The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:I like multiple game strategy. If you're only playing to win the current game, you're not playing mafia well. In my opinion.

This is something I strongly disagree with (respectfully). I have found in my experience that if I play as hard as I can given whatever circumstances to win the game at hand, then it makes me a better player when I have to live up to that in future games. I used to play in such a way that I thought would benefit me regardless of the alignment I draw, but at some point I abandoned that mindset. I have designed everything I do around trying to win games with the town faction because that is the faction I will be playing for in most games. And when I'm not town, I have to play up to that standard, and the challenge of that drives me to improve my game.

Of course I don't suggest everyone should do what I do. But that's my philosophy.

Not sure how you inferred from what I wrote that you should not play as hard as you can. That's not what my post implies. If you're not trying then you're not playing. You should be playing for the game you're playing, the next game, and so on.

In fact your post agrees with my stance.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: I have designed everything I do around trying to win games with the town faction because that is the faction I will be playing for in most games.

Conscious thought of all games.

rabbit8 wrote:If you're only playing to win the current game, you're not playing mafia well.

You're not only playing to win the current game if you're designing a specific appeal you wish to convey so in future games you look a certain alignment when you make similar statements.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would agree though that the changeable/unchangeable really depends on who the mafia are and how the lynches progress in general, and there's no hard and fast rule. For me, it's merely a preference because I specifically like moving my vote around.

I can understand the argument though that it allows more flexibility and can be more town-friendly if the town is actively working with each other.

if the town is actively working with each other.

That's the crux of it.

If you break down the argument of changeable votes to its core both systems reach the same end result, thus IMO, you can deduce the same information from both systems on the information presented.

Now, personal preference and what you're used to is a major component in how someone feels about either format.

The main advantage the Mafia have in every game is BTSC, a feeling of team, and not wanting to disappoint your teammates. This drives them to compete at their highest level.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:The game I played on Gamefaqs a while ago had a different spin to it. It closed setup role madness with claiming allowed. But it was based on a famous flavor (a song of ice and fire) so it would be possible for the players to guess the setup by claiming (that's something you need to observe, whether your flavor has characters where it's possible to deduce their allegiance or not).

Anyway, what the host did was provide the mafiosos with a giant list of characters not in the game. He would also volunteer to write them role pms for those characters, if they ever needed to claim.

I dropped the game after day 1 so I don't know how well that worked (probably did since it's an old community and they seem to do that often) but I thought it was prettycool.

I would play that game. Games designed around specific rules can be fun.

MP, In my hosting career I actually changed my later games on RM to a changeable vote format. I saw no real effect on the majority of lynches. I would play a game in either format. I see no difference and would let the host decide. I just see no advantage one way or the other.

I've made rather bold baddie moves in my time. I've manipulated late lynch turn arounds in both formats. So my whole argument is it is not a baddie advantage.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Also, unchangeable votes are horrid. There are plenty of scumhunting methods that can be employed utilizing changeable votes; I was never exposed to them until playing on RYM, but they do exist and they can be very effective. As a host and player I always allow changeable votes now, unless I have game-specific reasons for disallowing them.

Since you can say who you would vote for in the thread before you vote and change that opinion, your vote is technically changeable at all times. Unless it is cast. I don't really care one way or the other. To declare that it changes the game in any significant capacity is false.

I would vote for SVS right now. Later casts actual vote for LC.

Actually cast vote for SVS. Changes vote to LC before poll ends.

^^Same outcome. No difference in determining motives of player. The last vote is the only vote that matters in both scenarios.

If they cast their votes with reasons we can dig a little deeper into their motives. Helpful to town and mafia alike. In both instances they should be explaining their reasons for voting said person, so again, no difference.

Fun exercise, basic game. Baddie NK and BTSC and no civvie powers. I would be down in a heart beat. I enjoy a game with fun powers and flavor as much as the next player but I really enjoy the game for the mental sparring exercise that it is at its core.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:@Rabbit

"Horrible civvie play" is relative, civilians are not gods who can overcome any difficulty and Sherlock Holmes their way to victory. If baddies are winning games way more often in this site, it's because games are not being designed well enough to be balanced.

Knowing roles upon death, using cops results, changing votes, all of those are tools that civilians could be able to use to overcome the baddie's tools. The game isn't automatically better if it's harder for civilians to win. It has to be balanced first.

Relative to the civvies playing. Play better. I've seen entire baddies teams called after the first lynch or two. (No amount of balancing needed) I believe Golden has done this as well as myself. I know I've seen SVS get at least most of a team if not a whole team a couple times and these are just some of the players who have done it. They're also two players who know how to convince others.

The only vote that matters is the last vote in changeable games. Thus allowing it to changes is pointless. Just say who else you would have voted for in the thread. Use your words.... This is how civvies win, discussion.

If you can't find baddies without information, you're doing it wrong. Reevaluate your game. Not that everyone can't make mistakes. But over a month or two long game you should be able to narrow baddies down with little to no info.

I have not seen the roles lately but I agree with balance.

You in this post is not directed at you personally, Dragon.

^^That's a lot of excuses for horrible civvie play. I've played by those rules since I began playing and have never had a hard time finding baddies/scum, or winning as a civvie.

- Allowing scum players to talk and send actions after death: pro-mafia

Meh, slight advantage. Does it really make much difference in the end game. I doubt it.

- Banning info dumping: pro mafia

Disagree. Info dumping is stupid. Only needed for weak players whose arguments and ability to convey them are sub par. Or sore losers. Now if the roles changed every night like the advantage you claim below, this advantage wouldn't matter. They go hand in hand.

- Civilians don't win if they are dead: VERY pro-mafia

Disagree. Dead is dead. If I'm bad and I died I don't accept a winners banner. If you want to take a civvie win after dying and the civvies win, just copy the link. Besides I like to use my role for specific reasons. If I accomplish them I consider it a win. If I can get Golden really frustrated, I win. Enjoy the game, not the win. Also this doesn't affect the game in any way. It neither helps nor hinders the baddies chances of winning.

- Unchangable votes: pro-mafia

Disagree. Make a choice. Flip flopping is baddie behavior IMO. Changing votes is flipflopping, thus bad. But I flip flop as a civ all the time, holy fuck WIFOM or what?

- Not flipping roles that are killed in the night: pro-mafia.

Disagree. It changes the game. It could hurt or help either team.

S~V~S wrote:No guts, no glory, amirite??

A Person wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...

What do you think all my Day 1 lynches were? :P

Hilarious.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...

What do you think I've been doing this whole time?

Then again, there's been a recent increase in banning of self-voting.

Establishing an easy day 1 routine. Not my cup of tea. For timid players...

S~V~S wrote:I think taking options off the table limits people. I ave seen baddies force people to self vote. Fun times. Each host to his or her own

I agree. I enjoy variety in baddies. I like multiple game strategy. If you're only playing to win the current game, you're not playing mafia well. In my opinion.

Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...