Win rates by faction on The Syndicate

[Dragon D. Luffy]

@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.

[rabbit8]

@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.

[Epignosis]

@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.

With a few notable exceptions (I mean notable in the sense that the game was broken from Day 0), most of the time the civilians lose on this site because many of them don't make a praiseworthy effort to win. They are absent 45 of the 48 allotted hours each Day phase, which minimizes discussion. They miss votes. They self-vote. They fail to send in night actions. They develop tunnel vision. They devote pages to back-and-forths which minimize other discussion and make other civilians disinterested in reading or overwhelmed. And so on.

[rabbit8]

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.

[Epignosis]

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.

The Heist games here are supposed to be that or close to that, with no more than three powers and 15 roles.

[Epignosis]

I just went through my own games to see what the ratio is.

Masters of the Universe- Civilians
X-Men- Independent faction
Cars- Civilians
Biblical- Civilians and Independent
Star Wars- Mafia and Independents (3 factions)
Arkham- Civilians and various Independents

Thomas & Friends- Mafia
Classic Super Mario Bros.- Civilians
Shawshank Redemption- Independent (serial killer)
Willow- Civilians and Independent
Are You Being Served?- Civilians and Independent
The Legend of Zebra- Mafia
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?- Civilians
Watchmen- Independents
Angry Birds- Mafia
Dune- Civilians and Independents
Spirited Away- Mafia

Game of Champions 2014- Civilians
Omertà- Mafia
Home Alone- Mafia

++++

Of the twenty games I've hosted here:

Civilian win: 50%
Mafia win: 35%
Independent win: 45%

Maybe I need more powerful mafias.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I think I have played 6 or 7 games here and never seen civs win. I'll probably get retired from mafia before I ever see a civ win in the Syndicate at this rate.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Btw I'm not replying to every post adressed at me because I'm on my phone.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Civilians have been dominating the Heists here on the Syndicate though. That makes for an interesting counter-study.

I think with hesit, it is more straightforward and counteracts one of the most important things on the site, claiming and info dumping. As it was seen in the one that just finished, if info dumping wasn't allowed, scums might of been able to walk it out. WIth the ability to claim it made it impossible for scums to win

If you make role claiming allowed you need to be aware that might break tbe game and balance accordingly. Specially if your game has flavor (based on a specific theme) Give mafia janitors or godfathers, for example. Or make it closed setup and maybe even provide the mafia team with a list of "unused" characters they may claim. Open setup games with flavor and role claiming can become extremely pro-town.

I personally prefer the standard I see in a lot of games at NF. Allow info dumping but not claiminf your own role. I find that allows roles to be used to their full extent without giving civs an easy path to win.

[Tangrowth]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

[Ricochet]

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.

[rabbit8]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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.

[rabbit8]

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.

[rabbit8]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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]

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.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

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.

[rabbit8]

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.

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.

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.

[Golden]

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.

I agree with this. I think it advantages those who are the loudest and have most time, and disadvantages the quieter or ones with less time, whatever faction they are on.

[S~V~S]

I am gonna leave this here; it is about criminal justice, but it really does apply to Mafia. And I think it is an issue I see here on occasion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-sham ... 58044.html

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I was curious to see how this trend has developed or changed if at all since I originally posted this thread. I counted the wins per faction since May 2016:

Jobs:
~ Civilians - 4 wins
~ Mafia - 2 wins
~ 3 shared indy wins

Speed games:
~ Civilians - 3 wins
~ Mafia - 3 wins
~ 2 solo indy wins
~ 1 shared indy win

Heists:
~ Civilians - 3 wins
~ Mafia - 8 wins
~ 1 solo indy win

Special games:
~ Civilians - 1 win
~ 1 shared indy win

Burglaries:
~ Civilians - 1 win
~ Mafia - 2 wins
~ 1 solo indy win

Total (without burglaries): 11 civilian wins, 13 mafia wins, 6 shared indy wins, and 3 solo indy wins.

Total (with burglaries): 12 civilian wins, 15 mafia wins, 6 shared indy wins, and 4 solo indy wins.

The Mafia still have a slight edge, mostly on the strength of a really rough run for civilians in recent heist games. Generally though I think this is about as balanced as any site could hope to be over the stretch of nearly a year. I'd say the old trend of civilians barely ever winning has officially been curbed. Cool beans.

[Ricochet]

-

[Golden]

I note that in a game with two mafias, civilians should only win a third, since each of the three factions should have a 1/3 shot. This means our expectation for civilians ought to be under 50% overall.

[Tangrowth]

Yay data!

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Since April, 2017:

Jobs:
Civilian wins: 0
Mafia wins: 1
Joint indy wins: 1
Team indy wins: 1

Side Missions:
Civilian wins: 3
Mafia wins: 3
Team indy wins: 1

Heists:
Civilian wins: 3
Mafia wins: 5
Team indy wins: 1


Burglaries:
Civilian wins: 3
Mafia wins: 2
Joint indy wins: 2

There were no solo indy wins in any format.

Overall:

Civilian wins: 6 (9 with burglaries)
Mafia wins: 9 (11 with burglaries)
Joint indy wins: 1 (3 with burglaries)
Team indy wins: 3

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I was getting the impression civilians were on a tear in recent memory, but not really.

[Tangrowth]

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

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I think it's still pretty balanced.

[Golden]

How many of the games were 2-mafia?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Only one I think.

[Golden]

My mind explodes at the thought, but I think the useful statistic is a +/- on win rate vs expected win rate (based on every independent faction having equal chance). I've been wanting to do something like this with every Survivor contestant based on race and gender (overall vote out ratio vs expected ratio) but it's too big an idea for me.