Re: Win rates by faction on The Syndicate
Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 3:08 pm
Yeah, that one game, 9 with one modkill. All of them civvies
I lol'ed
I lol'ed
Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
I do have to say, when you make multi-ball game, it does get more swingy. I would say multiball can make the game much more scum-sided as well.Metalmarsh89 wrote:
I've pointed this out before, but (until Turf Wars), a mafia team of more than 4 players has never won on the Syndicate. The big teams always end up losing. It's the games where there's two mafia teams, or one mafia team and an Indy team, or several Indy roles and a mafia team, where the mafia usually wins. But such games are very common here.
Games with two mafia teams give mafia a legitimate chance to act like a civilian. They don't have to fake their scumhunting, because they do truly want to lynch players that civilians also want to lynch. I think this is another reason why mafia tend to win more here, since this format is very common.
I wonder about this though. I wonder if revealing alignments of nightkilled players in such games would offer some counterbalance to that. Not roles, just alignments.
This, so much this. There is nothing more frustrating than having your voice and your vote-a major power for town-taken away by a town role. That just seems negative utility. But for scum to be able to do it, makes sense.ika wrote: 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.
What if this is part of your meta game?ika wrote: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
Clarify?A Person wrote:What if this is part of your meta game?ika wrote: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
What if yours, or others, posts in this thread are a part of your meta game meant to influence future mafia games?ika wrote:Clarify?A Person wrote:What if this is part of your meta game?ika wrote: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
Then we are not having a discussion and are going into a WIFOM argument.A Person wrote: What if yours, or others, posts in this thread are a part of your meta game meant to influence future mafia games?
Ah, I predicted this, to call something a WIFOM argument is the oldest meta game of all!ika wrote:Then we are not having a discussion and are going into a WIFOM argument.A Person wrote: What if yours, or others, posts in this thread are a part of your meta game meant to influence future mafia games?
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 dicussionA Person wrote:Ah, I predicted this, to call something a WIFOM argument is the oldest meta game of all!ika wrote:Then we are not having a discussion and are going into a WIFOM argument.A Person wrote: What if yours, or others, posts in this thread are a part of your meta game meant to influence future mafia games?
I am mostly amusing myself by pointing out one of the problems one has as a civ player.ika wrote: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 dicussionA Person wrote:Ah, I predicted this, to call something a WIFOM argument is the oldest meta game of all!ika wrote:Then we are not having a discussion and are going into a WIFOM argument.A Person wrote: What if yours, or others, posts in this thread are a part of your meta game meant to influence future mafia games?
Well, if you want to be tecnical all maifa (outside of PR reulsts and mod info) is WIFOM in itself.A Person wrote: I am mostly amusing myself by pointing out one of the problems one has as a civ player.
S~V~S wrote:He just likes killing people; MP the Killer Accountant.
Creditz befo debitz, bitchtezMovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S wrote:He just likes killing people; MP the Killer Accountant.
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.ika wrote:Well, if you want to be tecnical all maifa (outside of PR reulsts and mod info) is WIFOM in itself.A Person wrote: I am mostly amusing myself by pointing out one of the problems one has as a civ player.
I'm with you. I think meta can supplement a solid read, but I don't like to let it determine a read.ika wrote: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 absolutely agree!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.
Working on it.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? :Prabbit8 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?rabbit8 wrote:Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Then again, there's been a recent increase in banning of self-voting.
You can blame me.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?
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?Metalmarsh89 wrote:What do you think I've been doing this whole time?rabbit8 wrote:Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...
Then again, there's been a recent increase in banning of self-voting.
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 wrote: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?Metalmarsh89 wrote:What do you think I've been doing this whole time?rabbit8 wrote:Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...
Then again, there's been a recent increase in banning of self-voting.
Hilarious.A Person wrote:What do you think all my Day 1 lynches were? :Prabbit8 wrote:Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...
Establishing an easy day 1 routine. Not my cup of tea. For timid players...Metalmarsh89 wrote:What do you think I've been doing this whole time?rabbit8 wrote:Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...
Then again, there's been a recent increase in banning of self-voting.
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 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
Rabbit taught me this. SVS too, to some extent.rabbit8 wrote: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 wrote:No guts, no glory, amirite??
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: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 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.MovingPictures07 wrote: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: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
Jesters. Or any game complicated enough to award player bonuses if they die in a certain way.MovingPictures07 wrote: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 wrote: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?Metalmarsh89 wrote:What do you think I've been doing this whole time?rabbit8 wrote:Because civs don't sacrifice themselves for the team. Let's change that...
Then again, there's been a recent increase in banning of self-voting.
Meh, slight advantage. Does it really make much difference in the end game. I doubt it.- Allowing scum players to talk and send actions after death: 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.- Banning info dumping: 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.- Civilians don't win if they are dead: VERY 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?- Unchangable votes: pro-mafia
Disagree. It changes the game. It could hurt or help either team.- Not flipping roles that are killed in the night: pro-mafia.
I responded in redDragon D. Luffy wrote: - 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.
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.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.
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.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.
The Heist games here are supposed to be that or close to that, with no more than three powers and 15 roles.rabbit8 wrote: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.
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.ika wrote: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 winMetalmarsh89 wrote:Civilians have been dominating the Heists here on the Syndicate though. That makes for an interesting counter-study.
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.Silverwolf wrote: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.MovingPictures07 wrote: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: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