The Syndicate

That's not terrible though. I expect 2018 will be a very intriguing year's worth of data.

Yay data!

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.

rabbit8 wrote: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.

Yeah, sometimes I've hosted games and it didn't make any difference. In fact, the first real time I saw a difference in a non-Heist setup was just recently (Turf Wars). I think it may be partially due to the fact that so many of us are accustomed to unchangeable votes, but I'm not sure.

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.

Huh, that is an interesting approach.

Ricochet wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I think a lot of it has to do with specific game design style. A lot of SYndicate traditions, while not bad by themselves, tend to be pro-scum, and combined they seem to make the game unbalanced on scum's side.

Example:

- Allowing scum players to talk and send actions after death: pro-mafia
- Banning info dumping: pro mafia
- Civilians don't win if they are dead: VERY pro-mafia
- Unchangable votes: pro-mafia
- Not flipping roles that are killed in the night: pro-mafia.

Some things I see are are pro-town, like allowing posts in the night, but they don't seem to compensate.

Re: the bolded/underlined, I don't think I've ever seen this allowed.

Regarding allowing scum players to talk, not sure how much of an impact this has, but I've eliminated it in my games. I also think civilians not winning if they are dead is not exactly the source of the problem -- the real problem is individualistic/independent-minded town play. I don't plan on ever hosting a game with those conditions again; I much prefer less black/white win conditions, or just allowing all dead to win, but typically if they have some other obstacle to overcome (such as in Turf Wars).

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.

All I'm reading into this is that MP has been converted by outside mafia forces.

I'd say yes to after-death baddie BTSC, gradually meh to all town winning (I'm more on rabbit's side on what meaning a post-death town win has) and no to hating unchangeable votes. Hunt in the thread, vote at the end. Throwing votes around is far more trivial and inconsequential.

And not much so "converted", but... even though I'd thoroughly enjoyed playing mafia for 5 years before being heavily exposed to different approaches, I've grown to (as a player) generally like the Heist-style setup more, because I prefer the hunt at its more basic level. Open setup role madness games can be a lot of fun, but there are things I've always disliked about them (again, as a player; as a host I think they're fascinating). My preference could change, of course, but I find that I prefer the Heist style setup over Side Missions or Jobs, and that's reflected in my answers above. They're all great, but the Heist format is closer to the original intention of the game in party game format.

rabbit8 wrote:

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.

In some setups, that's true, and that's what I've been doing in unchangeable-vote games too, so your point is well taken.

The difference is that unchangeable votes present a more immediate threat of death since a wagon can form early and then change at a moment's will at endgame; I would think it introduces more uncertainty, especially seeing EoD Day 2 of Turf Wars where there were two large wagons (on agleam and Epi), but many voters from agleam and elsewhere formed a new third wagon within the last hour or so to lynch that new person. That couldn't happen in a game without unchangeable votes in quite the same way, even if everyone waited until the very last minute. I can see why this is seen as a minor difference though, or barely any at all, because it is.

It does matter in games with a hammer though, since that means the moment someone receives a majority of votes, the Day actually ends. Changeable versus unchangeable in that situation would more heavily alter the dynamic in those kind of games, but, as I noted in a prior post, only 1 such game here has featured a hammer mechanic to date.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:In Guess Who mafia there was at least one day where I sent the kill for my faction, way after I was lynched. I assumed that was the standard here.

I don't think this one makes a huge differenxe to game balance though.

I definitely wouldn't allow it.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I think a lot of it has to do with specific game design style. A lot of SYndicate traditions, while not bad by themselves, tend to be pro-scum, and combined they seem to make the game unbalanced on scum's side.

Example:

- Allowing scum players to talk and send actions after death: pro-mafia
- Banning info dumping: pro mafia
- Civilians don't win if they are dead: VERY pro-mafia
- Unchangable votes: pro-mafia
- Not flipping roles that are killed in the night: pro-mafia.

Some things I see are are pro-town, like allowing posts in the night, but they don't seem to compensate.

Re: the bolded/underlined, I don't think I've ever seen this allowed.

Regarding allowing scum players to talk, not sure how much of an impact this has, but I've eliminated it in my games. I also think civilians not winning if they are dead is not exactly the source of the problem -- the real problem is individualistic/independent-minded town play. I don't plan on ever hosting a game with those conditions again; I much prefer less black/white win conditions, or just allowing all dead to win, but typically if they have some other obstacle to overcome (such as in Turf Wars).

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.

Silverwolf wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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

Well, generally I agree with that sentiment, I just don't think self-voting is an option that should be available (just like voting for the non-player option), but that's just me. Of course to each their own.

I can think of a situation it would be beneficial. For scum to do it when they want to self hammer to get out of the game. Town self voting makes zero sense to me to do ever.

Well, considering I've only seen one game with a hammer on this site or any LP-based sites in all my years of playing, this didn't come to mind. I suppose that makes sense.

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

Well, generally I agree with that sentiment, I just don't think self-voting is an option that should be available (just like voting for the non-player option), but that's just me. Of course to each their own.

S~V~S wrote:

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.

I will never ban that or self targeting either. Both have a strategic place. I don;t like either, but who am I to impose my standards on my players?

I disagree. Self-targeting is one thing. A self-vote has no strategic place in a mafia game, and this is coming from someone who's done it out of frustration more than once over the years.

A Person wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Then again, there's been a recent increase in banning of self-voting.

How am I supposed to play mafia like that?

You can blame me.

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

Working on it.

S~V~S wrote:Yeah, we're a work in progress; that is what I like most about us. We are always open to new ideas, and if they work for us, we embrace them happily. So sometimes balance is hard when you are in a constant state of growth. But it is something we are constantly striving to achieve.

I absolutely agree!

I think it often is a little bit of many of these things playing together simultaneously.

Game design is quite difficult when it comes to unconventional, very complicated role madness games that many of us fell in love with years ago, and it's very, very difficult to balance these kind of games. I've found over the years that I think overly complicated games, as fun as they are, give mafia an advantage because townies spend most of the game confused. This is partially because another problem, which is that town often views themselves as individuals rather than a team, is manifesting -- and this developed due to the fact that townies (and even baddies, before this site at other LP-based communities) could only win if they were alive. For my first 2 years of playing, I maybe won 2 games max due to those conditions due to my high propensity to get myself lynched. I do also think that many people here play mafia for the fun and don't always take it super seriously. That's all well and good, but it's inevitably led to some conflict and differences of opinion. I remember arguing with people on Day 1 every single game about whether randomizing and self-voting were a legitimate Day 1 strategy since I was one of the very few from the LP-based community who was very opposed to it from the beginning.

Especially since I've become involved with other communities, particularly RYM, I've seen the more conventional ways that communities played mafia, and have actually grown to like the team-based win cons (regardless of survival), smaller games, and less complex setups more as a player. As a host, I still love my overly complex games because I try to reflect my themes as much as possible and they're a lot of fun, but I also now recognize that a substantial amount of those kind of games just aren't "mafia". They are still mafia to me, but you have to view them inevitably with a different mindset. I think many of us in this community are pretty open-minded when it comes to what constitutes a "mafia" game, inevitably due to our upbringing at LP-based communities where we ran nothing but open setup role madness; I'd say while that has contributed to some of the 'problem' of the town not winning as much, it's more of a good thing than not, and I really like that we can call our community and approach to the game unique comparative to the rest of the mafia universe.

Like S~V~S noted, I generally echo the observation that, for years in LP-based communities, the win rate seemed rather balanced, though GTH I would say that I think mafia did win more often. At STV though, town won almost every game, whereas at TP I think it might have been more mafia-friendly, so I think it just depended on the community and the customs to a degree as well.

Let's not forget that even perfect balance can lead to seemingly 'unbalanced' outcomes. If I flip a coin 10 times, there's still a possibility, although remote, that I'll get 8 heads and 2 tails. Would we then start questioning whether the coin is balanced in the favor of heads? Add in human behavior with respect to players and hosts -- things get more complicated. Especially in smaller sample sizes. And in mafia games, you can even balance the game's setup in favor of the town, but if the mafia simply outplay the town or if the town never fully examine the mafia like they do each other, then that's what happens. You cannot control for that!

The historical win rates by faction discrepancy is definitely a question without an easy answer, but I think we've been making progress towards addressing it via gradual introduction of closed setup Heist games where survival isn't necessary, integration with other cultures and players, etc. We still have a ways to go in my opinion, but I've seen some progress at least.

S~V~S wrote:He just likes killing people; MP the Killer Accountant.