While the beta is in effect, don't publish the rubric or current points of any players. It can all be done behind the scenes and tweaked until the judges decide they have the rubric balanced. At that point, they wipe the scores clean, announce the beginning of Season 1, and publish the now balanced rubric.
I'm totally fine with disallowing retroactive changes in favor of starting fresh with a new season and perfected rubric, but that was not what was agreed on prior to starting. Everyone seemed okay with getting to keep their scores. Wiping works too and it's less work, but I figured players would rather keep their hard earned scores.
I'm assuming everyone understands why retroactive scoring allows those scores to be kept into the official league. But what I'm also hearing is that some players would rather not have scores at all until beta ends or have them wiped. I wish you had said this during the planning stages, as this is what this thread was made for. But it's not to late to fix, if the majority of league players prefer an alternative solution. We can always poll it and make changes.
If the points do count for the actual league and I was mistaken, then I fully agree with Ahlyis.
We wanted the Beta season to count as much as any official season would, but still be classified as Beta. So we wouldn't be looping all the scores together unless that's what players wanted. Your bragging rights would essentially be your most recent season or game, not your current total.
We (the community) haven't really decided how to implement the beta scores in the future yet. My vision is the above example, but I'm sure there are other good ideas on how to handle it and future season scores. The idea of one total score seems cool, but it would be impossible for a newcomer to compete with someone who's been in every single game. So the idea of partitioning seasons seems to be the way to go.
An ongoing concern that has been mentioned time and time again amongst the judges is the possibility of players simply "playing to the rubric". For example, a mafia team NK-ing a high-points Townie so that they can "catch up" and deny him or her points. It has been discussed over and it's really something we have no way of determining. People game the mod all the time in mafia; what is to say people won't game the rubric?
The judges have decided that this isn't really something we can prevent unless it is explicit in practice and brought out into the open. We are trusting that there is a Gentleman's Agreement that play will remain the same regardless of standings so we do not have to deal with this problem.
If the rubric needs to be hidden or scores need to be hidden to prevent this, the Beta League will likely be a failure. In the spirit of fair competition, we have made these changes public and the Judges really have been working non-stop to get this first game scored even though it's been roughly three weeks since Checks & Balances ended.
Yes, I understand that it's "ex post facto". Yes, I understand that certain players determined their style of play based on the original rubric. However, throughout this entire process I have only received one PM about the league since its inception besides requests to add. That single response was nothing more than a note of gratitude for the hard work I'm putting in.
If there is a silent majority here, I have not heard from it. If a majority of the League feels shafted, I have not heard from it as well. All of us are volunteering our time to see if this Beta experiment is something that would be viable in the future. There is no smoke and mirrors here; we are not trying to screw anyone out of points. Every relevant piece of information that the Judges have agreed on has been communicated through this thread. We are being as transparent as possible with this in hopes that it will give us a stronger understanding of what works and what doesn't.
I am not trying to dismiss anyone's concerns here. What I am trying to do is to provide a reflection that this process is still in its crawling stages and even we aren't sure if it's going to walk.
Will there be attrition? Yes, there will be. On both sides, in fact. But, Mafia as a game does go through attrition stages as well. Our goal is to provide League players the best Mafia experience we can deliver. I can assure you, that that part of the game is not in Beta stages. We simply are doing the best we can in a experimental situation.
In all fairness, playing to the rubric is already done. Better players will have higher scores. Scum teams generally kill off better players because better players *catch* scum.
In all fairness, playing to the rubric is already done. Better players will have higher scores. Scum teams generally kill off better players because better players *catch* scum.
As a more-or-less uninformed contributor: Has there been any thought to giving points for being an early scum (mafia or SK) NK target?
An ongoing concern that has been mentioned time and time again amongst the judges is the possibility of players simply "playing to the rubric". For example, a mafia team NK-ing a high-points Townie so that they can "catch up" and deny him or her points. It has been discussed over and it's really something we have no way of determining. People game the mod all the time in mafia; what is to say people won't game the rubric?
Why not give some benefit to townies that get killed early, and possibly offset this dilemma? +3 for being NK night one. +2 for night two and +1 for ensuing nights.
I thought of this during the game. I knew GT was scum. As sure as I could be without confirmation. Now IB I think, was getting lynch, my issue was where to place my vote. I wasn't voting IB so do I put my vote on GT to (hopefully) get those points for voting scum at the end of day? Or leave it on someone that was probably town? This way the scum would see me not voting scum and think I'd pursue that player and leave me alone at night. That did not happen, I got NKd'. The problem with this too is the town would go back and see where my vote laid and might pick that up and pursue said player. So I gambled points away to try and live another day.
In all fairness, playing to the rubric is already done. Better players will have higher scores. Scum teams generally kill off better players because better players *catch* scum.
As a more-or-less uninformed contributor: Has there been any thought to giving points for being an early scum (mafia or SK) NK target?
Lol, nathd'. Has any thought or discussion been on this?
In all fairness, playing to the rubric is already done. Better players will have higher scores. Scum teams generally kill off better players because better players *catch* scum.
As a more-or-less uninformed contributor: Has there been any thought to giving points for being an early scum (mafia or SK) NK target?
An ongoing concern that has been mentioned time and time again amongst the judges is the possibility of players simply "playing to the rubric". For example, a mafia team NK-ing a high-points Townie so that they can "catch up" and deny him or her points. It has been discussed over and it's really something we have no way of determining. People game the mod all the time in mafia; what is to say people won't game the rubric?
Why not give some benefit to townies that get killed early, and possibly offset this dilemma? +3 for being NK night one. +2 for night two and +1 for ensuing nights.
I thought of this during the game. I knew GT was scum. As sure as I could be without confirmation. Now IB I think, was getting lynch, my issue was where to place my vote. I wasn't voting IB so do I put my vote on GT to (hopefully) get those points for voting scum at the end of day? Or leave it on someone that was probably town? This way the scum would see me not voting scum and think I'd pursue that player and leave me alone at night. That did not happen, I got NKd'. The problem with this too is the town would go back and see where my vote laid and might pick that up and pursue said player. So I gambled points away to try and live another day.
I can honestly say that this issue has not come up in our discussions. I will bring it forward to the judges.
I'm going to ask a question, please do not take it the wrong way: Do you understand what beta means?
I am a Software Engineer by profession. I have been a Beta tester for multiple companies in the past. I feel confident I'm well aware of what Beta means.
How is this even possibly beneficial? How will you be able to compare the results under different rubric's to determine that the new way is actually "better" if you keep overwriting the previous scores so that you have nothing to compare against?
You are actually hampering the process this way. If you stuck with the existing rubric, then after the fifth game, and the changes made there, you could compare the results from game 5 under the new rubric against those under the various rubric's from each of the previous 4 games. It's kind of a pointless argument since you can simply go back and look at the posted results from back when you were actually using each of those rubrics. But that's not really the point anyway.
This seems like an issue where we're arguing about the same topic, but from completely different perspectives to the point that we're not really arguing about the same thing at all. As if we're discussing an apple but I keep focusing on the seeds while you focus on the skin. We're arguing about an apple, but our points have no overlap to make them relevant to each other.
I think you're really just misunderstanding the situation. The scoring rubric needs to be malleable while we test it.
I think you misunderstand me. I fully recognize this is a Beta where things are still being worked out. I fully expect the rubric and even other aspects to change as the Beta progresses. I still fail to see why any of it should be, let alone needs to be, applied retroactively.
It's good to talk about rule changes in the judge forum, but better to discuss it here before making any changes.
@Ahylis: I'm sorry you feel that way. We do our best to make you guys happy with the development of the system. Retroactive scoring was put in place to have scores be comparable to later seasons, but they don't have to be like that. And we are keeping in mind pre-change scores for comparison. My point is that no one brought up this issue before. You wanting to leave expresses a lack of confidence in us. That's fine, but it's frustrating because of the effort put forth to translate what you guys want. And you aren't really giving us a chance to fix these issues before leaving.
What we need now is a proposed solution or a few of them and decide which one is best and satisfies most of us. DK has a couple of plausible ones we can discuss.
An ongoing concern that has been mentioned time and time again amongst the judges is the possibility of players simply "playing to the rubric". For example, a mafia team NK-ing a high-points Townie so that they can "catch up" and deny him or her points. It has been discussed over and it's really something we have no way of determining. People game the mod all the time in mafia; what is to say people won't game the rubric?
The judges have decided that this isn't really something we can prevent unless it is explicit in practice and brought out into the open. We are trusting that there is a Gentleman's Agreement that play will remain the same regardless of standings so we do not have to deal with this problem.
I think that is a horrid assumption/expectation.
This is a League, with points that accrue over multiple games, and supposedly a "winner" of the League at the end. Why in the world would you expect people NOT to try to do whatever they can within the posted rules to try to win? Gaming the rubric is perfectly within the rules and should be EXPECTED from those seriously trying to "win" the League.
If a majority of the League feels shafted, I have not heard from it as well.
I don't feel shafted. Not in the sense that I feel my score is unjustified or unfairly low. That doesn't stop me from being very disturbed by the decision to retroactively apply changes to scores that we all earned. There's nothing fair about that even if it is being applied universally. It still punishes anyone that found a gambit based on some specific part of the rubric, only to have their play penalized by a change in the rubric being retroactively applied after the game ends and the judges spot the "flaw" in the rubric, possibly only spotting it BECAUSE the player made it obvious. How is that in any way "fair"?
All of us are volunteering our time to see if this Beta experiment is something that would be viable in the future. There is no smoke and mirrors here; we are not trying to screw anyone out of points.
I honestly don't believe you are maliciously doing so, but you ARE screwing players out of points they legitimately earned and gifting points to others even though their play didn't warrant it based on the rubric the game was being played under.
@Ahylis: I'm sorry you feel that way. We do our best to make you guys happy with the development of the system. Retroactive scoring was put in place to have scores be comparable to later seasons, but they don't have to be like that. And we are keeping in mind pre-change scores for comparison. My point is that no one brought up this issue before. You wanting to leave expresses a lack of confidence in us. That's fine, but it's frustrating because of the effort put forth to translate what you guys want. And you aren't really giving us a chance to fix these issues before leaving.
I honestly do not recall seeing anything before the league started saying that scores would be changed retroactively with each change to the rubric. If it was clearly there, then I apologize profusely and can only offer that I honestly didn't see/understand it. If I had, I would not have joined the league.
I fully expected there to be changes to the scoring as the Beta progressed. I just had no idea those changes would be applied retroactively.
I also don't recall seeing anything about the Beta scores being expected to carry over beyond the Beta. That too makes no sense to me. But if it truly is what is wanted, then retroactive scoring makes more sense. I still strongly disagree with it, but at least I can better understand where it is coming from.
The Pre-season of the League is meant to hammer out any problems that only crop up while playing. Think of it as the 'beta testing' phase. So while your score will have relevance in the future, it will not be guaranteed to be 100% bug free.
I cut and pasted this from Post 2 in this thread. Post 2 was the official Opening Post of the signup sheet.
The Pre-season of the League is meant to hammer out any problems that only crop up while playing. Think of it as the 'beta testing' phase. So while your score will have relevance in the future, it will not be guaranteed to be 100% bug free.
I cut and pasted this from Post 2 in this thread. Post 2 was the official Opening Post of the signup sheet.
Apparently we took "while your score will have relevance in the future, it will not be guaranteed to be 100% bug free" to mean completely different things. All it meant to me was "we will score the players in the Beta League, but the Scores may not be balanced yet, so some strange results may come from it". Apparently to you it meant something completely different.
An ongoing concern that has been mentioned time and time again amongst the judges is the possibility of players simply "playing to the rubric". For example, a mafia team NK-ing a high-points Townie so that they can "catch up" and deny him or her points. It has been discussed over and it's really something we have no way of determining. People game the mod all the time in mafia; what is to say people won't game the rubric?
The judges have decided that this isn't really something we can prevent unless it is explicit in practice and brought out into the open. We are trusting that there is a Gentleman's Agreement that play will remain the same regardless of standings so we do not have to deal with this problem.
I think that is a horrid assumption/expectation.
This is a League, with points that accrue over multiple games, and supposedly a "winner" of the League at the end. Why in the world would you expect people NOT to try to do whatever they can within the posted rules to try to win? Gaming the rubric is perfectly within the rules and should be EXPECTED from those seriously trying to "win" the League.
I definitely agree with you there. We haven't seen any incidents of explicit gaming of the rubric or suceptible parts of it, but I've always argued that the rubric will be abused in any way it can be and we shouldn't try to stop it (it is encouraged). We just want to anticipate that and understand how it works before calling it unfair and rethinking the rules.
If a majority of the League feels shafted, I have not heard from it as well.
I don't feel shafted. Not in the sense that I feel my score is unjustified or unfairly low. That doesn't stop me from being very disturbed by the decision to retroactively apply changes to scores that we all earned. There's nothing fair about that even if it is being applied universally. It still punishes anyone that found a gambit based on some specific part of the rubric, only to have their play penalized by a change in the rubric being retroactively applied after the game ends and the judges spot the "flaw" in the rubric, possibly only spotting it BECAUSE the player made it obvious. How is that in any way "fair"?
this is actually exactly what testing is for: spotting the flaws and glitches before it really counts. If you abuse a glitch in the WoW beta to get infinite gold and ruin the server market, you wouldn't get banned. But you definitely would not keep your infinite gold and the market would be rolled back while they plug the exploit. That's essentially what we are doing. I don't see the problem with this. How would your solution be different? Are you emphasizing score wipes or retroactive scoring? Why does disallowing retroactive scoring change anything if the beta scores don't matter in your view?
All of us are volunteering our time to see if this Beta experiment is something that would be viable in the future. There is no smoke and mirrors here; we are not trying to screw anyone out of points.
I honestly don't believe you are maliciously doing so, but you ARE screwing players out of points they legitimately earned and gifting points to others even though their play didn't warrant it based on the rubric the game was being played under.
If the rubric is broken, we aren't just going to leave it broken. We want to fix it. The issue is how best to fix it. We aren't screwing people out of points and gifting others, we are only measuring play given the only tool we have. I don't have details on what changed and why, but I'm sure KCC can offer some insight.
Again, IT CAN BE CHANGED. No one has decided how these scores are even going to work, let alone how they matter. We want beta scores to matter so we can get people to test them. If we decide later as a community that we are better off starting over and forgetting these scores, that's great. If we decide now that we'd rather have wonky scores in beta that can't be compared under later rubrics, that's fine too. We just want the beta scores to make sense in the context of a current standard rubric and maintain consistency. I get that it opens up integrity issues, but that's why we have gone through such great lengths to minimize failures. When we weighed our options between getting to test and adjust as we go and not really getting to test at all, the former looks better. There may be other ways to do it, but only just now are we even aware of those options. There needs to be time and a process of considering these changes as community.
An ongoing concern that has been mentioned time and time again amongst the judges is the possibility of players simply "playing to the rubric". For example, a mafia team NK-ing a high-points Townie so that they can "catch up" and deny him or her points. It has been discussed over and it's really something we have no way of determining. People game the mod all the time in mafia; what is to say people won't game the rubric?
I'd say if someone is gaining a lot of points in town games, they are doing pretty well in general and thus are a threat.
As a more-or-less uninformed contributor: Has there been any thought to giving points for being an early scum (mafia or SK) NK target?
So far, we've been focused more on fixing the existing system, rather than adding any new things to the rubric. With that said, this is a good idea to balance some issues. -Maybe awarding points to Vanilla Townies who are NKed early would be better? -Since I don't think a cop or doc getting killed N1 is really ideal play for those roles which should be rewarded.
As for the "retroactive" scoring issue:
First, when the original scores were posted, it was made very clear that the numbers weren't final, that discussion was still ongoing regarding several issues, and that they were only being posted then so players could get a rough idea of where they were in the standings.
Secondly, we were very careful to not adjust anything that would have had any effect on the actual gameplay or on players motivations: For survivors, surviving is still rewarded, and dying is still penalized. For Townies, lynching scum is still a good idea. We just slightly bumped the numbers a little.
Also, many of the "changes" to the rubric are actually more like clarifications. When we all originally read and agreed to the old rubric, we each thought it sounded balanced, but we also had different interpretations of how the scoring actually worked in several places.
For example, one judge read the neutral bonus of "+1 for each successful step towards win condition" as meaning "+1 for each night phase reached" for a survivor. One read it as "+1 for each night or day survived" and one as "+1 for each other player that dies." It should go without saying that each of these interpretations leads to a different score. Unfortunately, we didn't stumble upon this issue until post-game, so that is when we discussed it. We finally agreed that some of those resulted in too low scores, and some too high, so we clarified the rubric to officially use one of the higher scoring systems, while also slightly increasing the dying penalty for balance.
A similar issue occurred with the Townie scoring rules regarding the +2 for votes on scum and the +3 for scum lynches and whether those bonuses should stack to make a +5 or if only the +3 should apply. And again, we found that the middle ground of +4 actually worked best.
As for why the fixes needs to be applied "retroactively", the only other option is to throw the game out of the season entirely, and that seems silly, since this is a beta-season and correcting the system is one of the main things we are trying to do here. -We obviously couldn't just leave the old scores in place for only this game, and then score the remaining 5 games under the adjusted rubric. -Partly, because the old system wasn't clear enough to actually function and some original scores were assigned using different interpretations of the same rule; and partly because, if those scores were maintained, then whoever scored well in this game would have a huge advantage over everyone else, whose future games would be played with slightly reduced scores, and the rest of the season would be of questionable fairness at best.
-I hope this addresses your main concerns. We are working hard to get everything in working order, and maintaining the integrity of the scores is our top priority.
I'm not sure how fair it is to change the scoring we were all playing by AFTER the game ends, but I suppose I'm in the minority there. Still, I've never heard of any other contest doing anything of the sort. Changing the rules going forward? Sure. Changing the rules and applying them retroactively against people? Never!
I say that as my honest opinion. It truly has nothing to do with my score. My score went from 11 (by my calculations) down to 9, but the top score went from 16 down to 14, so the scoring change had no effect on how far behind the leaders I am.
And I have absolutely no problem with the scoring rubric being changed as necessary for the benefit of the League. I just have a problem with those changes being applied retroactively after people played an entire game thinking they were working on one set of rules, only to then have them changed after the fact.
It completely erodes any confidence going forward. How am I supposed to gear my play around trying to win the league when I have no assurance that the actions I take which "should" score me X amount of points won't be retroactively changed once the game ends to instead LOSE me X points?!?!
This argument might hold weight if the manner in which you earned points changed, but if you've noticed, we've also opened up additional avenues of scoring, which we felt reflected natural game state progression. However, I believe Megiddo phrased it the most eloquently:
I also remember explicitly saying that we would be tinkering with the rubric throughout the season for testing. Don't be upset! Retroactive changes in the beta season is a benefit to you. The alternative is not scoring at all, or throwing out your scores later, and no one wants that.
@Ahylis: What you're arguing is that we should honor your 50% off of roast beef coupon when we no longer sell roast beef. Seriously dude, I think you're overreacting a bit. We're not making retroactive changes, as the scores for Round 1 were initially not finalized. You're trying to play a PS3 game on a PS2. And the point of posting the rubric is for transparency and so that players understand why they get the score they do - if you want to be totally left in the dark as to how to achieve the most points in the League, then we can remove the rubric from sight, but I get the feeling you'd be the first to demand to see the rubric so you would know how to optimize your play accordingly.
So, tl;dr: Please,
As we said, this is the Beta League. We're working out the kinks and you should expect things to change, whether or not they bend to your whim, and we're all doing the best we can.
@DRey: We're not changing the rules. That's not even relatively close to what we're doing.
Does everyone participating in the League right now understand that we need everything to be current and optimal to best actualize the rubric and the way the games are structured and everything in order to maximize fun and fairness in the future seasons that actually count for something? I feel like we're a broken record, but this is a BETA League. B. E. T. A.
The points for Checks and Balances existed ONLY for the purpose of determining if the current set of points was fair and balanced.
I fully agree that retroactive changes should be, at the very least, put to a vote when the real League begins, but while in beta I don't think fighting about it will help anyone.
But...we're not making retroactive changes in future seasons. This is the testing grounds. We're getting the kinks out NOW so that we don't HAVE to do this in the actual seasons of the League.
If the points do count for the actual league and I was mistaken, then I fully agree with Ahlyis.
No, this doesn't give us a fair idea of how balanced the rubric is, then. You're asking us to do a LOT more than needs to be done to have to keep track of multiple scores within a season for a player.
In all fairness, playing to the rubric is already done. Better players will have higher scores. Scum teams generally kill off better players because better players *catch* scum.
As a more-or-less uninformed contributor: Has there been any thought to giving points for being an early scum (mafia or SK) NK target?
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
One thing I'm concerned about is that players might change their behaviour to fit with what earns them more points, even if that is something they might normally not do.
There's not much we can do about that, Cy, except shake a finger and scowl at the players who do since we've established it's against the spirit of the League to do so.
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
One thing I'm concerned about is that players might change their behaviour to fit with what earns them more points, even if that is something they might normally not do.
When we agreed to this rubric, we tried to make scores mimic natural play as much as possible, and were very careful to avoid anything that might cause people to jump through hoops for points. -If there is a specific point bonus you feel could cause this issue, please highlight which and how so we that can directly address it.
As for the "retroactive" scoring issue:
First, when the original scores were posted, it was made very clear that the numbers weren't final, that discussion was still ongoing regarding several issues, and that they were only being posted then so players could get a rough idea of where they were in the standings.
Seriously dude, I think you're overreacting a bit. We're not making retroactive changes, as the scores for Round 1 were initially not finalized.
You both have completely misunderstood what retroactive scoring changes are. I'm not talking about changing the originally posted scores. That is NOT the issue at all.
I'm complaining that one rubric was given for the game, and the entire game was played under that rubric, then, once the game ended, we were told the rubric was being changed and our scores for the game would be calculated under the new rubric. We all played the game and were calculating our own scores based on one rubric, then, you yanked the rug out from under us and gave us scores based on a rubric we had no way of playing towards.
Secondly, we were very careful to not adjust anything that would have had any effect on the actual gameplay or on players motivations: For survivors, surviving is still rewarded, and dying is still penalized. For Townies, lynching scum is still a good idea. We just slightly bumped the numbers a little.
How can you even say that with a straight face? ANY change to the rubric might have affected game play. My whole early survivor claim was partially predicated on the info I was given about how my role would be scored!
For example, one judge read the neutral bonus of "+1 for each successful step towards win condition" as meaning "+1 for each night phase reached" for a survivor. One read it as "+1 for each night or day survived" and one as "+1 for each other player that dies." It should go without saying that each of these interpretations leads to a different score. Unfortunately, we didn't stumble upon this issue until post-game, so that is when we discussed it.
Up until now I had been accepting the truth of what I was being told, even if I did not agree with it. But this is just a flat out lie!
Do I need to quote my PMs from Ganderin again? I asked him specifically about this and was told that it was being discussed and then was told that it was decided to be per person killed and that he would update me if that changed. Why are you now claiming it was never discussed? Who should I believe?
Better still, given it is obvious someone is flat out lying, why should I even care?
Ahlyis. Please explain to me how "surviving the most phases" is vastly different from "outliving the most players", given that you had no way to direct the scum Nightkill or the Vig?
Because I am honestly not seeing how you would have had to dramatically alter the way you played this game like you're seeming to claim.
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
One thing I'm concerned about is that players might change their behaviour to fit with what earns them more points, even if that is something they might normally not do.
When we agreed to this rubric, we tried to make scores mimic natural play as much as possible, and were very careful to avoid anything that might cause people to jump through hoops for points. -If there is a specific point bonus you feel could cause this issue, please highlight which and how so we that can directly address it.
Well, off the top of my head I look at the rubric and see:
Townie Scoring System:
+1 point for every scum death they did not take part in, but were alive for.
+2 points for each unsuccessful or successful end-of-day vote against a mafia or SK (does not supersede -2.5 penalty - you get both).
Mafia scoring system:
+1 point for every non-mafia lynch they participate in.
So my first thoughts are that town will get the highest number of points not by voting to lynch scum, but by voting someone who is scum and watching scum be lynched. That will get them an additional point for each time that happens.
This could also be a problem in a deadline scenario, where people don't want to lynch someone to avoid a no-lynch for the reasons of a) they'll lose points if that person's town and b) they'll lose points if they unvote scum to do so.
Similarly, for mafia, I can see mafia turning around and trying to get extra points by being on each town wagon they can.
Ahlyis. Please explain to me how "surviving the most phases" is vastly different from "outliving the most players", given that you had no way to direct the scum Nightkill or the Vig?
Because I am honestly not seeing how you would have had to dramatically alter the way you played this game like you're seeming to claim.
Are you intentionally trying to bait me? I ask because I honestly can't see any other reason for this post.
I asked him specifically about this and was told that it was being discussed and then was told that it was decided to be per person killed and that he would update me if that changed. Why are you now claiming it was never discussed? Who should I believe?
Hmm...I just went back to look this up, and there was some discussion regarding this issue pregame. Sorry. -Just so you know, I wasn't lying when I made my previous post, I was simply unaware. -I wasn't directly involved in that discussion at the time as there were no neutrals in my player pool. I guess I should have said that this issue wasn't seen by me until post-game. -However, this also changes my opinion regarding our fix. Please hold, momentarily.
So my first thoughts are that town will get the highest number of points not by voting to lynch scum, but by voting someone who is scum and watching scum be lynched. That will get them an additional point for each time that happens.
+1 for seeing scum lynch and +2 for vote on scum = +3
+4 for lynching scum = +4
This could also be a problem in a deadline scenario, where people don't want to lynch someone to avoid a no-lynch for the reasons of a) they'll lose points if that person's town and b) they'll lose points if they unvote scum to do so.
Then they should be more persuasive in getting players to vote the scum. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve the points for it. Also, if they think a no lynch will hurt the Town's chance of winning, then they need to decide if taking a penalty for lynching a townie is worth it for a better shot at getting the bonus for winning. -It's the same situation a townie faces in an unscored game, "is it worth lynching someone I think is Town to avoid a no lynch and hopefully win later."
Similarly, for mafia, I can see mafia turning around and trying to get extra points by being on each town wagon they can.
Again, that's risk vs. reward. If they jump on every town wagon, sure they get a few quick points for that, but they also probably get lynched and reduce their odds of getting the win bonus. -Same situation a scum faces in unscored games. Yes, throwing your vote on a wagon immediately helps by killing a townie, but the long term consequences of how it affects the odds of winning also need to be considered.
Are you intentionally trying to bait me? I ask because I honestly can't see any other reason for this post.
While I now think that we may need to reconsider some things about our solution here, Iso is still absolutely right in that the difference is barely more than semantics anyway.
So far, we've been focused more on fixing the existing system, rather than adding any new things to the rubric. With that said, this is a good idea to balance some issues. -Maybe awarding points to Vanilla Townies who are NKed early would be better? -Since I don't think a cop or doc getting killed N1 is really ideal play for those roles which should be rewarded.
Vanilla shouldn't have anything to do with it. If your a cop or doc and are playing well and look to be nailing scum and get NKd first thing you should get points. If your playing badly and have to claim then I can see no points being awarded.
I just think if you get NKd you should get points and those points decrease as the nights go on. If you want to add a penalty for claiming then fine. But theres also the chance of a power role false claiming vanilla or something to take into account.
The judges do the right thing and all they get in exchange is hostility. What the hell.
If the scores aren't retroactively changed according to the new rubrics, then how do we estimate if the final rubric is fair, pray tell?
Can you imagine the Magic playtest teams not making any change to the future cards, because if they do some decks in the Future Future League will no longer be relevant?
Oh, I'm sure in both cases the players will be completely fine with their meaningless final scores, and their new sets filled with skullclamps and mudholes.
Again, I have to ask: what the hell?
I know this is off-topic, but ZDS, this is like a beautiful rant haiku and I'm glad I read it.
So my first thoughts are that town will get the highest number of points not by voting to lynch scum, but by voting someone who is scum and watching scum be lynched. That will get them an additional point for each time that happens.
+1 for seeing scum lynch and +2 for vote on scum = +3
+4 for lynching scum = +4
This could also be a problem in a deadline scenario, where people don't want to lynch someone to avoid a no-lynch for the reasons of a) they'll lose points if that person's town and b) they'll lose points if they unvote scum to do so.
Then they should be more persuasive in getting players to vote the scum. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve the points for it. Also, if they think a no lynch will hurt the Town's chance of winning, then they need to decide if taking a penalty for lynching a townie is worth it for a better shot at getting the bonus for winning. -It's the same situation a townie faces in an unscored game, "is it worth lynching someone I think is Town to avoid a no lynch and hopefully win later."
Similarly, for mafia, I can see mafia turning around and trying to get extra points by being on each town wagon they can.
Again, that's risk vs. reward. If they jump on every town wagon, sure they get a few quick points for that, but they also probably get lynched and reduce their odds of getting the win bonus. -Same situation a scum faces in unscored games. Yes, throwing your vote on a wagon immediately helps by killing a townie, but the long term consequences of how it affects the odds of winning also need to be considered.
If the scores aren't retroactively changed according to the new rubrics, then how do we estimate if the final rubric is fair, pray tell?
By comparing the scores from the earlier games, played under the older rubric against the scores from the new game played under the new rubric? How else?
I mean, if they REALLY want to see the difference, they should be scoring every game under BOTH (all?) rubrics. THAT would give them the best basis for comparison. But even then I don't think they should be presenting the players with both (or all) sets of scores. The scores given to the players should be the scores THEY ACTUALLY EARNED. We played Game 1 under one set of scoring rules. Those rules should be used for our "official" scores from game 1. Change the rules all you want then and apply the new rules going forward. Compile multiple scoreboards using each of the different rubrics so that you get the best picture. But the "official" scores should be from the list that scores each game according to the rubric it was played under.
I really don't see how anything else can even be considered (though obviously it is).
Can you imagine the Magic playtest teams not making any change to the future cards, because if they do some decks in the Future Future League will no longer be relevant?
You mean that in the Magic playtesting, when they decide to make a change to a card they go back to completed test games and apply the new wording of the card to those completed games and then tell the players involved whether they still won that game or not? They don't just make those cards different for the NEXT round of games to be played, but they actually go back and alter the outcome of already played games? My GOD, I had no idea they were doing that!
Okay, haven't checked in for a while. But, I have some bookkeeping news.
There was discussion of doing a Mini over the holidays. However, the holidays are nearly halfway over. So, in effect, we are declaring a hiatus on games until after the holidays. We will still be working though. We will be hammering out the issues of "old rubric vs. new rubric" as well as trying to implement some player suggestions.
So fear not, while you wait for Santa to deliver your presents, your Mafia League Judges will be working hard during the hiatus.
You want us to compare the most recent rubric with the former rubrics that we know weren't fair. This sounds like a good idea. Then we can discover the former rubrics weren't fair. Who knew? It'll be a surprise every time.
Sarcasm aside (I'm better at it than you by the way), I think you somehow not realise that no matter which rubric is used, the rankings for the players aren't going to change; with one exception: the players who were ranked unfairly by a former rubric (eg: survivors in the first rubric). And these are supposed to move up or down the ladder.
In the end it doesn't matter if the winner of the league won with ten points, a hundred points or a thousand points. What matters is that he or she deserved to win because of his or her performance, not thanks to a bad rubric.
Also keep in mind, the rubric is meant to adapt to good play, not the other way around.
And again, why should we go through all this process you described just to learn what we already know?
You obviously don't understand my point. I don't know if you're doing so intentionally just to be confrontational or if you honestly don't "get" what I'm saying, but either way I'm not going to continue this discussion.
Everyone but me thinks it's wonderful. Great. Enjoy. I honestly do hope you all have a wonderful time with it.
Arnnaria, please remove me from the league. I'm not getting anything but flak here and I don't see any indication that anything will change and I honestly cannot stand retroactive scoring. So please just remove me from the league. I will send this request to you via PM as well.
I don't want to leave without saying that I think the League is a great idea. I like the concept. I think it adds another dimension to Mafia play.
Once the "Beta" is over and the scoring rubric is finalized I will consider joining the regular League when it starts up. A lot will depend on assurances that any further rules tinkering will not EVER or in ANY WAY be applied retroactively, no matter how egregious the flaw is. If we can get that (which is no more than any other competition promises), then I'll likely want to join again, if I'm allowed to.
Until then, I really do hope those that remain enjoy this Beta League.
I don't want to leave without saying that I think the League is a great idea. I like the concept. I think it adds another dimension to Mafia play.
Once the "Beta" is over and the scoring rubric is finalized I will consider joining the regular League when it starts up. A lot will depend on assurances that any further rules tinkering will not EVER or in ANY WAY be applied retroactively, no matter how egregious the flaw is. If we can get that (which is no more than any other competition promises), then I'll likely want to join again, if I'm allowed to.
Until then, I really do hope those that remain enjoy this Beta League.
If you really think that the regular league is considered an appropriate setting for further rule clarification, then you completely missed the whole point of our discussion.
You will always be eligible to rejoin the league, barring any player integrity incidents within the league games. I hope you do change your mind and come back, because we could use critical feedback during the league's infancy so we can hone it as early as possible.
If you really think that the regular league is considered an appropriate setting for further rule clarification, then you completely missed the whole point of our discussion.
I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that if a major flaw in the rules/scoring rubric is found after the Beta is over and a regular league is running that it WON'T be addressed? Ever?
Even the NFL doesn't ignore changes to their rules when necessary. If something needs clarified/changed, they do it. It doesn't happen often, but it DOES happen. What they do NOT do though is apply those changes retroactively.
Let me give a different example from the real world...
Several years back Nascar had rules regarding the weight of the car being the same at the start of the race as when the car was weighed pre-race (or something like that). But one enterprising team gained an advantage by including wheel weights on the set of wheels they would start the race with. At the first pitstop they would change all 4 tires, regardless how many laps in that was, and put on tires without all the extra weight from wheel weights, effectively lightening their car and making it faster.
When Nascar discovered this they immediately set about modifying the rules to make that gambit illegal going forward even though it was mid-season. Did they retroactively punish the team for a rule that didn't exist at the time? Did they punish the team for finding a loophole and exploiting it? Did they do anything to the team other than closing the loophole they were abusing? No. Nascar fixed the problem and moved on without handing out any penalties or trying to retroactively adjust anyone's points standings.
If a problem were discovered during the regular league, I would expect something similar. A rule change made and applied going forward, but NOT being enforced retroactively.
My problem is that I believe that is how it should ALWAYS be handled, not just after the Beta is done. I don't understand why everyone else seems to think the Beta "needs" to be handled differently.
But what if we can apply these changes without making wild guesses? What if instead of looking for who wins a car race right then and there, we were applying after the fact a rubric to a game now set in stone? What if that rubric had absolutely no bearing on who won the game, unlike your weighted wheel example?
Please tell me you don't honestly believe that crap. I have a really hard time believing you are at all serious here and aren't just trying to troll me. No bearing? What the hell are you talking about? Did or did not scores change? Are there or are there not now a different amount of points between some players than there were before the change?
How can you even try to pass that off as having no bearing on the outcome? The League isn't even close to done yet. How can you possibly say that it hasn't/won't affect the eventual winner?
Ahlyis, your comparison would stand if the changes in the rubric somehow resulted in changes in the victors of the game; like if it was decided anyone with less than 50 game posts is considered to have lost (and penalised in their score) even if their team won. Then yes, you would be entirely correct that applying this penalty retroactively is completely unjust.
Now you're just trolling. I'm convinced.
The League has only had one of 6 games and already player's positions have been shifted about by these retroactive score changes. That you're trying to say they haven't, when they quite obviously have, is just ridiculous.
Define "best play" in terms of a League game. I guarantee you different people will have different ideas of what it means.
Define "best play" in terms of a Mafia game. I guarantee you different people will have similar ideas of what it means.
If there was any doubt left whether you are just trolling or not, this just removed it.
Arguments arise all the time over what the "best play" is. Should you claim early as a Miller? Should you reveal a Scum result as a Cop on Day 2, or wait and try to get more results before having to claim? Is lurker voting a legitimate strategy? Is reaction trolling a "good" gambit to use? How often?
Do you need me to provide even more examples? People disagree about what the "best play" is ALL THE TIME.
You mean that in the Magic playtesting, when they decide to make a change to a card they go back to completed test games and apply the new wording of the card to those completed games and then tell the players involved whether they still won that game or not? They don't just make those cards different for the NEXT round of games to be played, but they actually go back and alter the outcome of already played games? My GOD, I had no idea they were doing that!
In that case, I withdraw all my complaints!
/sarcasm
No, they playtest. Which is what the Beta season is: Playtesting.
Even the NFL doesn't ignore changes to their rules when necessary. If something needs clarified/changed, they do it. It doesn't happen often, but it DOES happen. What they do NOT do though is apply those changes retroactively.
They also can't re-do games from a specific point onward.
Quote from Ahlyis »
Let me give a different example from the real world...
Several years back Nascar had rules regarding the weight of the car being the same at the start of the race as when the car was weighed pre-race (or something like that). But one enterprising team gained an advantage by including wheel weights on the set of wheels they would start the race with. At the first pitstop they would change all 4 tires, regardless how many laps in that was, and put on tires without all the extra weight from wheel weights, effectively lightening their car and making it faster.
When Nascar discovered this they immediately set about modifying the rules to make that gambit illegal going forward even though it was mid-season. Did they retroactively punish the team for a rule that didn't exist at the time? Did they punish the team for finding a loophole and exploiting it? Did they do anything to the team other than closing the loophole they were abusing? No. Nascar fixed the problem and moved on without handing out any penalties or trying to retroactively adjust anyone's points standings.
If a problem were discovered during the regular league, I would expect something similar. A rule change made and applied going forward, but NOT being enforced retroactively.
My problem is that I believe that is how it should ALWAYS be handled, not just after the Beta is done. I don't understand why everyone else seems to think the Beta "needs" to be handled differently.
Yeah, but it's not someone "finding a loophole", it's us "finding a major glaring flaw in the score system".
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
This is a BETA league. To get worked up over the rubic system, points, that is not going to matter at the end of the BETA league is not worth it.
The league is serisouly for the fun of it. Even after the BETA protion ends this league is still going to be for the fun of it. Personally, I don't care what I score. I find the importance of receiving feedback on my play to be worth more than the rubic system. I'm sure that I am not speaking just for myself here either.
Aside from the delays and the handling of the rubic system (I don't have an issues with either) the league seems to be doing just fine. I don't like hearing that the judges are going to be busying ironing out details over upcoming Holidays, but if the judges don't have an issues doing so, then have a blast I say!
Ahylis:
As you probably know, this post is directed somewhat at you, but not fully. I do believe you are overreacting to the league rubic system and how the judges are handling the rubic system. If you wish to leave the league over something trivial, then go ahed. I'm not going to stop you. I just don't want to you to overreact and then regret your choice in the end.
Define "best play" in terms of a League game. I guarantee you different people will have different ideas of what it means.
Define "best play" in terms of a Mafia game. I guarantee you different people will have similar ideas of what it means.
If there was any doubt left whether you are just trolling or not, this just removed it.
Arguments arise all the time over what the "best play" is. Should you claim early as a Miller? Should you reveal a Scum result as a Cop on Day 2, or wait and try to get more results before having to claim? Is lurker voting a legitimate strategy? Is reaction trolling a "good" gambit to use? How often?
Do you need me to provide even more examples? People disagree about what the "best play" is ALL THE TIME.
Can you agree that in this context the "best player" can be defined as the one who completed the most steps towards their win condition?
I mean, if they REALLY want to see the difference, they should be scoring every game under BOTH (all?) rubrics. THAT would give them the best basis for comparison. But even then I don't think they should be presenting the players with both (or all) sets of scores. The scores given to the players should be the scores THEY ACTUALLY EARNED. We played Game 1 under one set of scoring rules. Those rules should be used for our "official" scores from game 1. Change the rules all you want then and apply the new rules going forward. Compile multiple scoreboards using each of the different rubrics so that you get the best picture. But the "official" scores should be from the list that scores each game according to the rubric it was played under.
I really don't see how anything else can even be considered (though obviously it is).
You still seem to be missing the fact that there aren't two functional rubrics: there is the original ambiguous mess, which judges tried using for the provisional scores, awarding different point amounts to different players for the exact same action because of differing interpretations; and then, there is the cleaned-up rubric, which was used to rescore players uniformly and fairly for the finalized scores.
We couldn't just leave the provisional scores alone, because players had received different points for the same actions, and that is horribly unfair. And we also couldn't just rescore the game uniformly using that original rubric, because it was ambiguous, didn't work, and we couldn't agree on how many points some players should earn while using it. So, we did what we could do; we clarified the rubric as best we could while maintaining it's original balance and intent, and then we rescored everyone fairly and uniformly.
I do believe you are overreacting to the league rubic system and how the judges are handling the rubic system. If you wish to leave the league over something trivial, then go ahed.
Can you agree that in this context the "best player" can be defined as the one who completed the most steps towards their win condition?
Absolutely NOT! No way, not even close.
I personally would think that the "best player" was the one that did the most towards helping his team win, whether he lived to the end or died on the first day. I'm also certain others will have different measures of who the "best player" was or how to determine him/her.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just a pigment of your imagination.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While the beta is in effect, don't publish the rubric or current points of any players. It can all be done behind the scenes and tweaked until the judges decide they have the rubric balanced. At that point, they wipe the scores clean, announce the beginning of Season 1, and publish the now balanced rubric.
If the points do count for the actual league and I was mistaken, then I fully agree with Ahlyis.
We (the community) haven't really decided how to implement the beta scores in the future yet. My vision is the above example, but I'm sure there are other good ideas on how to handle it and future season scores. The idea of one total score seems cool, but it would be impossible for a newcomer to compete with someone who's been in every single game. So the idea of partitioning seasons seems to be the way to go.
The judges have decided that this isn't really something we can prevent unless it is explicit in practice and brought out into the open. We are trusting that there is a Gentleman's Agreement that play will remain the same regardless of standings so we do not have to deal with this problem.
If the rubric needs to be hidden or scores need to be hidden to prevent this, the Beta League will likely be a failure. In the spirit of fair competition, we have made these changes public and the Judges really have been working non-stop to get this first game scored even though it's been roughly three weeks since Checks & Balances ended.
Yes, I understand that it's "ex post facto". Yes, I understand that certain players determined their style of play based on the original rubric. However, throughout this entire process I have only received one PM about the league since its inception besides requests to add. That single response was nothing more than a note of gratitude for the hard work I'm putting in.
If there is a silent majority here, I have not heard from it. If a majority of the League feels shafted, I have not heard from it as well. All of us are volunteering our time to see if this Beta experiment is something that would be viable in the future. There is no smoke and mirrors here; we are not trying to screw anyone out of points. Every relevant piece of information that the Judges have agreed on has been communicated through this thread. We are being as transparent as possible with this in hopes that it will give us a stronger understanding of what works and what doesn't.
I am not trying to dismiss anyone's concerns here. What I am trying to do is to provide a reflection that this process is still in its crawling stages and even we aren't sure if it's going to walk.
Will there be attrition? Yes, there will be. On both sides, in fact. But, Mafia as a game does go through attrition stages as well. Our goal is to provide League players the best Mafia experience we can deliver. I can assure you, that that part of the game is not in Beta stages. We simply are doing the best we can in a experimental situation.
As a more-or-less uninformed contributor: Has there been any thought to giving points for being an early scum (mafia or SK) NK target?
Why not give some benefit to townies that get killed early, and possibly offset this dilemma? +3 for being NK night one. +2 for night two and +1 for ensuing nights.
I thought of this during the game. I knew GT was scum. As sure as I could be without confirmation. Now IB I think, was getting lynch, my issue was where to place my vote. I wasn't voting IB so do I put my vote on GT to (hopefully) get those points for voting scum at the end of day? Or leave it on someone that was probably town? This way the scum would see me not voting scum and think I'd pursue that player and leave me alone at night. That did not happen, I got NKd'. The problem with this too is the town would go back and see where my vote laid and might pick that up and pursue said player. So I gambled points away to try and live another day.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Lol, nathd'. Has any thought or discussion been on this?
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I can honestly say that this issue has not come up in our discussions. I will bring it forward to the judges.
I am a Software Engineer by profession. I have been a Beta tester for multiple companies in the past. I feel confident I'm well aware of what Beta means.
How is this even possibly beneficial? How will you be able to compare the results under different rubric's to determine that the new way is actually "better" if you keep overwriting the previous scores so that you have nothing to compare against?
You are actually hampering the process this way. If you stuck with the existing rubric, then after the fifth game, and the changes made there, you could compare the results from game 5 under the new rubric against those under the various rubric's from each of the previous 4 games. It's kind of a pointless argument since you can simply go back and look at the posted results from back when you were actually using each of those rubrics. But that's not really the point anyway.
This seems like an issue where we're arguing about the same topic, but from completely different perspectives to the point that we're not really arguing about the same thing at all. As if we're discussing an apple but I keep focusing on the seeds while you focus on the skin. We're arguing about an apple, but our points have no overlap to make them relevant to each other.
I think you misunderstand me. I fully recognize this is a Beta where things are still being worked out. I fully expect the rubric and even other aspects to change as the Beta progresses. I still fail to see why any of it should be, let alone needs to be, applied retroactively.
Sadly, it sound like I'm going to need to do this.
@Ahylis: I'm sorry you feel that way. We do our best to make you guys happy with the development of the system. Retroactive scoring was put in place to have scores be comparable to later seasons, but they don't have to be like that. And we are keeping in mind pre-change scores for comparison. My point is that no one brought up this issue before. You wanting to leave expresses a lack of confidence in us. That's fine, but it's frustrating because of the effort put forth to translate what you guys want. And you aren't really giving us a chance to fix these issues before leaving.
What we need now is a proposed solution or a few of them and decide which one is best and satisfies most of us. DK has a couple of plausible ones we can discuss.
I think that is a horrid assumption/expectation.
This is a League, with points that accrue over multiple games, and supposedly a "winner" of the League at the end. Why in the world would you expect people NOT to try to do whatever they can within the posted rules to try to win? Gaming the rubric is perfectly within the rules and should be EXPECTED from those seriously trying to "win" the League.
I don't feel shafted. Not in the sense that I feel my score is unjustified or unfairly low. That doesn't stop me from being very disturbed by the decision to retroactively apply changes to scores that we all earned. There's nothing fair about that even if it is being applied universally. It still punishes anyone that found a gambit based on some specific part of the rubric, only to have their play penalized by a change in the rubric being retroactively applied after the game ends and the judges spot the "flaw" in the rubric, possibly only spotting it BECAUSE the player made it obvious. How is that in any way "fair"?
I honestly don't believe you are maliciously doing so, but you ARE screwing players out of points they legitimately earned and gifting points to others even though their play didn't warrant it based on the rubric the game was being played under.
I honestly do not recall seeing anything before the league started saying that scores would be changed retroactively with each change to the rubric. If it was clearly there, then I apologize profusely and can only offer that I honestly didn't see/understand it. If I had, I would not have joined the league.
I fully expected there to be changes to the scoring as the Beta progressed. I just had no idea those changes would be applied retroactively.
I also don't recall seeing anything about the Beta scores being expected to carry over beyond the Beta. That too makes no sense to me. But if it truly is what is wanted, then retroactive scoring makes more sense. I still strongly disagree with it, but at least I can better understand where it is coming from.
I cut and pasted this from Post 2 in this thread. Post 2 was the official Opening Post of the signup sheet.
Apparently we took "while your score will have relevance in the future, it will not be guaranteed to be 100% bug free" to mean completely different things. All it meant to me was "we will score the players in the Beta League, but the Scores may not be balanced yet, so some strange results may come from it". Apparently to you it meant something completely different.
I definitely agree with you there. We haven't seen any incidents of explicit gaming of the rubric or suceptible parts of it, but I've always argued that the rubric will be abused in any way it can be and we shouldn't try to stop it (it is encouraged). We just want to anticipate that and understand how it works before calling it unfair and rethinking the rules.
this is actually exactly what testing is for: spotting the flaws and glitches before it really counts. If you abuse a glitch in the WoW beta to get infinite gold and ruin the server market, you wouldn't get banned. But you definitely would not keep your infinite gold and the market would be rolled back while they plug the exploit. That's essentially what we are doing. I don't see the problem with this. How would your solution be different? Are you emphasizing score wipes or retroactive scoring? Why does disallowing retroactive scoring change anything if the beta scores don't matter in your view?
If the rubric is broken, we aren't just going to leave it broken. We want to fix it. The issue is how best to fix it. We aren't screwing people out of points and gifting others, we are only measuring play given the only tool we have. I don't have details on what changed and why, but I'm sure KCC can offer some insight.
Again, IT CAN BE CHANGED. No one has decided how these scores are even going to work, let alone how they matter. We want beta scores to matter so we can get people to test them. If we decide later as a community that we are better off starting over and forgetting these scores, that's great. If we decide now that we'd rather have wonky scores in beta that can't be compared under later rubrics, that's fine too. We just want the beta scores to make sense in the context of a current standard rubric and maintain consistency. I get that it opens up integrity issues, but that's why we have gone through such great lengths to minimize failures. When we weighed our options between getting to test and adjust as we go and not really getting to test at all, the former looks better. There may be other ways to do it, but only just now are we even aware of those options. There needs to be time and a process of considering these changes as community.
I'd say if someone is gaining a lot of points in town games, they are doing pretty well in general and thus are a threat.
So far, we've been focused more on fixing the existing system, rather than adding any new things to the rubric. With that said, this is a good idea to balance some issues. -Maybe awarding points to Vanilla Townies who are NKed early would be better? -Since I don't think a cop or doc getting killed N1 is really ideal play for those roles which should be rewarded.
As for the "retroactive" scoring issue:
First, when the original scores were posted, it was made very clear that the numbers weren't final, that discussion was still ongoing regarding several issues, and that they were only being posted then so players could get a rough idea of where they were in the standings.
Secondly, we were very careful to not adjust anything that would have had any effect on the actual gameplay or on players motivations: For survivors, surviving is still rewarded, and dying is still penalized. For Townies, lynching scum is still a good idea. We just slightly bumped the numbers a little.
Also, many of the "changes" to the rubric are actually more like clarifications. When we all originally read and agreed to the old rubric, we each thought it sounded balanced, but we also had different interpretations of how the scoring actually worked in several places.
For example, one judge read the neutral bonus of "+1 for each successful step towards win condition" as meaning "+1 for each night phase reached" for a survivor. One read it as "+1 for each night or day survived" and one as "+1 for each other player that dies." It should go without saying that each of these interpretations leads to a different score. Unfortunately, we didn't stumble upon this issue until post-game, so that is when we discussed it. We finally agreed that some of those resulted in too low scores, and some too high, so we clarified the rubric to officially use one of the higher scoring systems, while also slightly increasing the dying penalty for balance.
A similar issue occurred with the Townie scoring rules regarding the +2 for votes on scum and the +3 for scum lynches and whether those bonuses should stack to make a +5 or if only the +3 should apply. And again, we found that the middle ground of +4 actually worked best.
As for why the fixes needs to be applied "retroactively", the only other option is to throw the game out of the season entirely, and that seems silly, since this is a beta-season and correcting the system is one of the main things we are trying to do here. -We obviously couldn't just leave the old scores in place for only this game, and then score the remaining 5 games under the adjusted rubric. -Partly, because the old system wasn't clear enough to actually function and some original scores were assigned using different interpretations of the same rule; and partly because, if those scores were maintained, then whoever scored well in this game would have a huge advantage over everyone else, whose future games would be played with slightly reduced scores, and the rest of the season would be of questionable fairness at best.
-I hope this addresses your main concerns. We are working hard to get everything in working order, and maintaining the integrity of the scores is our top priority.
This argument might hold weight if the manner in which you earned points changed, but if you've noticed, we've also opened up additional avenues of scoring, which we felt reflected natural game state progression. However, I believe Megiddo phrased it the most eloquently:
@Ahylis: What you're arguing is that we should honor your 50% off of roast beef coupon when we no longer sell roast beef. Seriously dude, I think you're overreacting a bit. We're not making retroactive changes, as the scores for Round 1 were initially not finalized. You're trying to play a PS3 game on a PS2. And the point of posting the rubric is for transparency and so that players understand why they get the score they do - if you want to be totally left in the dark as to how to achieve the most points in the League, then we can remove the rubric from sight, but I get the feeling you'd be the first to demand to see the rubric so you would know how to optimize your play accordingly.
So, tl;dr: Please,
As we said, this is the Beta League. We're working out the kinks and you should expect things to change, whether or not they bend to your whim, and we're all doing the best we can.
@DRey: We're not changing the rules. That's not even relatively close to what we're doing.
Does everyone participating in the League right now understand that we need everything to be current and optimal to best actualize the rubric and the way the games are structured and everything in order to maximize fun and fairness in the future seasons that actually count for something? I feel like we're a broken record, but this is a BETA League. B. E. T. A.
But...we're not making retroactive changes in future seasons. This is the testing grounds. We're getting the kinks out NOW so that we don't HAVE to do this in the actual seasons of the League.
No, this doesn't give us a fair idea of how balanced the rubric is, then. You're asking us to do a LOT more than needs to be done to have to keep track of multiple scores within a season for a player.
We're discussing it now, actually.
Also, what KCC said.
{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
When we agreed to this rubric, we tried to make scores mimic natural play as much as possible, and were very careful to avoid anything that might cause people to jump through hoops for points. -If there is a specific point bonus you feel could cause this issue, please highlight which and how so we that can directly address it.
You both have completely misunderstood what retroactive scoring changes are. I'm not talking about changing the originally posted scores. That is NOT the issue at all.
I'm complaining that one rubric was given for the game, and the entire game was played under that rubric, then, once the game ended, we were told the rubric was being changed and our scores for the game would be calculated under the new rubric. We all played the game and were calculating our own scores based on one rubric, then, you yanked the rug out from under us and gave us scores based on a rubric we had no way of playing towards.
How can you even say that with a straight face? ANY change to the rubric might have affected game play. My whole early survivor claim was partially predicated on the info I was given about how my role would be scored!
Up until now I had been accepting the truth of what I was being told, even if I did not agree with it. But this is just a flat out lie!
Do I need to quote my PMs from Ganderin again? I asked him specifically about this and was told that it was being discussed and then was told that it was decided to be per person killed and that he would update me if that changed. Why are you now claiming it was never discussed? Who should I believe?
Better still, given it is obvious someone is flat out lying, why should I even care?
I was upset before. Now I'm downright pissed!
Because I am honestly not seeing how you would have had to dramatically alter the way you played this game like you're seeming to claim.
{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
So my first thoughts are that town will get the highest number of points not by voting to lynch scum, but by voting someone who is scum and watching scum be lynched. That will get them an additional point for each time that happens.
This could also be a problem in a deadline scenario, where people don't want to lynch someone to avoid a no-lynch for the reasons of a) they'll lose points if that person's town and b) they'll lose points if they unvote scum to do so.
Similarly, for mafia, I can see mafia turning around and trying to get extra points by being on each town wagon they can.
Are you intentionally trying to bait me? I ask because I honestly can't see any other reason for this post.
Hmm...I just went back to look this up, and there was some discussion regarding this issue pregame. Sorry. -Just so you know, I wasn't lying when I made my previous post, I was simply unaware. -I wasn't directly involved in that discussion at the time as there were no neutrals in my player pool. I guess I should have said that this issue wasn't seen by me until post-game. -However, this also changes my opinion regarding our fix. Please hold, momentarily.
+1 for seeing scum lynch and +2 for vote on scum = +3
+4 for lynching scum = +4
So, no, lynching scum gets you more points. 4>3
Then they should be more persuasive in getting players to vote the scum. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve the points for it. Also, if they think a no lynch will hurt the Town's chance of winning, then they need to decide if taking a penalty for lynching a townie is worth it for a better shot at getting the bonus for winning. -It's the same situation a townie faces in an unscored game, "is it worth lynching someone I think is Town to avoid a no lynch and hopefully win later."
Again, that's risk vs. reward. If they jump on every town wagon, sure they get a few quick points for that, but they also probably get lynched and reduce their odds of getting the win bonus. -Same situation a scum faces in unscored games. Yes, throwing your vote on a wagon immediately helps by killing a townie, but the long term consequences of how it affects the odds of winning also need to be considered.
While I now think that we may need to reconsider some things about our solution here, Iso is still absolutely right in that the difference is barely more than semantics anyway.
Vanilla shouldn't have anything to do with it. If your a cop or doc and are playing well and look to be nailing scum and get NKd first thing you should get points. If your playing badly and have to claim then I can see no points being awarded.
I just think if you get NKd you should get points and those points decrease as the nights go on. If you want to add a penalty for claiming then fine. But theres also the chance of a power role false claiming vanilla or something to take into account.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I know this is off-topic, but ZDS, this is like a beautiful rant haiku and I'm glad I read it.
KCC read for you and has feedback typed up. I guess it just hasn't been sent yet.
By comparing the scores from the earlier games, played under the older rubric against the scores from the new game played under the new rubric? How else?
I mean, if they REALLY want to see the difference, they should be scoring every game under BOTH (all?) rubrics. THAT would give them the best basis for comparison. But even then I don't think they should be presenting the players with both (or all) sets of scores. The scores given to the players should be the scores THEY ACTUALLY EARNED. We played Game 1 under one set of scoring rules. Those rules should be used for our "official" scores from game 1. Change the rules all you want then and apply the new rules going forward. Compile multiple scoreboards using each of the different rubrics so that you get the best picture. But the "official" scores should be from the list that scores each game according to the rubric it was played under.
I really don't see how anything else can even be considered (though obviously it is).
You mean that in the Magic playtesting, when they decide to make a change to a card they go back to completed test games and apply the new wording of the card to those completed games and then tell the players involved whether they still won that game or not? They don't just make those cards different for the NEXT round of games to be played, but they actually go back and alter the outcome of already played games? My GOD, I had no idea they were doing that!
In that case, I withdraw all my complaints!
/sarcasm
There was discussion of doing a Mini over the holidays. However, the holidays are nearly halfway over. So, in effect, we are declaring a hiatus on games until after the holidays. We will still be working though. We will be hammering out the issues of "old rubric vs. new rubric" as well as trying to implement some player suggestions.
So fear not, while you wait for Santa to deliver your presents, your Mafia League Judges will be working hard during the hiatus.
Happy Holidays, everyone.
You obviously don't understand my point. I don't know if you're doing so intentionally just to be confrontational or if you honestly don't "get" what I'm saying, but either way I'm not going to continue this discussion.
Everyone but me thinks it's wonderful. Great. Enjoy. I honestly do hope you all have a wonderful time with it.
Arnnaria, please remove me from the league. I'm not getting anything but flak here and I don't see any indication that anything will change and I honestly cannot stand retroactive scoring. So please just remove me from the league. I will send this request to you via PM as well.
I don't want to leave without saying that I think the League is a great idea. I like the concept. I think it adds another dimension to Mafia play.
Once the "Beta" is over and the scoring rubric is finalized I will consider joining the regular League when it starts up. A lot will depend on assurances that any further rules tinkering will not EVER or in ANY WAY be applied retroactively, no matter how egregious the flaw is. If we can get that (which is no more than any other competition promises), then I'll likely want to join again, if I'm allowed to.
Until then, I really do hope those that remain enjoy this Beta League.
If you really think that the regular league is considered an appropriate setting for further rule clarification, then you completely missed the whole point of our discussion.
You will always be eligible to rejoin the league, barring any player integrity incidents within the league games. I hope you do change your mind and come back, because we could use critical feedback during the league's infancy so we can hone it as early as possible.
I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that if a major flaw in the rules/scoring rubric is found after the Beta is over and a regular league is running that it WON'T be addressed? Ever?
Even the NFL doesn't ignore changes to their rules when necessary. If something needs clarified/changed, they do it. It doesn't happen often, but it DOES happen. What they do NOT do though is apply those changes retroactively.
Let me give a different example from the real world...
Several years back Nascar had rules regarding the weight of the car being the same at the start of the race as when the car was weighed pre-race (or something like that). But one enterprising team gained an advantage by including wheel weights on the set of wheels they would start the race with. At the first pitstop they would change all 4 tires, regardless how many laps in that was, and put on tires without all the extra weight from wheel weights, effectively lightening their car and making it faster.
When Nascar discovered this they immediately set about modifying the rules to make that gambit illegal going forward even though it was mid-season. Did they retroactively punish the team for a rule that didn't exist at the time? Did they punish the team for finding a loophole and exploiting it? Did they do anything to the team other than closing the loophole they were abusing? No. Nascar fixed the problem and moved on without handing out any penalties or trying to retroactively adjust anyone's points standings.
If a problem were discovered during the regular league, I would expect something similar. A rule change made and applied going forward, but NOT being enforced retroactively.
My problem is that I believe that is how it should ALWAYS be handled, not just after the Beta is done. I don't understand why everyone else seems to think the Beta "needs" to be handled differently.
You should be doing something because it's the best play, not because you're getting more points by doing it one way or another.
The rubric should reflect what the best play is, and they've done an admirable job of that.
This is an internet forum.
Define "best play" in terms of a League game. I guarantee you different people will have different ideas of what it means.
So?
I completely fail to see any relevance whatsoever in that.
I completely fail to understand what you're trying to ask here. Are you insinuating that you think if Nascar COULD do that, that they WOULD do it?
If that's the case, then there's nothing more for us to discuss because there's no way in hell Nascar would do any such thing.
Please tell me you don't honestly believe that crap. I have a really hard time believing you are at all serious here and aren't just trying to troll me. No bearing? What the hell are you talking about? Did or did not scores change? Are there or are there not now a different amount of points between some players than there were before the change?
How can you even try to pass that off as having no bearing on the outcome? The League isn't even close to done yet. How can you possibly say that it hasn't/won't affect the eventual winner?
Now you're just trolling. I'm convinced.
The League has only had one of 6 games and already player's positions have been shifted about by these retroactive score changes. That you're trying to say they haven't, when they quite obviously have, is just ridiculous.
No? Nobody's scores were changed? Buh???
If there was any doubt left whether you are just trolling or not, this just removed it.
Arguments arise all the time over what the "best play" is. Should you claim early as a Miller? Should you reveal a Scum result as a Cop on Day 2, or wait and try to get more results before having to claim? Is lurker voting a legitimate strategy? Is reaction trolling a "good" gambit to use? How often?
Do you need me to provide even more examples? People disagree about what the "best play" is ALL THE TIME.
No, they playtest. Which is what the Beta season is: Playtesting.
They also can't re-do games from a specific point onward.
Yeah, but it's not someone "finding a loophole", it's us "finding a major glaring flaw in the score system".
{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
The league is serisouly for the fun of it. Even after the BETA protion ends this league is still going to be for the fun of it. Personally, I don't care what I score. I find the importance of receiving feedback on my play to be worth more than the rubic system. I'm sure that I am not speaking just for myself here either.
Aside from the delays and the handling of the rubic system (I don't have an issues with either) the league seems to be doing just fine. I don't like hearing that the judges are going to be busying ironing out details over upcoming Holidays, but if the judges don't have an issues doing so, then have a blast I say!
Ahylis:
As you probably know, this post is directed somewhat at you, but not fully. I do believe you are overreacting to the league rubic system and how the judges are handling the rubic system. If you wish to leave the league over something trivial, then go ahed. I'm not going to stop you. I just don't want to you to overreact and then regret your choice in the end.
You still seem to be missing the fact that there aren't two functional rubrics: there is the original ambiguous mess, which judges tried using for the provisional scores, awarding different point amounts to different players for the exact same action because of differing interpretations; and then, there is the cleaned-up rubric, which was used to rescore players uniformly and fairly for the finalized scores.
We couldn't just leave the provisional scores alone, because players had received different points for the same actions, and that is horribly unfair. And we also couldn't just rescore the game uniformly using that original rubric, because it was ambiguous, didn't work, and we couldn't agree on how many points some players should earn while using it. So, we did what we could do; we clarified the rubric as best we could while maintaining it's original balance and intent, and then we rescored everyone fairly and uniformly.
You may find it trivial. I most certainly do not.
Absolutely NOT! No way, not even close.
I personally would think that the "best player" was the one that did the most towards helping his team win, whether he lived to the end or died on the first day. I'm also certain others will have different measures of who the "best player" was or how to determine him/her.