Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Galzria]

My personal feelings:

If a setup is closed (What is included in the game is unknown):

It needs to adhere to a setup closer to that of an accepted Mafia Wiki "Normal" setup. The players should not be left feeling like they have no idea what to expect. "Anything" should not be out there. There's still room for the mods to play around with just how many PR's are in the setup (PR heavy does NOT = RMM), but the types of roles that can appear should be within a reasonable standard. I look to setups like C9++ (the most common "normal" setup run) as a great example of what "normal" roles to expect would be. Certainly this can be expanded SOME, but not heavily. If I'm in a closed setup and cannot have a basis for expectations at night, or how to explain things, then I feel like I'm in an RMM game.

If a setup is open (What is included in the game is known):

I think a "Normal" setup here can get a lot more leeway. Here mods can have fun and explore unique mechanics and still call the game "Normal". Because at the end of the day, as a player, I can come up with reasonable explanations for any set of events. Maybe the whole setup here isn't spelled out. Maybe just what COULD be in the setup is (see C9++ for a great example). But as a player, I know what to look for inside the game, and this makes my ability to PLAY the game, especially in a straight scumhunting manor (something I think "Normal" should strive for) much more functional. Had Modern Community fallen under this category, I wouldn't have any problem with it being called "Normal". The same goes for Robz' games in the past, or any of the others that have been run that push the limits. This is actually why I find Cayvie's games (while not always BALANCED) to absolutely be of a "Normal" variety of game. Everything that COULD be in the game was pre-stated.

Anything falling into the above two categories to me is a fine and "Normal" game. Both categories can push PR heavy, or PR light, to whatever degree the mods feel like doing. They can be flavor heavy, or flavor light, and they can be a lot of fun. The key to both is that the players should never feel shocked or surprised. They should come into the game knowing what to expect. If that's a closed setup with more standard roles, great. If it's an open setup that could have crazy shenanigans, that's fine as well. What crosses over into RMM territory for me is when a setup is closed (what's in the game is not known), and the mods push the boundaries of Role creation.

Basically, to paint things in a very broad brush:

Normal Games with a Closed Setup may contain:
Cop
Doctor
Roleblocker
Vigilante
Godfather
Rolecop
SK
IC
Mason
Neighbors
Neighborizer
Tracker
Watcher
JoAT (with listed roles above)

Modifiers:
1-shot
x-shot
Bulletproof
Godfather (in the case of, say, a SK)


Maybe a few other standard roles/modifiers that I've forgotten. But a fairly tight format. What's possible is within reasonable expectaions, even if the number of each is unknown (PR heavy // PR light). I do think a normal setup should strive to contain at least a HANDFUL of VT's or Goons. Especially in a closed setup.

Normal Games with a Semi-Open / Open Setup may contain:
Anything short of alignment switches or cults. I tend to disagree with the community here in that I dislike busdrivers or janitors here (I feel they start to stretch the imagination on what's possible within the game a bit too far), I wouldn't throw a fit to see them included, as long as it was stated that they are possible within the setup. The basic goal here isn't to state exactly what's included, but at the very least what may be included.

RMM games to me should almost always be Closed Setup, unless the mod really wants it open for some reason. I think alignment switches and cults are both acceptable here, as long as they don't go overboard. I think RMM games should still STRIVE to be balanced, but that shouldn't get in the way of the Mods having fun with their creation. PINL is ALWAYS a rule in RMM games.

Inventing / Tinkering: If you are planning on running a closed setup, and wish to label it "Normal", I do not think any Inventing / Tinkering should be done. This goes back to the players knowing what to expect. If I come out and claim "Investigator", I think the reasonable expectation in a closed setup is "Cop". If it turns out I'm a gunsmith (I investigate for clues to see who might have guns), then I feel like the mods have put something in to mislead reasonable expectation. If this were an Open/Semi-Open setup however, maybe Cop/Investigator/Tracker/Whatever are all possibilities. At least I know ahead of time that there's a difference between Cop/Investigator. Further, if you're going to modify a role that already exists on the Mafia Wiki, I think the modification needs to be spelled out ahead of time (even in an Open/Semi-Open setup) - because you, as a mod, know for a fact that players will refer to the Wiki when they see that Role. And reasonable expectation is that the role does what it says.

Essentially, this all comes back to "Reasonable Expectation". As a player in a game rated "Normal", I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to solve the mod. I don't want to feel like I've got no idea what could possibly be out there. I don't want to feel like I need to account for "everything". If I'm unable to get the most basic of handles on a game, then I feel it's no longer "Normal", because I can't play as if it is.

Lastly, on the point of "Reasonable Expectation", I think this is where Voltgloss got upset in Modern Community. He felt that, if you include a role like "Ninja", there's a "Reasonable Expectation" that there's a Watcher/Tracker. That's a fence that I sit on both sides of, but it's not an issue to me that makes or breaks "Normal" vs "RMM". I've no issue with a setup that contains a Godfather, but no Cop. So I shouldn't have a problem with a setup that contains a Ninja with no Tracker. I shouldn't have a problem with a setup that contains a Strongman, but no Doctor/Bulletproof. Yet I DO feel like all three examples LEAD the players to believe the existence of A means B. Which I think brings me back to the two setups of "Normal" that I think should exist: If you're playing a closed setup, the mods should strive to avoid any misleading. If A exists, then B probably should. However, if you're running an Open or Semi-Open (C9++) setup, I think it's perfectly reasonable for one to exist without the other - because it's prestated ahead of time that this could be the case. There's no expectation upon seeing Ninja, or Godfather, or Strongman, that there MUST be a counter-role in the game.

Lastly Lastly: BM:

First off, I don't like the PINL rule that we have. I think mods in ANY game, of ANY format, should adhere to this. The BM games where this is not the case I have found systematically fail to be fun for the players. Players need at least SOME structure. And that structure needs to come from the mods. BM games to me are games that have completely wacky GAME mechanics. There should be no expectations on the roles, and the game may play in very weird ways. This is why mods must always remain truthful. Because you actually get MORE creative room when you are. Let BM games be anything they want to be, but be honest with the players at all times, and you can really have fun with them. BM games generally don't try to be Mafia games. They follow a Mafia format of Day/Night with lynches, but beyond that, my expectations here are "Have no reasonable expectations".

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Ok, so this might not be the best place for this, but while we're having a discussion I wanted to pose some thoughts:

Let's say you're designing a Mafia setup. You want it to be "balanced". What does this mean exactly?

Does it mean that every faction has an equal chance of winning? This leads to some strange situations with one-man factions like SKs--should one person have the same chances as a whole team? It might be kind of unsatisfying to declare "X wins--everyone else loses!" on a regular basis.

This suggests another possibility, where winning percentages are proportional to the size of the team. This would make scum teams less likely to win and might diminish the suspense. Also it leads to degenerate situations like "100% town, everybody wins!"

Or something in between? Certainly shared wins complicate the discussion as well.

I know this isn't exactly what we're talking about in this thread, but it does have some bearing on the discussion--a totally normal game, with just VTs and Goons, verges on Bastard if 80% of the participants are Mafia! As an extreme example.

Which leads me to my next point: how do we determine if a setup will conform to the established fair win rates? Do people run simulations of their setups beforehand? (I wouldn't be surprised in such a code-happy forum.) Or analyze with other techniques? I was thinking of a simple simulation where all lynches and night actions are essentially random, and see how the win rates turn out on average. Then (un)skillful human play could shift the balance one way or the other. But is adding that human element more likely to give more of an advantage to scum, town, or both equally, when the time actually comes to play?

Of course that doesn't capture a lot of the game, but you could tinker with the program to include claims, revelations of night results, belief in others' claims, focused targeting, etc. I guess my overall question here is, have these sorts of simulations been attempted before, and if so how'd they turn out? Otherwise, what heuristics are you using to determine if these setups are properly balanced?

[Robz888]

In Mafia, balance is semi subjective. Town and mafia do not have equal chances of winning given setups, and SK has a worse chance of winning all the time.

My own view would be this: In a game with only two factions, no faction should have a stronger than, I don't know 60-70% chance of winning, probably.

In a game with three or more factions, no faction should have like a better than 50% of winning, and no faction should have less than a 20% chance of winning.

These numbers are totally invented and made up, but I don't know, that's what I would consider fair, at least.

[Jimmmmm]

In a game with three or more factions, no faction should have like a better than 50% of winning, and no faction should have less than a 20% chance of winning.

I feel like SKs normally have less than this, but that's just sort of the way it is.

[Archetype]

I think that regardless of your experience, any closed setup should be run by at least one other person. I made that mistake with DoMafia and don't want to see it happen again.

Also: SKs should get a bigger boost in closed games. Juss sayin'.

I know ashersky/yuma didn't do this (largely because the idea hadn't been brought up yet), but in closed normal games, roles, for the most part, should be used as-is on Mafiascum. So no 'Godfatherer' 'Claimed Cop' or anything like that. I say that if you do use slight deviations from common roles, you should let everyone know so in the OP of your game.

[yuma]

I guess I'll tag. I kinda want to join into this conversation but am somewhat hesitant to do so.

Maybe later.

[yuma]

Ok: I am going to try and express my thoughts.

I feel that what we are looking for is a way to standardize that still encourages creativity and forward thinking in games, but still allows people to at least have a generally good idea of what they are getting into.

I like Robz's suggestion probably the most out of all that I have read:

Blitz -- Must be normal/previously-approved/minor tweaked setup. Counts for spreadsheet.
Normal -- Must be mafiascum style setup with minor tweaks, examples: Jk++, Pick Your Poison. Counts for spreadsheet.
Invented -- Encapsulates games that strive for balance and come at least close to achieving it, but are role madness in nature. Counts for spreadsheet?
Bastard -- Everything else.

The only thing that I would suggest changing is that Invented should be split. There should be "normal invented" and "RMM invented"

I suggest this because I think we want to be a proactive community. Yes we can use mafiascum, but we are an independent entity and shouldn't be completely reliant on them to come up with new ideas and new setups.

I think there is room out there for "normal invented setups" both open and closed. I am looking at Harry Potter, Mean Girls, liopoil's open game, Insomniac's MIII, and Jorbles MXIV--although there is one part I want to note about that, but I'll get to that later.

I even think that for the most part (a few things aside) I would consider Modern Community and MXIX to be "normal invented."

So if you you join a "normal invented" game, it counts for the stats. But you basically agree that you don't have a reasonable expectation to there being an established set of roles.

I think Galz's set of roles is far too restrictive. And I think the idea of moving all other games that have unique roles or slightly modified roles to only RMM kills creativity among our moderators. How do you think mafiascum creates new roles? Do they just sit around and use the same roles over and over and over and over again? No. They have been looking at roles and variations of roles for a long time and when they do sometimes something sticks that is awesome and is used more and more and more and becomes standardized. I think saying that only normal games can have a set type of roles kills off a chance to create something new and fun.

Now I think there are some roles that should not be considered for normal mafia, of either type "invented" or "normal-open"

However, any setup that introduces a new mechanism... so Robz's map moving in Bankers, Jorbles' chicken talk in MXIV, dice rolling (sorry Jimmm, won't talk beyond this mentioning) and I would even say Hangman style (for EFHW blitz game) should be considered RMM... As well as the mechanisms in innovation mafia, Domafia, pokeman mafia... All of that is RMM.

I am not sure I explained myself very clearly. Obviously there will be people that will probably disagree. And that is OK. I am not demanding to get my way. I think continuing to be a part of this community, even if I have to accept something I don't agree with, is more important that getting my way.

[yuma]

A counter argument that I just thought of is something that maybe I would prefer more:

The idea is that all RMM games are potentially eligible for stats... But first have to be approved by some sort of a panel (obviously players not playing in it) before or after the fact. If it meets certain criteria it can be labeled as a RMM(stat) game. I think this would allow for the experimentation and creativity, but doesn't mess around with the "normal" designation.

Or maybe we should just stop doing the stats altogether. I am happy to keep doing them, but just to create designations around the stats that I created on a whim one day last year is a bit silly...

But one thing I will say is that we shouldn't just let all RMM games be counted as stat games.

[liopoil]

I think we should add an extra category. example:

bastard: the same as it is right now.
RMM: more like the older RMMs, really crazy. Night is super important, etc.
Role games: Everyone has a role, neat interactions, but the focus of the game is still scumhunting.
normal: either an established mafiascum setup, or some different open setup. Setup is (relatively) simple, at least half of the players are VT. If closed, we're told how many scum there are and how many teams, maybe a list of possible roles (though potential modifiers may not be listed, if this is the case, we're told that there may be modifiers).

blitz and newbie games are both normal. Maybe have a separate queue, but same category of setup.

The line between role games and normal games in this case is pretty close to the line between "closed" and "open".

In terms of stats, I'd think that role games and normal games can both be included, probably not RMM.

And yes, SKs absolutely need more of a boost. And I'm not talking like 1-shot bulletproof, I'm thinking a full strongman kill AND a full bulletproof.

[yuma]

Really good suggestions from liopoil. Only thing I would change is that "everyone has the potential to have a neat role" The mystery of how many VTs is part of the fun I think... And if people come in expecting a "neat role" and get VT they would be mad as it wouldn't meet their expectations. Sometimes VTs (or VTs or Goons) are needed to round out a really interesting setup. Like, ~2 VTs in a role game of 13 players should still be a role game.

I think SK needs to be in setups less often frankly. I think they might be overused.

One more thing that I want to address however is the ninja/watcher issue:

I think that the dynamic of not knowing what a mod put into the game could be an interesting element that has the potential to be really fun, and as such I think it shouldn't be restricted to just Bastard games.  I think that given our discussion it should only be in RMM games and that the mod should state that it is possible that this could happen. Doing so adds another layer of trying to figure out the game (figure out if the watcher is claiming because he is the watcher or if it is because it is the most convenient claim) as long as players know it is a possibility they can't be stunned and overly surprised by it.

[Twistedarcher]

I think that having separate categories might be fine, but I wouldn't be in favor of separate queues. I am worried that splitting the normal queue into two categories would cause one queue to stall much like the BM queue is currently, and that having an entire set of games stalled out isn't good, especially for people who want to make/play games specifically in that category.

Like, if we split into "normal" and "role games", people who want to play one game only may tend to go for a "normal" game, and this repeatedly happens, and the "role games" queue gets stalled out. I'd be in favor of two categories in one queue, but not two separate queues, if that makes sense.

[liopoil]

but there aren't really games with just a couple VTs. Pretty much all games are either no VTs, or at least almost half-VTs. That's because it's kinda not fun to be one of just a couple people who are VT.

[Robz888]

Yuma, I really love having the spreadsheet stats. It's not important, you can't have really an objective ranking for mafia the way you do for Dominion, for example... but I really like having it nonetheless. I like the very small incentive it provides to like, try to win. I'm a big fan. And I want to count and continue counting balanced and close-to-balanced games.

[Robz888]

As for the panel idea... I don't know. I mean sure, it's a possibility, and it would probably be fine. But there are a lot of things at work, I mean we all have this tendency after a game where e lost to go, "Man, no fair!" Now I respect the people here a lot and I do think we can control that, but not totally ignore it. So, I do think it's a little potentially problematic to decide whether to count a game AFTER it's finished.

So, I do think I would rather decide what constitutes a certain kind of game, and what kinds of games are going to be counted.

But like, a "ratings commission" is a fine and possible idea, I just don't know whether it would be the best thing.

[Galzria]

I'll put it another way for me, and let that be it:

If I signed up for another closed normal game, and got anything like what we had with MC, it would be the last normal game I played here.

I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but if a setup is closed, yet rated "normal", then I need to know ahead of time what I'm looking at getting involved in. Not the exact setup, no, but a reasonable expectation of range for roles to fall under.

Yuma, I feel like you didn't bother to read the entirety of my post. In saying that it's completely restrictive and new roles would never get created... well, no. That's completely wrong. I think I left a wide avenue for creationism and inventiveness within normal game parameters. It's as an open or semi open setup. So that players who join aren't completely ****ed over by something they had no idea to expect.

And yes, I do absolutely believe that new roles aren't just thrown into closed setups on mafia wiki. The site basically says that's not the case. Every setup run must be approved by a board there. Yet as you say, New roles get created all the time. That's great. But it needs to come in the right format. Closed Setups should not be that format.

[yuma]

I think that having separate categories might be fine, but I wouldn't be in favor of separate queues. I am worried that splitting the normal queue into two categories would cause one queue to stall much like the BM queue is currently, and that having an entire set of games stalled out isn't good, especially for people who want to make/play games specifically in that category.

Like, if we split into "normal" and "role games", people who want to play one game only may tend to go for a "normal" game, and this repeatedly happens, and the "role games" queue gets stalled out. I'd be in favor of two categories in one queue, but not two separate queues, if that makes sense.

We could do an "every-other" sort of thing...

[yuma]

If I signed up for another closed normal game, and got anything like what we had with MC, it would be the last normal game I played here.

What if it was categorized as a "closed role" game? My point, which like I said wasn't perfectly expressed, is that there should be room for games with tweaks and new elements within an area that can be considered for stats and that isn't specifically RMM... I fear we might be talking past each other, as I think we seem to agree for the most part?

[Twistedarcher]

I think possibly the best answer is for mods to try to be more specific as to what their games entail, and players being more aware of the risk when they sign up.

I also think that many of the problems with MC were caused by the fact that it's a 21-player game. I'm sure those larger games are HARD to get right. There's just too much to do without making 12-15 players VTs (which I do agree is kinda lame).

[Robz888]

I think possibly the best answer is for mods to try to be more specific as to what their games entail, and players being more aware of the risk when they sign up.

I also think that many of the problems with MC were caused by the fact that it's a 21-player game. I'm sure those larger games are HARD to get right. There's just too much to do without making 12-15 players VTs (which I do agree is kinda lame).

I really think the only two major problems with the game were 1) EFHW's role was too weak, and 2) It was not what most people were expecting, evidently.

It was really fairly close to what I expected, since I expected something like Mafias XI and XIX, which were considered normal games, and it was.

[Archetype]

I think after a game ends, regardless of whether its RMM or Normal, we should decide whether to include it or not.

[Robz888]

I think after a game ends, regardless of whether its RMM or Normal, we should decide whether to include it or not.

Who should decide it, though? Frankly, I don't think it should be everyone, and it certainly shouldn't be just everyone who was in the game.

[Archetype]

I think after a game ends, regardless of whether its RMM or Normal, we should decide whether to include it or not.

Who should decide it, though? Frankly, I don't think it should be everyone, and it certainly shouldn't be just everyone who was in the game.

Yeah, that's the problem. Those who won want it to count, and those who didn't don't want it to count. And of course there is always mod bias. Maybe it really is best someone else just checks before hand. But sometimes it's hard to tell how crazy a game can be until after it's over.

[Robz888]

I think after a game ends, regardless of whether its RMM or Normal, we should decide whether to include it or not.

Who should decide it, though? Frankly, I don't think it should be everyone, and it certainly shouldn't be just everyone who was in the game.

Yeah, that's the problem. Those who won want it to count, and those who didn't don't want it to count. And of course there is always mod bias. Maybe it really is best someone else just checks before hand. But sometimes it's hard to tell how crazy a game can be until after it's over.

If we can't definitively say ahead of time that it is balanced, it probably shouldn't be in the queue that counts for stats.

[Galzria]

If I signed up for another closed normal game, and got anything like what we had with MC, it would be the last normal game I played here.

What if it was categorized as a "closed role" game? My point, which like I said wasn't perfectly expressed, is that there should be room for games with tweaks and new elements within an area that can be considered for stats and that isn't specifically RMM... I fear we might be talking past each other, as I think we seem to agree for the most part?

That's why I felt like you hadn't read my post.

I think we are speaking past each other.

I can't quote easily from my phone but basically I said that I feel that an open (or even semi-open) setup could be considered normal with almost any amount of tinkering/inventing/creativeness - Anything really, short of alignment switches.

The point being, at least the players have an idea of what to expect within the game.

Take MC as a great example: In an open / semi open setup I would absolutely consider it a normal game. I've no problem with that. Stats would be included and everything. But as a closed setup where the players know nothing about it going in or what to expect? It's definitely RMM.

Breaking it down:

Closed Normal should be a little more strict than we've allowed previously. The players should have a community approved expectation of what the game MIGHT have (not does, but might).

Open / Semi Open Normal can basically be RMM. The point here is that expectations on the setup are set beforehand - as wild and wacky as they may be (ok, within reason still. No BM. )

RMM is basically an Open Normal game, held in a Closed format - except that I feel alignment switching is ok here whereas it isn't in Normal Games.

Maybe I'm mixing up Closed/Open, but I think my point is clear. Hidden Setup can be Normal if it's within certain boundaries set by the community. Explained Setups can be called Normal as long as they're fairly balanced and don't contain Alignment Switches.

[sudgy]

I think the big thing that made MXXXI feel not normal to me was that most of the discussion was about roles.  I think that should only be in RMM.