The Syndicate

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

if the town is actively working with each other.

That's the crux of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

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

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

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

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

In fact your post agrees with my stance.

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

Conscious thought of all games.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

-

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.

Yay data!

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

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

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

I think it's still pretty balanced.

How many of the games were 2-mafia?

Only one I think.

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.