Win rates by faction on The Syndicate

[ika]

What if yours, or others, posts in this thread are a part of your meta game meant to influence future mafia games?

Then we are not having a discussion and are going into a WIFOM argument.

Ah, I predicted this, to call something a WIFOM argument is the oldest meta game of all!

I edited my post to respond more. Im not really caring about the WIFOM argument or if this thread does make change, im here for the discussion. IF it makes change more power to the thread. If not, well we had a nice dicussion

[A Person]

What if yours, or others, posts in this thread are a part of your meta game meant to influence future mafia games?

Then we are not having a discussion and are going into a WIFOM argument.

Ah, I predicted this, to call something a WIFOM argument is the oldest meta game of all!

I edited my post to respond more. Im not really caring about the WIFOM argument or if this thread does make change, im here for the discussion. IF it makes change more power to the thread. If not, well we had a nice dicussion

I am mostly amusing myself by pointing out one of the problems one has as a civ player.

[ika]

I am mostly amusing myself by pointing out one of the problems one has as a civ player.

Well, if you want to be tecnical all maifa (outside of PR reulsts and mod info) is WIFOM in itself.

[Tangrowth]

He just likes killing people; MP the Killer Accountant.

[Epignosis]

He just likes killing people; MP the Killer Accountant.

Creditz befo debitz, bitchtez

Er, something like that.

HEY~ Stop shooting me with the stapler, Alex!

[A Person]

I am mostly amusing myself by pointing out one of the problems one has as a civ player.

Well, if you want to be tecnical all maifa (outside of PR reulsts and mod info) is WIFOM in itself.

I was amusing myself by trying to demonstrate that, if I were to host again I'd try to think of a way to create group cohesion with the civs. It is difficult, very often one finds themselves innocent victim of a miss-aimed lynch or civ power or the goose in a wild goose chase. I guess my point is that there is a psychological disadvantage when playing civ, and it can cause a lot of different problems.

[Marmot]

On the meta issue: i agree if people use it too much that they will get overtaken one game. Funny enough as much as i say i use meta, i only use it very little. If anything i use it as a baseline to start a read. Even with silver, i dont like to think when it comes ot reading her its not about meta, but about her as a person

On the trust issue: i have already touched on that and how town doesn't find town and just paranoias themselves to a conspiracy theory of the impossible scum teams

on silencer/restrictions: it should be a scum aligned role. Frankly there is literally no town utility to removing a town voice, right or not. The moment you remove a town's power to vote and speak you have basically removed an entire town player for that 48 hrs. Me and silver have talked about it extensively on other sites and after downtown abbey. It does nobody any real favors in long run. If the role is scum aligned i can 100% understand its utility but for town to not only remove speaking powers but voting powers seems like you have a negative utility role that should never be used.

I'm with you. I think meta can supplement a solid read, but I don't like to let it determine a read.

[Tangrowth]

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]

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.

[Tangrowth]

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!

[Marmot]

The Syndicate is basically the Beta Version of Mafia.

[rabbit8]

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

[Tangrowth]

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

Working on it.

[A Person]

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

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

[Marmot]

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.

[A Person]

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

How am I supposed to play mafia like that?

[Tangrowth]

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.

[S~V~S]

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?

[Tangrowth]

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.

[S~V~S]

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

[rabbit8]

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.

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...

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.

[S~V~S]

No guts, no glory, amirite??

[Golden]

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.

Rabbit taught me this. SVS too, to some extent.

Omg, I can't believe I'm about to say this... is it possible part of the reason I'm a decent mafia player because of rabbit?

[rabbit8]

No guts, no glory, amirite??

[DFaraday]

I agree with the sentiment regarding civs who play as individuals, because I'm guilty of it quite a bit. I pretty much invest everything I do with storytelling, and Mafia lends itself well to that, so I think within the bounds of the story and don't really think of it as a victory if my character dead at the end. I'm reluctant to even put banners in my sig of games where I won even though I was dead (I do have a couple, but they feel like technicalities to me).

It's easier for me to sacrifice myself for teammates I know (eg. as a baddie), since at least I have some concrete purpose for my death. But yeah, I'm definitely part of the problem.

[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.

[Silverwolf]

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.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

I don't think it has much to do with culture/skill. The site I come from has some of the laziest and dumbest civvies I've ever seem, and yet they still win games more often than Syndicate's civvies. On NF I often watch civvies pull off victories out of nowhere after doing nothing to deserve them, while here civvies butt their heads until they bleed to try and find mafia only to fail over and over.

Now, I'm not calling for a major overhaul in game design culture, since all those things I mentioned have their charm even if they are pro-mafia, but maybe hosts should be aware the way we host games is very pro-mafia and try to balance games accordingly. Give civs stronger roles, for example, to compensate for the fact they are not allowed to dump info.

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.

Jesters. Or any game complicated enough to award player bonuses if they die in a certain way.

I've recently had a role that made my mafia faction stronger if I got people to follow me in a bandwagon. One day the cop found I was mafia and revealed. I immediately self-voted and watched as 15 players voted for me, giving my faction a huge bonus.

[rabbit8]

^^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.

[Silverwolf]

- Allowing scum players to talk and send actions after death: pro-mafia
This is something that I've never seen anywhere else and really shouldn't be allowed. It is very scum sided if scum take advantage of it. In my last game, they didn't.
- Banning info dumping: pro mafia
Something again, I've never seen anywhere else. Last game, Futurama, town won because cop infodumped
- Civilians don't win if they are dead: VERY pro-mafia
They should win if town wins. I've never heard of them not.
- Unchangable votes: pro-mafia
I can't stand this mechanic. It removes power from the power of the vote that makes a game stronger for town.
- Not flipping roles that are killed in the night: pro-mafia
Never seen this before either. As town, I use flips a lot to analyze. If I can't do that, it makes the game harder to win for town.

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

Give civs stronger roles, for example, to compensate for the fact they are not allowed to dump info.

This. Stronger roles would help compesate for some of these things.

I responded in red

[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.