MTG Salvation

Quote from Ecophagy

In my opinion, having a Doc and Cop is fundamentally broken in a basic game, even if the mafia have a RB - it's just too good. The community also seems to have decided that GFs were too bastardy for basic games. Just 1 setup seems really tedious and broken to mod-gaming.

Kind of tangential, but toss the scum a one-shot vanilla-fier, and I think it'd be acceptable.

My two cents.

1. I personally support a having completed at least one basic before being allowed to sign-up for other games.

2. I also support the idea that for your first game you can only play in one game at a time.

I know that not everybody went through this system (such as Az and Seppel) but I think that the exception proves the rule. Because for every Az or Seppel that jump into the deep end their seems to be at least ten newbs who get overwhelmed and quit in the middle of a more complex game. Basics are a great way to not only introduce new members to the game, but to weed out the ones that just aren't committed. Just making sure that they have that one game under their belt I think will significantly cut down on the number of newb replacements in more complex games.

Another thing is I think the number of replacements and the players in a game are more important to a games success and enjoyability than set-up and who's modding it. The best set-up in the world can produce one of the worse games if their are a lot of replacements and the players suck. But without replacements and with good players even a completely vanilla set-up can be very enjoyable and rememberable.

Also I am against combining minis and basics. While their are some minis that aren't complex, their are also minis like Gabriel High School where their is a complex mechanic and a dummy account.

Quote from MandersHex

Apologies, but I will have to vehemently disagree with you on this. A Godfather requires that the mod lie to a member of the town at some point, and I highly feel that is an inappropriate way to teach new players how to play the game.

I think I side with Cyan on this one. If a large number of non-basic games involve the mod lying to a town player (which I think is the case), then knowing that at least one well-known option of that type is acceptable (but not mandatory) in basic games provides exactly the kind of uncertainty that makes the game fun. The only downside I see (of course) is a newb cop (or newb town relying on a cop) getting turned off of the game for it...but I think there's merit in the option.

So I thought reading Cyan's first game would be entertaining. I haven't gotten through much of it yet, but found this particular gem:

Quote from Cyan

So...is there actual strategy involved in this game?

-----
I agree with what Guard just said.

Quote from Cantripmancer

I think I side with Cyan on this one. If a large number of non-basic games involve the mod lying to a town player (which I think is the case), then knowing that at least one well-known option of that type is acceptable (but not mandatory) in basic games provides exactly the kind of uncertainty that makes the game fun. The only downside I see (of course) is a newb cop (or newb town relying on a cop) getting turned off of the game for it...but I think there's merit in the option.

Except that lying to the town is not a basic mechanic. I, personally, don't think I've ever seen a game with a Godfather. Now, SP did withhold a town's role in AB, leading to Cyan being able to get away with a cop false-claim, but that's just lame period, since he revealed all the other roles.

But, no, I don't think any completed games, except maybe bastard games, have included a Godfather that I'm aware of.

Aww lets make all basics bastard games
seriously though.
Basic games seem like they are boring unimaginative games while specials seem awesome and what all the experienced players play. Thats how it seemed for me. I started with 31 but replaced into ogre shortly after.

Quote from MandersHex

Apologies, but I will have to vehemently disagree with you on this. A Godfather requires that the mod lie to a member of the town at some point, and I highly feel that is an inappropriate way to teach new players how to play the game.

this is why basics suck, you are all like " HEY HE GOT CCED AS COP BY A TRACKER YOU CANT POSSIBLY HAVE 2 IN A BASIC.!!!!" and "DONT WORRY THERE IS NO GODFATHER OR SK BECAUSE THIS IS A BASIC" you dont learn what could be out there in a normal/mini/specialty/ftq/pcq because basic are soooooooo different from any of these.

I feel that if we are trying to use them as training grounds then we are doing it wrong.

However, i guess as a starting off point we could do worse...

Quote from Reya Cookiebringer

Aww lets make all basics bastard games
seriously though.
Basic games seem like they are boring unimaginative games while specials seem awesome and what all the experienced players play. Thats how it seemed for me. I started with 31 but replaced into ogre shortly after.

I know I do, but also a lot of mods of basic games use flavor to keep the people interested. I know, with my first basic, I only had one replacement, which was due to the original player getting suspended not him losing interest.

It is entirely possible to keep people interested by making a fun, flavorful game. I intend to do it again with some flavor that most people here could give two ☺☺☺☺s about (Twilight). This will be a true test of my writing abilities.

Edit:

Quote from poggydude

this is why basics suck, you are all like " HEY HE GOT CCED AS COP BY A TRACKER YOU CANT POSSIBLY HAVE 2 IN A BASIC.!!!!" and "DONT WORRY THERE IS NO GODFATHER OR SK BECAUSE THIS IS A BASIC" you dont learn what could be out there in a normal/mini/specialty/ftq/pcq because basic are soooooooo different from any of these.

I feel that if we are trying to use them as training grounds then we are doing it wrong.

However, i guess as a starting off point we could do worse...

Modgaming is frowned upon regardless of type. Period.

Quote from MandersHex

Modgaming is frowned upon regardless of type. Period.

i disagree, in basics it is almost a way of life(which is way basics suck)

note: i mean modgaming not flavorgaming

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

Basic games are meant to showcase Mafia in its simplest form (well, second simplest if you count all-vanilla games). They are also very enjoyable for players who, like me, enjoy simplicity.

i agree with this, it is when people act like these are proper training grounds for "more difficult" games is where i get upset

Someone bring Syrenz into this discussion. I'm curious as to his opinion being the most recent Top New Mafia player.

The idea that new players should be limited to one game until completion isn't a terrible idea just to minimize the fallout of someone maxing out on games and then deciding mafia isn't their bag.

I dislike the idea of limiting new players to Basic games, though. I think Basic games are a fine way to learn, but I don't think it's the only way especially on a site full of M:tG players.

I think that Specialty games or complex Normals (or even wacky Minis) should have strong warning labels. If a new guy signs up under such a label, and is asked "are you sure" then we should be good to go. A player who doesn't know his own limitations or how to bounce back from overestimating his ability probably isn't the kind who'd hang around regardless of where he started.

Quote from Pale Mage

The idea that new players should be limited to one game until completion isn't a terrible idea just to minimize the fallout of someone maxing out on games and then deciding mafia isn't their bag.

I dislike the idea of limiting new players to Basic games, though. I think Basic games are a fine way to learn, but I don't think it's the only way especially on a site full of M:tG players.

I think that Specialty games or complex Normals (or even wacky Minis) should have strong warning labels. If a new guy signs up under such a label, and is asked "are you sure" then we should be good to go. A player who doesn't know his own limitations or how to bounce back from overestimating his ability probably isn't the kind who'd hang around regardless of where he started.

I could get behind an idea like this. Restricting new players to 1 game, but it doesn't have to be a basic if they feel like they want to do something bigger/better.

Quote from atlseal

Someone bring Syrenz into this discussion. I'm curious as to his opinion being the most recent Top New Mafia player.

in case you are wondering i am operating under the assumption that i am freaking terrible

Including a godfather is not 'bastard modding'. Not in a basic, not in any other setup. It is standard to assume that every game A)has a godfather and B)said godfather is investigative immune.

Also, for the millionth time, trying to make logical setup assessments like 'an 11 person game shouldn't have 2 investigative roles' is not 'modgaming', nor has it ever been. Setup analysis is part of every game of mafia that is not an open setup. When mods try to 'discourage' this, all they ever end up doing is creating mislynches. If you don't want your setup analyzed, then run an open game. Pretty simple.

@ZDS: Ah, that's right. Well, I came really close to winning, despite having claimed miller in a newb game.

Also, the idea of basic games is quite clearly(and always has been) that they are 'training grounds for more advanced games'. Hell, they used to be called 'Newb' games. I actually liked that better.

Quote from Cyan

Also, the idea of basic games is quite clearly(and always has been) that they are 'training grounds for more advanced games'. Hell, they used to be called 'Newb' games. I actually liked that better.

then they are terrible for it...they just teach bad habits

Or just run some open setups so people can focus on behavioral analysis.

I think Azrael's idea of rerunning successful setups from past games would be an extremely awesome way to learn to play. The setup is going to be open of course, but that won't necessarily make it easy to predict what will happen when completely new players take over fairly complicated, but known, roles.

I'd be a lot more excited to play in a really good setup from 2 years ago than in a game that isn't like anything else I'm likely to play once I start in on more advanced stuff.

Quote from Puddlejumper

I think Azrael's idea of rerunning successful setups from past games would be an extremely awesome way to learn to play. The setup is going to be open of course, but that won't necessarily make it easy to predict what will happen when completely new players take over fairly complicated, but known, roles.

I'd be a lot more excited to play in a really good setup from 2 years ago than in a game that isn't like anything else I'm likely to play once I start in on more advanced stuff.

Games here tend to not have VT here.

It will be : MASS CLAIM day 1. Everyone who claimed a role from the game is confirmed. Every two conflicting claims will get lynch one after the other. No behavioral analysis what so ever.

Quote from vezokpiraka

Games here tend to not have VT here.

It will be : MASS CLAIM day 1. Everyone who claimed a role from the game is confirmed. Every two conflicting claims will get lynch one after the other. No behavioral analysis what so ever.

This. Maybe get old specialty games that turned out really well and change some stuff around to make them more accessible.

Quote from vezokpiraka

Games here tend to not have VT here.

It will be : MASS CLAIM day 1. Everyone who claimed a role from the game is confirmed. Every two conflicting claims will get lynch one after the other. No behavioral analysis what so ever.

What's VT?

You could make it so that all the roles are the same but alignments aren't. I guess that would make it a completely different game, but I still think it would be fun and a good learning experience.

EDIT: Thinking about it, that could lead to some pretty unbalanced games, but I'm sure there are some templates from old games which could work, or even just be minimally modified to make it work for them.

Running a open F11 type game has always appealed to me. It leaves plenty of places for false claims and etc. which seems like it would force more behavioral based analysis.

EDIT

I've also thought a <12 person "micro" games could be fun and sort of sill the gaps until larger games start up.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

I have an idea. How about running "Specialty for Dummies" games, ie Specialty games designed to be easy to grok by new players, and to not require advanced levels of skill?

Otherwise known as a 'normal'?

Quote from Emo_Pinata

Running a open F11 type game has always appealed to me. It leaves plenty of places for false claims and etc. which seems like it would force more behavioral based analysis.

EDIT

I've also thought a <12 person "micro" games could be fun and sort of sill the gaps until larger games start up.

9 player game could be cool. I have done a online 4 person game before. Suked but nine seems like a good number.
We could always have like a basic mini and a basic specialty?

Re: 1 game restriction - Maybe a caveat on this, given that some games tend to run incredibly long. If their first game is still running 2 months later, the restriction can be lifted.

Re: Basic requirement - Heavily disagree. My first was a specialty as well. Leave it up to the players to decide.

Re: AL's suggestion that newer players be kept out - While I appreciate that Naka's case affected your viewpoint significantly, this is just a horribly bad idea all around, and will generate the idea that this forum is elitist. No.

Re: GFs in basics - A godfather is a base and well-known mafia role, and is even one of the roles introduced on every initial explanation for Mafia I've ever seen. If anything, I feel they should in fact be included in basics, just to get people used to the mod lying to them.

Re: Retooling old specialties - Sounds cool. I can volunteer flavour writing services, depending on the base flavour.

Quote from Reya Cookiebringer

9 player game could be cool. I have done a online 4 person game before. Suked but nine seems like a good number.
We could always have like a basic mini and a basic specialty?

While it would be interesting, odd numbers tend to favor scum slightly more (or so I've been told).

Not saying you shouldn't do it, just saying. Since scum start out with the advantage of more information I'd prefer to give Town a few minor buffs.

Quote from desCoures

Re: 1 game restriction - Maybe a caveat on this, given that some games tend to run incredibly long. If their first game is still running 2 months later, the restriction can be lifted.

Re: Basic requirement - Heavily disagree. My first was a specialty as well. Leave it up to the players to decide.

Re: AL's suggestion that newer players be kept out - While I appreciate that Naka's case affected your viewpoint significantly, this is just a horribly bad idea all around, and will generate the idea that this forum is elitist. No.

Re: GFs in basics - A godfather is a base and well-known mafia role, and is even one of the roles introduced on every initial explanation for Mafia I've ever seen. If anything, I feel they should in fact be included in basics, just to get people used to the mod lying to them.

Re: Retooling old specialties - Sounds cool. I can volunteer flavour writing services, depending on the base flavour.

I agree with all the above, save that the point of rewriting old specialties escapes me, particularly with the ever-lengthy queue of people with new setups waiting to run those.

Hey I have a question, is there like a guide or some guidelines somewhere on how to go around making a Mafia Setup?

I have a couple of ideas right now that i wanna try and tinker with, but have no real clue how im supposed to structure it, so if anyone could provide a guide/suggestions or maybe even a basic sketch/template it would be great.

I need to get back to writing that article.

I've found: http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Comprehensive_Modding_Guide_for_2010 to be pretty useful. Some of the other articles in the stub are ok too.

Another option is to to get a reviewer and talk to them about it.

Quote from RafaelK

I agree with all the above, save that the point of rewriting old specialties escapes me, particularly with the ever-lengthy queue of people with new setups waiting to run those.

Haven't you ever wondered how a game would have gone if the mechanics of the game had been better understood from the start? Have you ever considered that newbs might adapt better to a specialty environment if they have an example from a past game for how to adapt to situations that explicitly applies to them?

I've read through Day 1 of a few specialties where they didn't do ANYTHING except speculate on abilities for weeks. I think there could, just possibly, be a category of player who might get bored by this, and would prefer a more tactical game, without having to resort to playing basics.

Hey,

I apologize if this is out there, or not, but if it sparkles, would the council be up for the suggestion of putting another post on mafia scribe in the rule link? I think it might help a lot of newbies as in basic 37, a couple of these guys are unfamiliar with Fishing, RVS, Bussing, ect. I just think is would also be a cool link to have.

Just throwing that out there....

Quote from Puddlejumper

Haven't you ever wondered how a game would have gone if the mechanics of the game had been better understood from the start? Have you ever considered that newbs might adapt better to a specialty environment if they have an example from a past game for how to adapt to situations that explicitly applies to them?

I've read through Day 1 of a few specialties where they didn't do ANYTHING except speculate on abilities for weeks. I think there could, just possibly, be a category of player who might get bored by this, and would prefer a more tactical game, without having to resort to playing basics.

Sure, but do we need them run outside the normal queues? I'm not sure what is actually being proposed.

Yeah, this whole "running old games again" proposal is inherently flawed because it involved taking balanced closed setups and making them open. You can make the argument that the setup could be tinkered with to balance it, but then why not just run something new?

More complicated open games might be a good place for beginners to start. I actually love this idea. But retooling old setups is not the way to do that, and I don't think it's a good idea to take away from our current queues in order to do this. They're slow enough as it is.

Quote from Ged

Yeah, this whole "running old games again" proposal is inherently flawed because it involved taking balanced closed setups and making them open. You can make the argument that the setup could be tinkered with to balance it, but then why not just run something new?

More complicated open games might be a good place for beginners to start. I actually love this idea. But retooling old setups is not the way to do that, and I don't think it's a good idea to take away from our current queues in order to do this. They're slow enough as it is.

See, I was under the impression that most players disliked open setups, but loran's game has pretty much proven that wrong.

I am now considering making my mini (up in a year, most likely) an open-setup game, and I encourage more mods to consider it, too.

Quote from MandersHex

See, I was under the impression that most players disliked open setups, but loran's game has pretty much proven that wrong.

I am now considering making my mini (up in a year, most likely) an open-setup game, and I encourage more mods to consider it, too.

Fair warning if you plan to do that, open setups have to be designed particularly carefully to prevent a mass claim D1 from ensuring a town victory. Loran designed his to accomplish this fact because a mass claim day one is just going to be everyone claiming vanilla town.

The tradeoff is that you cut down on the number of power roles that you can have in the game just based upon the above. This just gets us into player preference. Anyway, as long as you design an open setup knowing what you're doing, they are capable of being quite fun.

if anyone is interestd in open setups i reccomend epicmafia.com, the setups are all open (or close to open) and the people there are really really good at them(as a side note this is partially what warped my initial play on the site because i tried to apply my newfound knowledge of open setups to non open ones). I will say this, while a massclaim day 1 is usually prevented by the setup a no lynch day one is often a correct answer(something i feel mtgs players are not going to accept)

Quote from Sepiriel

Hey I have a question, is there like a guide or some guidelines somewhere on how to go around making a Mafia Setup?

I have a couple of ideas right now that i wanna try and tinker with, but have no real clue how im supposed to structure it, so if anyone could provide a guide/suggestions or maybe even a basic sketch/template it would be great.

I would recommend consulting the Rules/Info/Articles thread, which has been magically updated just today.

EDIT: Council and players: are there any objections/comments to a ban on traitor roles on MTGS?

Traitor role as in Town win condition that changes to a mafia win condition?
Or traitor role as in an isolated member of the mafia with no access to the QT?

Because the latter can be very interesting, especially if they have a good information (a role cop, etc.). The former are... generally not good.

Quote from Azrael

EDIT: Council and players: are there any objections/comments to a ban on traitor roles on MTGS?

Losing Doha because of the traitors sucked.
Winning Return to Amistaria as the traitor was diabolically fun, but I would have been pissed if I were in town shoes.

Quote from RisingPhoenix

Traitor role as in Town win condition that changes to a mafia win condition?
Or traitor role as in an isolated member of the mafia with no access to the QT?

Because the latter can be very interesting, especially if they have a good information (a role cop, etc.). The former are... generally not good.

The latter is more of a sleeper agent than a traitor. I don't think I've encountered that kind of role before, but it would be very interesting to see it play out.

Roles that change alignment are just not okay. I thought we'd all figured that out after Matrix, though admittedly the role there was much worse than your traditional role. The problem is just that once an alignment change happens, a player is still judged on their previous behavior which wasn't under that alignment. It's not fair to, say, be scum but have two days of authentic town play behind you.

You could argue that roles that know they can change alignment are more legit since they'll play accordingly, but you still run in to cops confirming roles like that and other nasties. I don't like this sort of role, and you have to balance for the fact that it's really powerful for scum, but I think they can be used.

Traitors that are scum the whole time, just separated from the rest of the mafia... That's a fun role.

I've now played in 4 games on MTGS that featured traitors.

One was ZDS in Dictionary, who actively tried to get himself lynched so that he wouldn't turn. He was a red herring anyway.
One was Cyan in OotS Mafia, who began as a sort of isolated mafia and was converted on N1. The town did lose that game, but considering OotS only began with a 2-man mafia team, I felt that converting Cyan was not the cause of the loss.
Doha was full of traitors and was generally panned for that aspect of the game.
And finally AI was a traitor in Return to Amistaria, which wasn't really on, I have to admit.

If we're talking about traitors that turn from town to mafia, I'd be ok with waving goodbye to those. But a blanket ban on any roles that change alignment would not sit well with me - I feel that's design space that shouldn't be closed off.

I'm never comfortable with "banning" any role design; I'd be more comfortable with just making it known that having a traitor is strongly discouraged (much like as far as I know the jester role is heavily frowned upon and probably won't make it past review, but it isn't banned, per se).

speaking of epicmafia...their traitor role works like a VT that has no accses to the scum chat... just sayin

I'm not in favor of a ban on traitors, though admittedly I'm not up to date with the latest developments (haven't read Doha).

Traitor roles require some consideration in design. There SHOULD be a hint of a player's traitorous possibilities: the typical example being a player's rolename (to use an example: Sin City had a traitor in Becky...which was obvious from the rolename (also the player knew that he was a traitor).)

In games created solely by hand, with no way of rolenames giving hints, there should be other hints in the setup (other players given hints, hints in the day info, etc.)

But they can be done well. And they're not gamebreaking in the way that the classic banned role, a Jester, is. So Let em in with caution.

Quote from loran16

I'm not in favor of a ban on traitors, though admittedly I'm not up to date with the latest developments (haven't read Doha).

Traitor roles require some consideration in design. There SHOULD be a hint of a player's traitorous possibilities: the typical example being a player's rolename (to use an example: Sin City had a traitor in Becky...which was obvious from the rolename (also the player knew that he was a traitor).)

In games created solely by hand, with no way of rolenames giving hints, there should be other hints in the setup (other players given hints, hints in the day info, etc.)

But they can be done well. And they're not gamebreaking in the way that the classic banned role, a Jester, is. So Let em in with caution.

/barn. I am not a fan of WC changes, but if supported by the source material so that the players can have a hint that it might happen to that character, it can be fine.

Two examples from games I played offsite. Good: Final Fantasy mafia. Sephiroth was mafia, and had an ability that could convert Cloud to his side if he was able to find him. Well in keeping with FFVII, and also worked in the game - Cloud was also seeking Sephiroth, with an ability that could tell him whether or not a given person was him, and had a warning that bad things could happen if Sephiroth found him first.

Bad: Star Trek DS9 mafia. Dukat started out (IIRC) as a mafia member, but without full knowledge of the other mafia members. On Day 4 he changed sides, becoming townie. Then on Day 6 he became a serial killer. It was perfectly in keeping with the events of DS9, but really did wreak havoc with game balance.

I don't think a global ban is needed, but I think alignment changes should be limited to the more complex games (specialty, FTQ/PCQ) and that there should be hints provided.

Quote from RobRoy

I don't think a global ban is needed, but I think alignment changes should be limited to the more complex games (specialty, FTQ/PCQ) and that there should be hints provided.

/barn

We knew from Skander's role PM that there was a traitor out there we could recruit. AI knew he was a traitor. He claimed to be a traitor and lived, so we recruited. The game didn't make it too easy, AI did.

But, I don't think a ban is necessary. It sounds like they can be used successfully, and I'd like people to be able to try because the game that had that would be epic.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

Alternatively, we can ban traitors who don't know they're traitors (as these are impossible to detect), and discourage other traitors (as these are hard but not impossible to dectect).

This, though big flavor hints are enough of a hint for me. Big ones, mind you.

Quote from Ged

This, though big flavor hints are enough of a hint for me. Big ones, mind you.

That used to be my school of thought - until I mis-evaluated how obvious the flavor hint in Matrix would be.

There's always room for exceptions - if someone came up with a really neat jester variant, for instance. But generally speaking, I think it's high time to kiss the traditional use of this role goodbye.

Even in Sin City, the pure swing in momentum, entirely aside from the unfairness of authentic town play, would have been completely unbalancing.

Or look at Amistaria. The town lynches four scum straight in four days...and then loses after only three mislynches (and a misvig)? 50% hit ratio or better is typically a landslide win for the town. But with the conversion, which messed with the balance math, everything went down in a flaming pile.

Okay, maybe flavor hints are not enough. Your games are probably enough evidence for that.

But in Amistaria, the problem was that AI got confirmed by a weird role (mine). If it weren't for that, I would've tried really hard to get him lynched. I was all over that day 1 and only backed off because of my results. I stand by that while they should still be considered risky, swingy, and tough to use correctly, traitors that are explicitly told they are traitors can work. People just need to think them through more.

Quote from Azrael

Even in Sin City, the pure swing in momentum, entirely aside from the unfairness of authentic town play, would have been completely unbalancing.

Or look at Amistaria. The town lynches four scum straight in four days...and then loses after only three mislynches (and a misvig)? 50% hit ratio or better is typically a landslide win for the town. But with the conversion, which messed with the balance math, everything went down in a flaming pile.

I think the problems you're talking about here, especially in Sin City, have more to do with game creators misunderstanding the proper scum/town ratio.

A traitor should be considered scum for determining balance. These games, for whatever reason, didn't seem to do so. But if you subtract one scum and keep the traitor in sin city...does it seem unfair? And even then, I don't think it was that unfair in Sin City's case - the town was godawful in that game and was only able to make it so far due to the SK knocking off multiple mafia.