Mafia Discussion

[MECHDRAGON777]

He didn't say that lol

Then could she further explain?

Because Supershroom has 2 wins and 5 losses. While game wins/losses are not specifically representative of your ability and skill level in Mafia, it should at least show your how much of a veteran you are here for us to consider you as a representative, especially in cases where you are on the Mafia team and you win a game with your team.

That said, not only does this prevent him from participating, but we feel that his behavior this past game has lowered his chances of us considering him as a representative significantly. While I wholeheartedly appreciate our invitation to this event, we do not have a representative to send this time around. Just because people see that Supershroom is doing particularly well this current game (M38), that does not exactly mean we, Pseudo and I, the gamemasters and general runners of Mafia on this forum, see him as a worthy candidate for being a representative.

Now, this community plays Mafia in a particularly lax way, and some of our rules, regulations, and playstyles differ greatly from other communities and forums that play Mafia/Werewolf, so we won't just send anyone out as a representative for our community. What we perceive as a good player here will not necessarily make them a good player in a competitive environment, of which events like this typically are. Without disclosing far too much information, and not to turn anyone away because it is a really fun event, one of our previous representatives was ridiculed for their skill at playing, and that representative is someone here that we consider a good player. While I don't doubt peoples' Mafia playing skills, Pseudo and I chose some people that we would be considered worthy candidates, and none of them could attend.

We considered this decision for a long while, and we feel that it would be best for the ego of our community to not attend this time around. Hopefully that is understandable by all.

That makes more sense. At least it is explained in more detail. (I was asking since all she said was five or more wins)

[PixelPest]

Created a spreadsheet for the player database data. Please tell me what you think.

viewtopic.php?f=75&t=12854&p=269966#p269966

[PersonNamedUser]

I'd say that it looks good

[Julia Pseudo]

Created a spreadsheet for the player database data. Please tell me what you think.

viewtopic.php?f=75&t=12854&p=269966#p269966

Ooh this is really cool, thank you so much!

[Cedur]

So, just the way I see this, I was simply feeling like the Olympic motto - better participate than not participating at all - and I wouldn't have made myself any illusions, and in the first place I wouldn't even have vouched for myself if somebody else like Danny w/e was running. Experience in games may be something crucial even if you already figured out after ~5 games how to play properly. Besides, not having to make 10 posts a day and reading 500 posts per day in each such game gives me plenty of time that I can use for other things now, so it's not really a pity for me.

Anyway, the player database should never be grounds to judge if someone is a good player or not. First, concerning the amount of effort that someone contributes themselves to a win - just look at glitch4. Second, the outcomes that exist due to other players messing up your faction, even if you do yourself well. Pick M36 as an example for me. I did everything for the town, and we arrived at a situation with only one mafia left, I died, and the remaining players blew it.

[Thehelmetguy1]

I think this should be changed. First, the person should instead show experience and the GMs should see how this person did in the games they played

[ElectriKong]

I agree with SuperShroom but it is too late now, it is past the 23rd everywhere now. And in Mafia winning != good player (well, not all the time). A lot of Mafia falls down to look rather than skill. Rather than checking the number of wins, see how a player plays the games, and use that to decide who should go and represent the community for the 2018 season.

[Thehelmetguy1]

Btw could someone replace Ness-Wednesday? I don't think he made a single post in the thread.

[ShadowStarX]

Btw could someone replace Ness-Wednesday? I don't think he made a single post in the thread.

At this point even glitch4 or bossedit8 would be a better replacement imo.

[Cedur]

ping

I've seen you making a couple of posts today and yesterday, are you available for back-up again?

[Danny]

Anyway, the player database should never be grounds to judge if someone is a good player or not. First, concerning the amount of effort that someone contributes themselves to a win - just look at glitch4. Second, the outcomes that exist due to other players messing up your faction, even if you do yourself well. Pick M36 as an example for me. I did everything for the town, and we arrived at a situation with only one mafia left, I died, and the remaining players blew it.

It's not used solely to judge whether someone is a good player or not. If we are expecting someone to be a representative of this community when going into a large event, we should expect them to at least be good and be a veteran here. Aeon won a single game here, should they be representative of the community? I don't really think so. Choosing a representative is based only on both Pseudo and I's judgment, and we just use the player database as general guidelines on who we could expect to be a good representative. There's more that goes into being a representative than just skill alone. For example, we don't want someone who is rude, irrational, and prone to give up easily as a representative for our community, regardless on whether they are a good player or not.

[Danny]

Alright, I've been seeing this crop up a lot in recent games and concepts; roles or abilities that revive dead players.

Please do not include these in your game. Bringing a dead player back into the game can upset the balance of that game in many ways:

• If the dead player has received information about the game from another dead player or some other source, when they are brought back into the game, they have a significant advantage with information.
• If a Mafioso is brought back into the game in this manner, the Mafia is given a large advantage by having one of their own members back. If that player is a confirmed Mafioso, this can result in plays where other suspected Mafioso can cover themselves up by working toward lynching the revived Mafioso. In circumstances where the revived Mafioso is not a confirmed Mafioso, they get to live on as a Mafioso, extending the length of their team's life exponentially. This is not good or fair for the town, especially one that is already on the losing side.
• If they were a blue or red role, they likely would not survive past their initial revival, and it will slow down the game for either the Town or the Mafia as they now have to focus on killing this revived player, given that player was a vital kill (a blue or mouthpiece of the Town, or a Mafioso/Third Party).
• If a previously-inactive player was revived, the revive would have essentially been wasted, and the player most likely will not be targeted by the Mafia, Third Party, or what have you.

Those, among other things, are some of the issues with having revival roles in your game. As of currently, including them in your game that you submit for host sign-ups will not allow your game through until you change or remove the revival ability/role. It is a rather powerful and unfair mechanic, and even if you allow it to only be used once per game, it can leave a pretty lasting impact.

[Witchking666]

Alright, I've been seeing this crop up a lot in recent games and concepts; roles or abilities that revive dead players.

Please do not include these in your game. Bringing a dead player back into the game can upset the balance of that game in many ways:

• If the dead player has received information about the game from another dead player or some other source, when they are brought back into the game, they have a significant advantage with information.
• If a Mafioso is brought back into the game in this manner, the Mafia is given a large advantage by having one of their own members back. If that player is a confirmed Mafioso, this can result in plays where other suspected Mafioso can cover themselves up by working toward lynching the revived Mafioso. In circumstances where the revived Mafioso is not a confirmed Mafioso, they get to live on as a Mafioso, extending the length of their team's life exponentially. This is not good or fair for the town, especially one that is already on the losing side.
• If they were a blue or red role, they likely would not survive past their initial revival, and it will slow down the game for either the Town or the Mafia as they now have to focus on killing this revived player, given that player was a vital kill (a blue or mouthpiece of the Town, or a Mafioso/Third Party).
• If a previously-inactive player was revived, the revive would have essentially been wasted, and the player most likely will not be targeted by the Mafia, Third Party, or what have you.

Those, among other things, are some of the issues with having revival roles in your game. As of currently, including them in your game that you submit for host sign-ups will not allow your game through until you change or remove the revival ability/role. It is a rather powerful and unfair mechanic, and even if you allow it to only be used once per game, it can leave a pretty lasting impact.

This is total bullshit! All of the things you mentioned can easily be fixed if you would balance the role more. Sure, it is overpowered if a single player can ressurect more than one dead player. But what is wrong with self-sacrificing roles (reverse kamikaze) and single-use revivers? Fuck this. I am genuinly pissed about this right now.

[TLtimelord]

Alright, I've been seeing this crop up a lot in recent games and concepts; roles or abilities that revive dead players.

Please do not include these in your game. Bringing a dead player back into the game can upset the balance of that game in many ways:

• If the dead player has received information about the game from another dead player or some other source, when they are brought back into the game, they have a significant advantage with information.
• If a Mafioso is brought back into the game in this manner, the Mafia is given a large advantage by having one of their own members back. If that player is a confirmed Mafioso, this can result in plays where other suspected Mafioso can cover themselves up by working toward lynching the revived Mafioso. In circumstances where the revived Mafioso is not a confirmed Mafioso, they get to live on as a Mafioso, extending the length of their team's life exponentially. This is not good or fair for the town, especially one that is already on the losing side.
• If they were a blue or red role, they likely would not survive past their initial revival, and it will slow down the game for either the Town or the Mafia as they now have to focus on killing this revived player, given that player was a vital kill (a blue or mouthpiece of the Town, or a Mafioso/Third Party).
• If a previously-inactive player was revived, the revive would have essentially been wasted, and the player most likely will not be targeted by the Mafia, Third Party, or what have you.

Those, among other things, are some of the issues with having revival roles in your game. As of currently, including them in your game that you submit for host sign-ups will not allow your game through until you change or remove the revival ability/role. It is a rather powerful and unfair mechanic, and even if you allow it to only be used once per game, it can leave a pretty lasting impact.

This is total bullshit! All of the things you mentioned can easily be fixed if you would balance the role more. Sure, it is overpowered if a single player can ressurect more than one dead player. But what is wrong with self-sacrificing roles (reverse kamikaze) and single-use revivers? Fuck this. I am genuinly pissed about this right now.

I'm... confused. Are you mad because they had to bring this to attention or the fact they banned reviving roles? Because banning the ability to revive roles makes absolute sense and Danny listed every reason why.

[Danny]

This is total bullshit! All of the things you mentioned can easily be fixed if you would balance the role more. Sure, it is overpowered if a single player can ressurect more than one dead player. But what is wrong with self-sacrificing roles (reverse kamikaze) and single-use revivers? Fuck this. I am genuinly pissed about this right now.

There is no need to be upset.
Not all of these issues can be fixed with balancing, and even a reverse-kamikaze role will not do it any good. While those sort of roles are perfectly balanced in their own right, it's the act of reviving that isn't.

If the dead player has received information about the game from another dead player or some other source, when they are brought back into the game, they have a significant advantage with information.

This is one of the bigger issues with revival roles. You can not trust people not to talk about the game after their death, because it has happened many times before, and it still does happen. You can not regulate this sort of thing, and if a player who has information postmortem comes back into the game, it will upset the balance.

If they were a blue or red role, they likely would not survive past their initial revival, and it will slow down the game for either the Town or the Mafia as they now have to focus on killing this revived player, given that player was a vital kill (a blue or mouthpiece of the Town, or a Mafioso/Third Party).

In the case of a reverse-kamikazi role, it would be a rather fruitless endeavor.

This was not a blind ruling, and there are a lot of reasons why we have decided to ban revival roles, at least for the time being.

[PixelPest]

I remember specifically as well a great example of this: one time when I was Lynched (I forget which game) Nien PM'ed me and said something along the lines of "ha ha you were right that I was TP lol". So it's not necessarily that these roles or bad or OP, but that there's complications that cause unwarranted and unfair effects on the players of the game

[Cedur]

Can we also discuss Medium roles? A role that privately communicates with a selected dead player for a night is something completely different than reviving a player, isn't it? (The rule would still stay that dead players don't talk with each other and don't leak stuff like "haha I was a mafia all along").

[Danny]

Can we also discuss Medium roles? A role that privately communicates with a selected dead player for a night is something completely different than reviving a player, isn't it? (The rule would still stay that dead players don't talk with each other and don't leak stuff like "haha I was a mafia all along").

Like I have said countless times already, you can not regulate what dead players do. You could establish a rule saying they can't talk with each other, but that doesn't mean they obey by that rule. Mediums essentially fall under the banning of "revival" abilities, because they still interact with dead players. Anything that interacts with dead players in general is not allowed.

[Cedur]

Then you can also not regulate if players screenshot their role PMs to eachother or do any other private talk after death or whatever. If you set up a rule, you can also expect it to be followed (or why do you think we wouldn't do that?) and enforce the rule, and with the rule you don't really have an argument against mediums (while for revivals there's still the other points of disrupting balance / the pointlessness of reviving a role that just gets killed again).

[MECHDRAGON777]

Then you can also not regulate if players screenshot their role PMs to eachother or do any other private talk after death or whatever. If you set up a rule, you can also expect it to be followed (or why do you think we wouldn't do that?) and enforce the rule, and with the rule you don't really have an argument against mediums (while for revivals there's still the other points of disrupting balance / the pointlessness of reviving a role that just gets killed again).

I once said `Screenshots allowed` in a Game I tried to host and it was not approved because of that.