Meta discussion

For your simulated organized crime needs.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Adam H » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:49 pm UTC

There has been a complaint regarding the "random lynch when votes are tied" rule. Thoughts? What are some better options?

No talking about ongoing games (i.e. the game where there was just a random lynch because of tied votes) please. ;)
-Adam

User avatar
mpolo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: Meta discussion

Postby mpolo » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:21 pm UTC

I guess "standard" play is No Lynch when votes are tied. However, that would heavily disadvantage town in this forum, as we seldom get to hammer, so that ties are pretty common.
Image <-- Evil experiment

User avatar
dimochka
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:25 pm UTC
Location: A few different places->NYC->LA->NYC. He/Him/His please.

Re: Meta discussion

Postby dimochka » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:23 pm UTC

I think it's really the mod's call. Although I guess the options I can think of are:

1. Random lynch when votes are tied (as above), unless everyone capable of voting is voting (in which case no lynch)
2. Lynch everyone who's tied (heavily favors scum imo, but I'll throw it out here anyways)
3. Lynch the first person to reach the tie amount (although is tricky - what to do if 5 to lynch, person X reaches 4, person Y reaches 3, and then one person unvotes on X? Is it still X lynched? What if he drops to 2 and then back up to 3)
4. No lynch.

My opinion? 3 > 4 > 1 > 2
If you're curious about the origin of my avatar, google "Cheburashka".

User avatar
Lataro
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:56 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Lataro » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:14 pm UTC

I always NL on ties.

1. It encourages players to vote.
2. It encourages strategic play.

And most importantly...

3. It prevents random factors from influencing the game, and prevents any appearance of modly intervention.

While it's mod's choice, I'll always use ties=NL unless there is some other game mechanic at play that makes another option preferred.
DS9, after being told the story and moral of the boy who cried wolf by Julian.

Garak: "Are you sure that's the moral?"
Julian: "Of course. What else could it be?"
Garak: "Never tell the same lie twice."

User avatar
Misnomer
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Misnomer » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Tie = no lynch is often the best way IMO. It's a blunt instrument, yes, but it doesn't favour scum too much as it's difficult to deliberately tie a lynch vote just before the deadline without looking as suspicious as hell. The risk of a no lynch also serves to motivate town towards actually reaching a majority decision rather than waiting for the deadline.
moody7277 wrote:The role of SDK in this game will be played by Misnomer. [/soapopera]

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Meta discussion

Postby roband » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:40 pm UTC

As long as NL doesn't break the game.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Adam H » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:41 pm UTC

Sounds like people prefer no lynch. This surprises me because it's clearly the inferior option!

First of all, I'm only talking about games where lynching is preferable and no lynching is frowned upon. That's pretty much every game here.

In those games a random lynch between the top vote-getters is almost always preferred to a NL, by every townie. So in a game where tied votes equals a NL, if a player is online at the deadline they'll always want to unvote or vote for anyone - doesn't matter who - just to break the tie. So then if a player is online before deadline, there will be a "random" lynch. The only situations where votals should be tied is when the deadline sneaks up on everyone. But that's just annoying! It favors players in certain time-zones who are able to get online at certain times of the day.

I do agree that no lynching with tied votes introduces different strategies, but IMO this is a bug, not a feature. The concept of a deadline really shouldn't be a strategic part of mafia at all and should only serve to force a decision to be made. If votes are tied at the deadline, NL is not a decision that ANYONE wants. So why do it?

The mod isn't interfering by picking a player at random. If players want to lynch a specific player, they can easily lynch a specific player.

I disagree that random lynches deter voting. It can only deter voting at the end of the day, at which time many players won't even be able to get online to defend themselves before the deadline. That is, you don't WANT a lot of votes right at deadline - that's not a fun game.

The "unless everyone capable of voting is voting (in which case no lynch)" is a very important modifier to the random lynch rule, of course.
-Adam

User avatar
dimochka
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:25 pm UTC
Location: A few different places->NYC->LA->NYC. He/Him/His please.

Re: Meta discussion

Postby dimochka » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:51 pm UTC

there's also the option of "extend deadline until there's no longer a tie for lynch" (and end day immediately upon that vote/unvote)...
If you're curious about the origin of my avatar, google "Cheburashka".

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Diemo » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:04 pm UTC

I disagree with that because then it depends on the timezone, which I would severly discourage.

I like the random unless everyone is voting in which case no-lynch method.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Adam H » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:11 pm UTC

Well, I think a 24 hour extension if there's a tie at a deadline is a decent idea. It would give everyone a chance to vote regardless of their time zone.

However, it definitely has the problem that some annoying townie posts: "if you break the tie you are scum, now let's use this opportunity to converse." Which of course would be followed by 24 hours of silence because they already had a week to say everything that needed to be said.
-Adam

User avatar
Misnomer
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Misnomer » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:21 pm UTC

Of course, you could always double-down and introduce a majority lynches only rule. Removes the issue of ties entirely, while also eliminating the possibility of unsatisfactory lynches in which players are lynched on barely a fraction of the overall voting base.
moody7277 wrote:The role of SDK in this game will be played by Misnomer. [/soapopera]

User avatar
mpolo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: Meta discussion

Postby mpolo » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:00 pm UTC

We used to have a lot of games with a "soft lynch" hurdle. If the leader in votes didn't have at least that many votes, there was no lynch. (Which is only vaguely related to the question at hand, of course.)
Image <-- Evil experiment

User avatar
Misnomer
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Misnomer » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:16 pm UTC

mpolo wrote:We used to have a lot of games with a "soft lynch" hurdle. If the leader in votes didn't have at least that many votes, there was no lynch. (Which is only vaguely related to the question at hand, of course.)
And the traditional soft lynch hurdle can of course produce ties... hmm. How about a soft lynch hurdle based upon vote difference rather than total votes? i.e. 'if there is no majority of votes at deadline, then the player with the most votes is lynched so long as they have at least two more votes than any other player'. 5-1-1-1-1-1 would still produce a lynch then, whereas 4-3-3 would not.
moody7277 wrote:The role of SDK in this game will be played by Misnomer. [/soapopera]

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Diemo » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:18 pm UTC

No, you don't want that. Because then a scum doesn't need to not be lynched, only to get to the soft lynch hurdle.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

User avatar
kalira
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:03 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby kalira » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:21 pm UTC

I had thought of that option as well, dim, but doesn't that potentially open it up to easy scum interference (if not all are already on a single person's wagon)? I realize it would probably end up looking intensely scummy and whoever that last person on a flipped townie lynch in that case would be likely lynched the next day. However, if there is more than one scum left before that lynch, it still gives scum the original town lynch, plus NK that night, lose one scum to the next day lynch, then NK the second night. If it would save a better scum power role, I wouldn't put it too far out of the realm of possibility.

Options I've seen in games here:
  • No lynch
  • Random lynch of one of tied candidates (unless all players are voting and have voted for one of the tied candidates)
  • Random lynch of one of tied candidates (unless all votes cast are for one of tied candidates) -- Note: I *think* I have seen this, and that it differs from the previous. I could be wrong.
  • No lynch until hammer

Given a choice between NL and random lynch, I'd choose random lynch, if only because a decided number of people are in favor of lynching at least one of the tied players. As far as theoretical options I haven't seen in a game here, I'm not sure. Everything I can think of seems like it has at least some measure of potential, but is less than ideal in the end.

  • Opening up a second round of voting for the lynch of one of the tied lynch candidates (i.e., the only candidates are those who were tied for the lynch in the original "round). However, this might throw off schedules depending on how long you let it run, and would likely not work if everyone already voting had voted for one of the tied.
  • Secret ballot (PMs to the mod voting for one of the tied candidates). Either would need to happen during the day period as having it at night would give scum a chance to collude on votes, essentially giving them a second choice of NK, or would need to happen at night with instructions that nobody with night chat can discuss it until after the lynch has happened. Again, if it's during the day, it might throw off schedules, and there is a possibility of changing votes that it might affect scum-hunting the next day (e.g. I vote to lynch Adam H before deadline, and he ties with dim. During the secret ballot, I switch my vote to dim, who is lynched in the secret ballot. Next day dim flips town, but I'm under less suspicion because I voted Adam publicly, but switched to dim privately.). If it happens at night, the mod has to figure out a way to deal with accidental (or not) slips in nightchat.

Kinda meh to nopish ideas...

Ninja'd. The soft lynch vote limit and soft lynch vote difference sound interesting. Would have to think more about those.
plytho wrote:Isn't bowling just a subcategory of pottery?

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Xenomortis » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:44 pm UTC

I dislike RNG mechanics. This isn't an objective conclusion; I just personally dislike non-deterministic outcomes in games.

Honestly, if town can't decide on a lynch, then that's their fault.
Tied votals being a NL also means a mafia win is truly inevitable when mafia match town for numbers, rather than being merely probable. But that's minor thing.

On the other hand, you potentially stop people from voting what they think close to deadline (apart from self-preservation votes); if person A has 3 votes and person B has 4 votes, but I vote for A, truly believing A is more likely scum, then I could greatly weaken town's position if I make that vote close to deadline.

AdamH wrote:Well, I think a 24 hour extension if there's a tie at a deadline is a decent idea. It would give everyone a chance to vote regardless of their time zone.

A hard 24-hour extension that plays out regardless of votes might be an idea. After that 24 hours is up, deadline is called. If it's still tied; no-lynch (if town can't decide after that, they don't deserve a lynch).
Image

User avatar
dimochka
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:25 pm UTC
Location: A few different places->NYC->LA->NYC. He/Him/His please.

Re: Meta discussion

Postby dimochka » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:02 pm UTC

I recall a game where some people automatically had votes placed on others and could not unvote without voting again. That's actually not a terrible idea. How i would twerk it, however, is:

a. every person is automatically voting for the person below him.
b. to vote for someone else, you must unvote and vote in the same exact post.
c. if you unvote without voting for someone else (within 5 min, in case you accidentally submitted), you lose voting privileges for the rest of the day.
*part c drops off once a certain small number of people are left (or at MYLO/LYLO?)
If you're curious about the origin of my avatar, google "Cheburashka".

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Adam H » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:21 pm UTC

Xenomortis wrote:Honestly, if town can't decide on a lynch, then that's their fault.
Who's fault, exactly? I don't really think you can blame the players who cast a vote for one of the leading candidates. By NLing, you are specifically punishing those players, because if one of those players didn't vote then the outcome would be better for them.

In contrast, the players who aren't voting for a leading candidate got what they (ostensibly) wanted with an NL. But they're the ones who should be punished, if anyone.
-Adam

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Xenomortis » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:27 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:
Xenomortis wrote:Honestly, if town can't decide on a lynch, then that's their fault.
Who's fault, exactly? I don't really think you can blame the players who cast a vote for one of the leading candidates. By NLing, you are specifically punishing those players, because if one of those players didn't vote then the outcome would be better for them.

Indeed.
I explicitly mentioned that in my post.

I don't like the NL solution, but I don't like the random one either.

Adam H wrote:In contrast, the players who aren't voting for a leading candidate got what they (ostensibly) wanted with an NL. But they're the ones who should be punished, if anyone.

If they're town then they're punished with town, collectively. Townies punishing town is just bad play.
If they're scum and town don't call them out on it then well... good on them.
Last edited by Xenomortis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
dimochka
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:25 pm UTC
Location: A few different places->NYC->LA->NYC. He/Him/His please.

Re: Meta discussion

Postby dimochka » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:28 pm UTC

mod madness has began.

my tw_eak changed to twerk!
If you're curious about the origin of my avatar, google "Cheburashka".

User avatar
kalira
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:03 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby kalira » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:33 pm UTC

That's apparently been like that for a while, dim -- not mod madness-related. (I only mention this because the same change happened for me recently, and I think there's actually a post in the mod madness announcement thread that brings up the same thing.)

Still...

*hides under box in anticipation of madness*
plytho wrote:Isn't bowling just a subcategory of pottery?

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Elvish Pillager » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:52 pm UTC

If you want to encourage voting, here's a variant:

At the end of the day, if there was no hammer, every player who isn't voting has their vote assigned to a random other player, then the vote leader is lynched (or NL on ties).

Not sure it's any good, but hey.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
Lataro
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:56 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Lataro » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:40 pm UTC

While I get that it's preferred to have a lynch over a NL (Massively, by myself included) I've seen it too many times when the course of the game is changed by a random lynch choice.

As a mod, I absolutely hate to make that choice, even if random.org picks it, it still feels like modly interference to me.

My stance is this, if the day's deadline has been reasonable, and everyone hasn't been active enough to discuss and work out a lynch choice, and everyone isn't voting, then if there is a NL, which I'd argue does not favor scum categorically, especially if it was between two townies, then it was the players as a whole we were at fault.

If it was between a scum and a townie and was tied, if town can't pick the scum between the two and want to make the mod choose by forcing them to flip a coin, then they don't deserve to have a lynch IMO, since generally any lynch favors town as it's more info.

Now, I've not encountered the problem before that I recall where every single person was voting, it was tied, and the deadline was looming, or everyone was staunchly locked in on their votes. If that happened though, were everyone was voting, I'd give an extension as a mod without needing a rule for it, but I still would not break their tie and decide the course of the game if they could not. If scum alone is able to force that situation, I rule the game as a scum win, such as starting the day with three town and three scum. If scum can get it done with four town and three scum, and someone is just not voting, it is that person's fault that there was a NL. IMO it's modly interference to break the tie, since what I am really doing is placing an extra random vote on another player and killing them.

Everyone has their styles, however, I will not change mine based on my belief that RNG has no place in a balanced game.
DS9, after being told the story and moral of the boy who cried wolf by Julian.

Garak: "Are you sure that's the moral?"
Julian: "Of course. What else could it be?"
Garak: "Never tell the same lie twice."

User avatar
firesoul31
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:30 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby firesoul31 » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:13 pm UTC

dimochka wrote:mod madness has began.

my tw_eak changed to twerk!


It will hit just as TPPm starts for even more fun (in both the literal and DF sense!)
Pronouns: she/her/hers or they/them please.

User avatar
Madge
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:45 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Madge » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:48 pm UTC

Thought on the RNG rule claiming that mods are messing with the game: in the gojoe thread, the mod posts an algorithm for determining the random lynchee (e.g. "I hash both votees names with X algorithm, and whichever hash has the most even numbers in it will be lynched"), if the mod ever has to make a decision they use that algorithm and the players can check on it after the game to make sure it was above board. However, this seems like a lot of effort and I'm not sure if mods are often accused of interfering with the game this way, and it would still be random so would make people sad.

Here's a couple of ideas that are only offered because they're very different to what's being done already and perhaps someone wise can get use out of them:

I'm a big fan of survivor, which has a voting system. They also very, very rarely have unresolved tied votals.

Here's a couple of ways they deal with ties of have dealt with ties in the past:

1) Whoever has the most past votes on them gets voted out - so if Adam and Dim are tied on D2, and at the end of D1 Adam had votes but Dim didn't, then Adam gets voted out. [I actually think this could transfer quite well to mafia]

2) Whoever loses a trivia or fire-making challenge gets voted out. (possible way to apply it to mafia: have people play a flash game and take a screenshot of their score) [I don't think anybody at all would like this idea]

3) A revote where players may only vote for the tied players - I should probably have put this higher. It's the "first resort" survivor has and is without fail used before any of the other methods I'm describing here. (Possible way to apply to mafia - all votes are reset and people have 48 hours to revote. I think this option would not be fun, though)

And the piece de resistance. In the 24 seasons (each season having ~8 eligible votes, since ties can only happen when there are an even number of players) that this tie resolving system has been used, there have been two tied votes that went to this tiebreaker. It's effective, but I think that's because people are forced to vote, which is not the case in mafia:

4) They "go to rocks". The players who are tied in the votals are immune, and everyone else - i.e. everyone who is NOT a whisker away from being lynched - has to draw a rock. Whoever draws the rock that's the wrong colour is out. (i.e. say Adam and Dim are tied, and me, firesoul, DJ, and diemo are voting. Adam and Dim are no longer in danger of being lynched, and random.org is brought in and randomly chooses that I am lynched, sucks to be me). The reason this works so much is because it punishes the voters EXTREMELY SEVERELY for not being able to agree on a candidate. However, again, I'm not sure how well this would translate into a mafia game, it would look very cheap for someone with 0 votes to get lynched in this way.

Again, I want to emphasise that I don't think these are good ideas, just that I like survivor and I think their tie breaking mechanics are interesting and effective.
Last edited by Madge on Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:08 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I'm writing a supernatural romance novel, it updates the first weekend of every month. You can find it here.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Deva » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:46 pm UTC

Designed (part of) a Mafia game. Broke ties with a character. Voted based on personality and pre-existing knowledge. Example possibilities (besides normal ones): kill both and reveal neither, follow X's vote, avoid lynching X, and favor lynching X. Could become meek, aggressive, or chaotic as reveals and deaths occur, if desired.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

User avatar
Lataro
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:56 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Lataro » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:48 pm UTC

I like the first one.

It would be a rule I'd consider adopting. It helps prevent a NL, and it uses past player intentions to guide the choice so it isn't just random. Using end of previous days votals to break the tie works for me. If there is still a tie after that, I'd stick with my NL.
DS9, after being told the story and moral of the boy who cried wolf by Julian.

Garak: "Are you sure that's the moral?"
Julian: "Of course. What else could it be?"
Garak: "Never tell the same lie twice."

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Vytron » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:12 am UTC

Oh My Goat. I never expected so much debate to come out just because I decided to ask for replacement for a game for that reason :shock:

Anyway, I've developed a huge aversion to randomness in general on games over the years. Games tend to approach "Snake And Ladder"-esque luck based, results, and even when I modded an Snakes and Ladders game on the forum I got rid of it altogether and attempted to turn it into a number-guessing game (with success, the players that put attention to their "rolls" did better.)

My main complain is about specific game events:

1- If there's a train between a townie and scum, the scum should be lynched because the majority of players though he was scum, and lynched him, not because random.org outputted a 2.

2- If there's a train that includes the game cop, this is a critical event, and whether the cop is lynched or not should depend on the decisions of the players, not, again, what random.org outputted.

3- The only situation where random is fine is when two vanilla townies are tied on the votals. But I'd expect that to be rare, in all the other situations, Atmospheric Noise is going to decide who is lynched. When did Atmospheric Noise sign up to the game and was given the power to tie break votals. What's their motivation and win condition anyway? If random.org is going to decide who is lynched, they've got to have a good reason for it.

4- I've read that random lynch only really matters in end game. I disagree, according to chaos theory, a microscopic change at the beginning on the game is going to become huge. One person being lynched instead of another is already huge. I reckon if games where random decided on a lynch on a townie instead of scum and scum won on the end would have had a different outcome if random decided differently.

5- I don't like people saying in this thread that "No-Lynch" is a bad outcome. It is only bad for town. People are talking about theoretical games, why are you assuming you'll have a town role in that theoretical game? No-lynch is a neutral result on tied votes.

6- The argument that "No-lynch" on tied votals favors scum is also not accurate. When the mod makes the setup, he'll have in mind that tied votals lead to No-lynch, so he'll make town slightly stronger or whatever. So once the game has already started, the town players shouldn't be worried that a tie means No-lynch is going to be worse for them, because the mod should have thought of that and had already ensured despite that they have a fair chance of winning.

7- While I don't think Tie=NL has anything wrong with it (because the mod works around that on the set up) I do like other options myself. Extended deadline to allow players to untie to votals sounds fine, basically, if they're tied because some players haven't gotten on before deadline, even though they'd have had a preferred lynchee, deadline waits for them to untie the votals, or for a player to be aware of it and remove a vote because they're fine with the other lynch, etc. - brings a non-random result. I'd even go far and say that if they're still tied after a second time, using random to decide is now fine, because all players of the game have been there, can't decide, and are fine with random.

8-"The last votes don't count" on a tie also works. You just remove votes and unvotes from players until there's no tie remaining. So what if a 3rd player gets lynched (instead of the two tied) if they were previously winning on the lynches but two votes were removed? It still adds strategical dynamics to the game, and it's fine as long as players know their actions will lead to some player being lynched, instead of leaving it to god.

9-I don't like Madge's solutions to the problem. Whatever method is decided to break the ties, it should be mafia-related, not an outside force. So, a player remaining a live because they knew some obscure trivia or they're better at Copter is just as bad as lynching randomly. Heck, make it a Tetris Attack match and I'm never going to be lynched on ties. Though, the one with players sending secret votes by PM to decide how the lynch is resolved on ties sounds cool, what do we do if that's a tie as well? XD

And finally, I have to say one thing: Adam's argument that the best way to decide this, mathematically, is with a random lynch, is correct. But we're not looking at the what, but the how, and how was the player lynched on a dice roll is unsatisfactory, even on games where I've used procedural generation of players or game results, they're deterministic and non-random.

NINJA'd: Oh, eh, missed Madge's 1. Well, yeah, if the players know at the beginning of the day what would be the outcome of a tied votals, then it's fine. But again, it leads to ties (what if both players have the most past votes too?, etc.)

User avatar
Lawrencelot
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:10 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Lawrencelot » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:02 pm UTC

I'm on the 'leave out the randomness' team. Seriously, mafia is not a game of randomness. I see nothing wrong with using no lynch in case of a tie, as the goal is to stimulate the town to reach an agreement. But the other option I would consider first is going back in time to see who had the most votes before there was a tie (not the same as 'looking at previous days' as was mentioned here).

Another possibility is to use the mayor concept from wherewolves: at the start of the game, players can volunteer to be a mayor, and possibly give a motivation. Players vote among the candidates for the mayor, just as they vote for a lynch, and the one with the most votes becomes mayor. Then Day 1 or Night 1 starts as normal. A mayor's vote counts for 2 in case there is a tie (another way to look at it, is to make his vote count for 1.5 always, or just call his vote the tiebreaker). When the mayor dies or gets lynched, he can choose any of the living players to become the new player. This also creates more discussion on Day 1 (both town and scum benefit from being a mayor) and is one of the things I like most about real life wherewolves.

By the way, can anyone explain me the reasoning behind the 'unless everyone is voting' part of the random lynch rule?

User avatar
Madge
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:45 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Madge » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:11 pm UTC

I love the idea of a mayor mechanic. Wow!
I'm writing a supernatural romance novel, it updates the first weekend of every month. You can find it here.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Diemo » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:25 pm UTC

YOu need the "Unless everyone is voting" because if you don't have that, and there are 2 scum/2town left, then it comes down to a random flip (both scum vote town, both town on same scum). With the modification, this is a scum win.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Adam H » Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:19 pm UTC

Lawrencelot wrote:I'm on the 'leave out the randomness' team.
For everyone on this team, are you opposed to having a secret list of tiebreakers known only to the mod, that may or may not be based on roles?
-Adam

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Xenomortis » Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:42 pm UTC

Yes.
Image

User avatar
dimochka
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:25 pm UTC
Location: A few different places->NYC->LA->NYC. He/Him/His please.

Re: Meta discussion

Postby dimochka » Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:57 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:
Lawrencelot wrote:I'm on the 'leave out the randomness' team.
For everyone on this team, are you opposed to having a secret list of tiebreakers known only to the mod, that may or may not be based on roles?


I'm on the fence on this. I think I'd be ok with it if it were known in advance that this is the case, but I can see how this would be opposed. Plus situations change throughout the game and some tie breaks like that could end the game early.
If you're curious about the origin of my avatar, google "Cheburashka".

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Diemo » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:33 pm UTC

I like the idea of having a mayor that you vote on actually, I think that I will add that to future games
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lawrencelot
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:10 am UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Lawrencelot » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:12 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:
Lawrencelot wrote:I'm on the 'leave out the randomness' team.
For everyone on this team, are you opposed to having a secret list of tiebreakers known only to the mod, that may or may not be based on roles?

I think this is slightly better than a random lynch, but I don't see how it is better than no lynch. To the players it makes no difference though, it is still the same as a random lynch to them so yes I would be opposed to this.

User avatar
wam
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am UTC
Location: South England

Re: Meta discussion

Postby wam » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:24 pm UTC

Random thought, how about a publicnumber.

I.e the aim of the NL is to make town vote and reach a decision. Would something along the lines of you get a point everytime you vote the person with the least points in a tie is lynched. The isssue with this would be preventing people from gaming the system, so something along the lines of only 1 vote in a 24 hour period counts. Would also help encourage people to post.
Come join us playing mafia signup here

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Meta discussion

Postby roband » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:26 pm UTC

Shit, just make it so the person who got to the number of votes which caused the tie first be the one who is lynched.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Adam H » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:54 pm UTC

roband wrote:Shit, just make it so the person who got to the number of votes which caused the tie first be the one who is lynched.
I personally don't like that because in general it discourages players from unvoting and revoting, it encourages bandwagons, it can make the end-game messy, and it adds new scum strategies and scum-hunting methods.

Basically, for standard games I don't want anything that adds nonstandard strategic elements to the game. Random lynch is perfect for not doing that. NL sucks at it, but it's common enough that the strategic elements it adds have become semi-standard.


Every non-mafia game I like has significant randomness built into the gameplay (no, I don't like chess, checkers, or go :P ), so I'm having a really hard time relating to the "randomness is bad" mindset. Cards and dice are tried and true methods of FUN.
-Adam

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: Meta discussion

Postby Vytron » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:04 pm UTC

Yeah, opposing anything with "only the mod knows" even if it's not random. The randomness is not the only problem, another problem is the players don't know who's going to be lynched.

So, yeah, I'd be up for a game where there's a chart with all players, like the Pokémon one (but filled up):

Image

Now, suppose Fire and Grass are tied in the votals. Grass is lynched on all cases. It doesn't matter that Fire > Grass was random from the start, because they players knew all along that in a tie situation Grass would always be lynched.

On-off-on tables like this can trivially be built for all kind of games, though uneven number of players is required.

As for the Mayor idea for tie breaking, while I love it and have nothing against it, I'm afraid the game could become too "mayor-centric", what with people speculating if a scum-mayor gave his major powers to a teammate or to a townie, to look townie, etc. I.e. I'd totally play in games with a mayor mechanic of tie breaking as they sound very fun, but I'd not like that suddenly all future games are using that mechanic (like, say, I love the jester role but wouldn't like that all games had a jester in it, part of the game would become jester-based, just like part of the game would become mayor-based).


Return to “Mafia”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests