior here it's not even funny. Mafia should not lose because of that.
I have little doubt the way MS handles this is the superior one and this one is also staying. Oh, and also this impact game balance. I'm aware of it and all my games are designed with this in mind.
TLDR: We are doing it wrong, let's learn with our brothers at MS and improve.
I know you disagree with me on this for modding philosophy, but I feel that a rule regarding changing the rules at any time should be present. I understand that you like sticking to the rules no matter what and hate to break them, but I feel like you should allow yourself some leeway on the rules to prevent a trainwreck situation (USUDM says hi again).
That's an implicit rule, as you remember well, I've tweaked both the original Innistrad deadline system and USUDM suicide system on the fly. You are correct I'm very unlikely to change rules on the get go, but when it's necessary to prevent a catastrophe rest assured I will pull the trigger.
I actually am totally fine with that rule, and on MS it's, more or less, the norm.
I actually dislike the idea that a Doc would be told if he was roleblocked or not - that seems too town advantageous. I don't even understand why they remotely should be told - they protected a player, either that player lives or that player dies; what deeper information do they deserve than that? They're not an information role, they're a protective role.
I would prefer that extensions be given when the mod feels it's conducive to gameplay (e.g. the moderator or two players are not available when the deadline falls) and not because the Town can't get their act together.
My extension rule is pretty consistent: there's no extensions, you know from the get go your whole time, if your team cannot get their act together, the other team will.
An easier way to think about the gimmicky deadline rule is to think it's just the usual "when deadline arrives the biggest wagon is lynched instead of a no-lynch" with just a little more leeway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
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
So your legislation against No Kill is based on your personal amusement and not having any better way to resolve Happily Ever After...?
I wouldn't say "for my personal amusement", but what I think makes for a more enjoyable experience for most players, however, that certainly does take into consideration what I think is more amusing. I (or anyone else) would never insert a rule thinking "everyone will hate this, so let me use this to make everyone life's miserable".
Don't you think this is a good, elegant fix? So far the only argument against this is that it reduces the scum power, and I've already taken this into consideration.
I'm waiting on the next host to declare readiness.
I'm ready. I can create "Portal 2 Mafia" anytime given the greenlight.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
[QUOTE=Vierni;/comments/12590045]Don't you think this is a good, elegant fix? So far the only argument against this is that it reduces the scum power, and I've already taken this into consideration.
A fix for what?
Giving scum a tool to work against the power of 'town being too cowardly to do a lynch'?
That's great - if town wants to let scum winnow suspects that is all well and good regardless of if it makes town look like wimps.
But scum should be equally allowed to say 'no, U'
If you think scum should have forced random night kills then why not put into effect forced random lynches and disallow no lynching? Each strategy is equally valid for each faction, and to deny it to one side of the equation but not the other seems silly and obviously a favoring of the side you decide not to limit.
That's great if you then rebalance the game in some way to then make this balanced...but why not just not enforce the imbalance in the first place?
I'm fine with no no-kills.
Scum nokilling creates bad PR results, which I find a nuisance.
I get that scum are fooling the PR through good play, but it still creates "I played this game optimally given the information I had and this caused me to lose" situations.
I think roleblockers are an excellent and fun way to balance out town PRs.
I'm not seeing exactly what the problem is with having 'bad PR results' in the first place. Giving up a nightkill for that purpose is a sufficiently large price to pay, in my opinion. And any town that wholly eschews behaviour and day play in favour of leaning on PRs deserves to lose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
I'm not seeing exactly what the problem is with having 'bad PR results' in the first place. Giving up a nightkill for that purpose is a sufficiently large price to pay, in my opinion. And any town that wholly eschews behaviour and day play in favour of leaning on PRs deserves to lose.
If so, someone will need to take my place. His last game was a complete debacle, and he plainly did not accept any meaningful responsibility for it being so. I will never risk playing in another game that has a role like Princess in it. Literally not ever.
+1 (N1: Alive for Iso [T] death)
+1 (N1: Alive for Kami of Lunacy [T] death)
+1 (D2: Alive for desCoures lynch [T])
+1 (N2: Alive for Cyouni [T] death)
+1 (N2: Alive for Llamarble [T] death)
-3 (D3: Left game without fulfilling win condition.)
+3 (1 Survivor of Mafia Team; Mafia Win!)
Aggressive_Fate 0 Points
-3 (D1: Left game without fulfilling win condition.)
+3 (1 Survivor of Mafia Team; Mafia Win!)
DYH 10 points
+1 (N1: Alive for Iso [T] death)
+1 (N1: Alive for Kami of Lunacy [T] death)
+1 (D2: Alive for desCoures lynch [T])
+1 (N2: Alive for Llamarble [T] death)
+1 (N2: Alive for Cyouni [T] death)
+1 (N3: Alive for Voxxicus [T] death)
+1 (D4: Alive for Cyan [T] death)
+3 (1 Survivor of Mafia Team; Mafia Win!)
Town PR
Kami of Lunacy 6 Points
+4 (D1: Lynched Aggressive Fate [S])
+2 (N1: NK’ed; First NK Bonus)
+1 (D1: alive for Aggressive Fate [S] death, no participation)
+2 (N1: Investigated DYH [S] via Gunsmith)
-2 (D2: Participated in desCoures [T] lynch)
+2 (N2: Investigated Thor [S] via Gunsmith)
+2 (D3: End of Day Vote against Thor [S])
+1 (N3: NK’ed)
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
As noted before - I was alive when Voxx died.
I was the one who killed him.
Unless there's some rule I'm missing wherein I have to last through the next day phase after a NK to get the point.
As noted before - I was alive when Voxx died.
I was the one who killed him.
Unless there's some rule I'm missing wherein I have to last through the next day phase after a NK to get the point.
1) pretty much ALL LyLos are bad for Town
2) this hits vanillae a lot harder than power roles because, as evidenced here, the power roles should be dead by LyLo.
Note that you're saying that the scores fluctuate wildly based on whether you win or lose. Let's hold in mind that Mafia is an inherently scum-sided game - something you yourself are famous for statistically demonstrating.
Now consider that not a single Town vanilla who lynched Fate got more points than him. I'll repeat that. Not a single Town vanilla who lynched scum Day 1 got more points than the worst score a scum could get without losing. So from a vanilla point of view, you either win or your score takes a huge dive - and as this game shows, winning can be pretty arbitrary at times.
Contrast Goofball drawing huge volumes of points, due entirely to drawing (and claiming) Doctor. She literally maximized her score by dying N1, which isn't something you'd want to encourage in your Town power roles.
So your approach isn't an improvement. Same problems. The bottom line is that if you want to have a fair metric, you have to tailor it with the notion of getting a good result as Town being considerably more difficult than getting a good result as scum. And to be honest, I'm not sure there's a good objective way of measuring good Town play.
--
I'm not necessarily in favor of this.
In re: Twilight -
1) Design your Governor as a Day action.
2) Twilight wasn't originally intended to be a right; just a necessity of the mod's availability.
In re: suicide - I don't think the Town needs less help.
I do not think the lengthy days were any fault of Zions
I also think the long Day 1 was very important all around because there was an extensive feeling out stage about the meta play differences - if it had been enforced as shorter it would have been an unfair advantage to scum.
The first rule #4 seems terrible to me and alters game balance. Scum should be allowed to self vote, no more, and no less.
The second rule 4, I would note, by the way it is worded precludes talk in the Dead QT. I'm just pointing that out because I'm OCD (as are most mafia players, it seems) so...y'know.
Rule 6 and 10 - I have issue with enforced mafia kills. Mafia no-killing is a strategy, and one I have used to good effect in the past. I see no reason to rob them of that choice, if they think it benefits them to no kill, they should have the right to do so.
I don't like the bold part of rule 14 - functionally, this means a town replacement in lylo equates to an auto scum win. Also it's just odd - the slot still exists, I am unsure why this would be a benefit to even bother with the book-keeping on, nor do I understand why a replacement should become immune from votes during the search, I like getting people to replace into slots with pressure - heck, I like replacing into slots with pressure.
15 seems random and punishes a team for matters that are likely out of their control. Blacklist players who flake, don't punish teams who had flakers.
My...minor...thoughts
That is a bit like saying that a McRib sandwich is like eating a rack of ribs.
Yes, there are similarities.
No, it is not an MS style ISO.
I have discovered I am very elitist about our ISO feature.
{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
There's some good design here, and it addresses the fair criticism of our current rubric favoring PRs. Were you basing this on ours or is this completely original?
I'm not sure how I feel about punishing end-gamers more heavily, especially when you take into account the reason they made it that far. Scum tend to kill off good analysts or PRs and leave the "easy lynches" for later. I feel like simply losing is enough punishment to the score.
It's also worth mentioning that the lead designer of the rubric has been MIA for months. Originally KCC was going to head up revisions so we're looking for someone to help fill that role.
I earned it for the krapwagon on me when I was putting all my energy trying to get Thorscum lynched and even asked for an extension to get the job done!
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
I'm going to do that too.
Unless I score really well at the end.
To me, Mafia is a team game. My best win as mafia was a product of excellent teamwork. I think this kind of scoring detracts from that, which is a reason I never intended on joining the League here.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
It's not necessary a strong marker in each individual game, unless there's a healthy chunk of judge/moderator points awarded for subjective valuation of play.
Points are swingy because the game of mafia is inherently very swingy. You seem to be annoyed at how influential the outcome of the game is in awarding points. I understand that, but it's the most efficient way to represent influence in the game -- by giving players' who live deepest in the game a wider range to earn or lose points than early-game players (rather than just more potential to earn) -- they have many more opportunities to influence the game with their decisions and skill, as such, they should reap the rewards or take the brunt of the punishment.
No Vanillas got more points than Fate because they were all wrong about others at different points in the game -- although, another point to consider is the Thor modkill which removed a decent amount of points that townies' could have received. This is artificially lowering the overall point spread for townies, so this game may not be the best representation of the system.
Conversely, DGB got more points because she was deprived the opportunity to lynch more scum, collect more points and otherwise influence the game. There is definitely an issue of PR's getting a "get-out-of-jailfree" card which can prevent their lynch -- in this instance, if DGB had been vanilla, she would have likely been lynched and not gotten Fate lynched. Her claim saved her. This issue is offset by higher penalties for being lynched as a PR as opposed to a VT (your claim isn't always going to save you) -- so if you actually do get lynched as a PR, you will suffer for it. Obviously not all instances of poor PR play will get punished adequately, but it will occur more often in my system. I think this feature is an important improvement on the current system.
You seem resigned to the fact that we play in inherently scum-sided games, but I was under the impression our 13p games are getting quite close to a healthy winrate for towns, and the MTGS crew seem convinced that 12p invitationals are fair because of the better town play (I'm still skeptical on that bit though). If this is your belief, then obviously you can't expect to see a good points system. I am operating off a belief that we have roughly balanced games, and as such, a roughly balanced points system can be discerned that will reward accuracy and other basic tenets of good town play. Obviously it misses a lot of context in games, in the same way a player's overall winrate doesn't say everything about them, but I think there is a points system possible that would reward better/more accurate players in the long run, and you'd see these players rise to the top. It's kinda like trying to predict if a game is balanced just by looking at that one game in isolation -- it doesn't really work, and you need to look at the whole. I think a points system could work over a long span of games, and is just simply a fun exercise for a single game.
It was based on your design, but then tweaked to suit our 13p Mini Normal games as they are relatively balanced, and I'd personally played in or read many so it would be easier to spot when the system was doing something obviously wrong. This was when we were considering running 13p games for this series, and I wanted something suitable to use for it. I went through about 15 games I knew well to test out some basic systems/changes and was going to refine it more based on more games, but you guys decided to do 12p and I sort of left it at that. I just thought it would be interesting to share now. It's obviously not perfect, and objective scoring will still produce questionable outcomes sometimes, but there are definitely ways to improve the current system.
I agree with this at the same time. A publicly known rubric will always have potential loopholes that could affect play if people take points seriously.
--
I think one of us hasn't been reading MD too closely. Either way, it's still not close to 50/50. It's not going to be 50/50 without making the game come down to power role distribution (Pie E7).
Isn't that part of being the uninformed majority? We're (to some degree) good players; we're not frigging clairvoyant.
I agree with desCoures and think that continuing this line of discussion will be both fruitless and frustrating.
--
Goofball can stuff it. Her wagon was highly warranted.
Probably nothing is impossible, and even if it is then it's still worth striving towards.
That said, I think the current concept has some rather meaty built in flaws.
Consider that in this game town did lynch with a roughly 50/50 accuracy rate.
That is objectively "good"
They lost due to the missed Vig shots (only one of which was subjectively bad by a majority consensus) and also making an incorrect presumption about the setup.
Functionally, they played above average across the board.
They scored a mediocre spread of points.
Many scoring worse or little better than a scum who openly admitted to playing extremely poorly and who was lynched Day 1.
DYH may have played an excellent distance game, but was thought of as highly scummy by many players and only survived due to a cop clear that people took as sacrosanct through no effort of his own. Functionally the best part of his play was doing a PM request for an extension.
He received a monstrous amount of points.
These truths hold out across both the original scoring system and across your modified one (albeit, yours offers a smaller overall spread...which at least suggests people were playing more at a like skill level...so is probably a bit more true across the board. Though it then also suggests that Fate (and sorry for picking on you buddy) the one player who openly admits to bad play in this game - was even *closer* to the average of the so called "good" players.
That speaks, to me, pretty sharply that there is something off here.
That said, I will also note there is debate amongst the playrs themselves as to what constitutes "good" play.
Many are positive about DYH and Voxx to levels I don't consider legit.
Some are negative about Voxx and Llama to points I don't think they deserve.
Some are negative on themselves to levels I don't find right.
Probably many players disagree with my own expressed opinions about who played 'best' or 'good' versus who underperformed.
This suggests that even the definition of "good play" is in debate here, which further brings strain to an objective scoring system.
Is being lynched, as town, always a negative?
Is being lynched as scum always a negative?
I would answer 'no' to both, and could probably find games that were won because of these acts - the rubrics would punish both unilaterally.
Heck, I have been town and the victim of a speed lynch perpetrated by scum - I would have been punished harshly for, functionally, having dumb team mates and being the target of a focused effort by scum to kill me.
They then NKed a lurker to give 'no info to town'
That player would have been rewarded.
I am suspicious that a subjective judging system is needed in a game with this many variables, exceptions, and odd interactions.
That, or we need an objective system that is substantially more complicated.
Yeah right. I was barking for a SCUM lynch the whole time, then I get derp-wagoned out of nowhere, this after asking for an extension which I would never asked for as scum since we were well on our way to a mislynch, while I was at the time of the extension request under scant scrutiny myself.
I say we give the experiment a chance, and see how things average out over a series of games. It's difficult to judge now.
I'm talking about this from a player's perspective (not a modding perspective) but I know I have been *extremely* anxious to check a player's alignment after a flip as town, to the point of checking the thread multiple times each Day to see "has the host put Night up yet?".
While I understand your point of governors, I feel as though the cost outweights the benefits, as I feel as though governors are used sparingly enough to not make every twilight period 24 hours.
I understand that this is a controversial rule but, personally, I dislike it. I can understand the reasoning why you'd include something like this (to prevent situations like Arianrhod in WWE, where a outed scum has no reason to post) but I disliked the rule in USUDM and the quick Days 2 and 3 were a huge part of my apathy towards that game.
Again, we have the player vs mod spectrum, where as a mod, I understand why you'd include a rule like this, while my player side dislikes it intensely.
What is the purpose of a rule like this? I don't see it solving any existing problem and I feel as though it takes away the strategic element of a no-kill.
I do not like this - I feel as though a protective role should know if they were roleblocked or redirected. If you were designing a game based around hidden information then I could see myself using this but I feel as though a power role should know that a roleblock is present in the game.
---
I know you disagree with me on this for modding philosophy, but I feel that a rule regarding changing the rules at any time should be present. I understand that you like sticking to the rules no matter what and hate to break them, but I feel like you should allow yourself some leeway on the rules to prevent a trainwreck situation (USUDM says hi again).
As far as deadline extensions are concerned: as long as the ruling is consistent - I expected to be granted my request in this game because of the ruling on Day 1, for example - I'm okay with them. I'm also perfectly okay with the rule being stated upfront "no extensions" and rolling with it.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
I actually am totally fine with that rule, and on MS it's, more or less, the norm.
I actually dislike the idea that a Doc would be told if he was roleblocked or not - that seems too town advantageous. I don't even understand why they remotely should be told - they protected a player, either that player lives or that player dies; what deeper information do they deserve than that? They're not an information role, they're a protective role.
---
I continue to agree with Thor. mafiascum vetos telling all roles that they were roleblocked, not least because it's mod-confirmed information being given out when it should not be.
---
It could happen.
Good catch, fixed.
I know it's a strategy but this was not done randomly, mafia is penalized here but gain elsewhere.
You misunderstood, I've written that part again for clarity purposes.
Hehehe, yes it punishes teams with flakers but has other side effects as well.
1)When someone replace in I warn him about his situation, so he will know exactly where he stands, he has not the option to replace out. I think this has a positive influence in his responsibilities as a player, I believe when the punishment is palpable and instantaneous the peer pressure is much higher and is much harder for flakers to play. So far I haven't replaced any slot twice in my games.
2)Blood invigorate games, it gives info for the town no matter what and keeps games more active. Replacement feists greatly reduce the morale of the players and has negative repercussions on the game.
This one is staying and is unlikely to matter particularly in this game with highly regarded players, and remember there's always the failsafe "barring exceptional gamebreaking situations".
That's actually a very good point as I know this feeling very well, the governor point was very minor. The real point is:
I want consistence, players want consistence. It's very bad to have randomly variable twilights because they do have an impact in games. Imagine you have reread a game in twilight or is doing some twilight gambit that require time, written a big wall of text and when you are about to post, the mod comes and ends the day. With a pre-determined time you know exactly where you stand.
Also I need time to write and stuff to prepare, so the twilight cannot be very low because I may be busy and I hate breaking rules, particularly the ones I've created myself :D.
That being said I think we can improve this, so the twilight now will be a 12 hours minimum and 24 hours maximum. I'm sure that with the help of my co-mod I can do this.
Yeah, I will just remove this, there's no defensors of this one, just detractors so there's no reason to keep this one.
There's a minor problem it solves, the "no-lynch, no-kill" stalemate. This rule does a lot of good things for the games.
a)Increase the viability/power of no-lynches (no-lynches are always polemic and they usually bring up good conversation).
b)Does open up possibilities for the mafia to trick the town into a no-lynch for their own personal gain.
c)Greatly reduce the WIFOM possibilities about a no-night kill, removing a lot of unmafia talk. Btw I know this weakens the mafia and strengthens the town.
d)Reduce the chances of a no-kill night (unfun). More blood = more happiness. Games with no blood = boring games.
And here is the part where the town gets the shaft. Actually I got this from MS and while it makes no sense from a flavor standpoint, when flavor gets in the way of a good game, flavor always loses. In the end we need to rely more in real mafia and not in mod-confirmation townies, get mad-confirmed by your behavior not because the mod said "Hey John, last night Mary doc protected you, she's now the confirmed doc". The truth is that our playerbase has got lazy and spoon feed because of such moderation styles, there's so many games here that are determined just because of confirmed power roles existance and not behavior here it's not even funny. Mafia should not lose because of that.
I have little doubt the way MS handles this is the superior one and this one is also staying. Oh, and also this impact game balance. I'm aware of it and all my games are designed with this in mind.
TLDR: We are doing it wrong, let's learn with our brothers at MS and improve.
That's an implicit rule, as you remember well, I've tweaked both the original Innistrad deadline system and USUDM suicide system on the fly. You are correct I'm very unlikely to change rules on the get go, but when it's necessary to prevent a catastrophe rest assured I will pull the trigger.
My extension rule is pretty consistent: there's no extensions, you know from the get go your whole time, if your team cannot get their act together, the other team will.
An easier way to think about the gimmicky deadline rule is to think it's just the usual "when deadline arrives the biggest wagon is lynched instead of a no-lynch" with just a little more leeway.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
---
Are we waiting on something, or is the invitational progressing elsewhere and I'm missing out?
{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
Don't you think this is a good, elegant fix? So far the only argument against this is that it reduces the scum power, and I've already taken this into consideration.
I'm ready. I can create "Portal 2 Mafia" anytime given the greenlight.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
A fix for what?
Giving scum a tool to work against the power of 'town being too cowardly to do a lynch'?
That's great - if town wants to let scum winnow suspects that is all well and good regardless of if it makes town look like wimps.
But scum should be equally allowed to say 'no, U'
If you think scum should have forced random night kills then why not put into effect forced random lynches and disallow no lynching? Each strategy is equally valid for each faction, and to deny it to one side of the equation but not the other seems silly and obviously a favoring of the side you decide not to limit.
That's great if you then rebalance the game in some way to then make this balanced...but why not just not enforce the imbalance in the first place?
Scum nokilling creates bad PR results, which I find a nuisance.
I get that scum are fooling the PR through good play, but it still creates "I played this game optimally given the information I had and this caused me to lose" situations.
I think roleblockers are an excellent and fun way to balance out town PRs.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
Oh dear gawd - this.
If so, someone will need to take my place. His last game was a complete debacle, and he plainly did not accept any meaningful responsibility for it being so. I will never risk playing in another game that has a role like Princess in it. Literally not ever.
If that helps you sleep.
Fine fine.
Scum
Thor665 5 Points
Aggressive_Fate 0 Points
DYH 10 points
Town PR
Kami of Lunacy 6 Points
Llamarble -1 Points
Voxxicus 6 Points
Town
Cyouni 3 Points
DesCoures -2 Points
Nachomamma8 0 Points
Iso 1 Point
Vierni 1 Point
Cyan 1 Point
***
~ Arn
{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
Fixed
I was the one who killed him.
Unless there's some rule I'm missing wherein I have to last through the next day phase after a NK to get the point.
You were modkilled Day 3. Voxx was NK'ed Night 3.
I was mixing up the Vig and the Gunsmith.
Fixed