Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Aero

Search: Search took 0.01 seconds.

  1. Forum:Circlejerk

    Thread:Conspiracy theory

    Thread Author:Marshmallow Marshall

    Post Author:Aero

    Replies
    15
    Views
    4,094

    ►►Re: Conspiracy theory◄◄

    I hope everyone has been doing well! It has taken us 3 years, but I finally managed to counterclaim Marshmallow's lw.

    They are both staff.

    Disproven and counterclaimed!

    Anyway, came back recently and played a few games, you guys made some fantastic changes. I was delighted to discover Mafia 2.0 (did not even know that was in the works)! Really interesting new roles, awesome work @Frinkles and team! (Although I will always be heartbroken over the removal of NI option for Executioner - there is nothing quite like getting an early win condition satisfied then spending the entire rest of the game tormenting the entire lobby with zero consequences...)

    GGs ♥

    Edit: A missing bracket.
  2. Forum:Punished Players & Appeals

    Thread:GhostDragon: 1-S2-1-11531682

    Thread Author:Aero

    Post Author:Aero

    Replies
    2
    Views
    281

    {Ban List} ►►GhostDragon: 1-S2-1-11531682◄◄

    Account Name: GhostDragon
    Account ID: 1-S2-1-11531682
    In-Game Name: Ettore

    Crimes Committed: Throwing

    Your Account Name: Aero
    Summary: Town didn't vote with Constable on Day 3, so he decided to spend the remainder of the game purposely lynching towns, throwing racial slurs, saying that town deserved to lose for not voting with him on the first day, and eventually ragequitting near the end. You can read through mafia night chat and death chat everyone in this lobby is wondering if mayor is purposely trolling.

    Worth a glance!

    Thx for all your time keeping Mafia fun guys

    Name: game throw.SC2Replay
Views: 2
Size: 423.4 KB
  3. Forum:Circlejerk

    Thread:Conspiracy theory

    Thread Author:Marshmallow Marshall

    Post Author:Aero

    Replies
    15
    Views
    4,094

    ►►Re: Conspiracy theory◄◄

    I am blackmailed.
  4. Forum:Mafia Bug Archive

    Thread:Exploit bug report, it must be fixed!

    Thread Author:Zedus

    Post Author:Aero

    Replies
    14
    Views
    3,982

    ►►Re: Exploit bug report, it must be fixed!◄◄

    This reminds me of Rainbow Six: Seige. There is an operator that can interrogate injured enemies, revealing all the injured players' teammates locations and providing the interrogator's team a live wall-hack of the map which typically results in a massacre because bullets pierce through walls in Rainbow 6: Seige. Since the interrogation kills the target either way, some enterprising players took to immediately leaving the game if an interrogator was headed their way while injured, before rejoining the match, thereby leaving behind a corpse that could not be interrogated.

    As for Mafia, if the only way that this exploit works is through the leave message, a simple bandage fix could be disable the leave notification for players at night, and let the game engine make decisions on announcing who left the game the next day, at which time the engine should have the correct identities sorted. There is no strategic necessity to knowing that someone left the game immediately during the night sequence anyway, so this does not detract from the game experience.

    Very cool discovery though, thanks for showing us.
  5. Replies
    4
    Views
    1,253

    {Watch List} ►►Re: Steadtler: 1-S2-1-5671816◄◄

    Are you sure you uploaded the right replay? None of the players' accounts is named Steadtler, and none of the in-game names is Guido.
  6. Replies
    8
    Views
    1,712

    ►►Re: Remove Veteran, shitty role that is not about social deduction◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMostache View Post
    The main problem with Veteran, is that it is used for trolling most of the times. People usually end up acting like jesters/evil and then alerting just to kill as much as they can.

    Veteran can be used correctly at the right time with the right "social deduction". The problem is that trolls likes to overpower people with their killing power.


    If there is a role I would recommend removing, it would be Jailor. It's the strongest role in the game, being able to rb/kill/ pseudo-investigate/ give night immunity/self confirm. Also can be used to troll. It got everything.
    What I like about the Jailor is that it is somewhat kept in check by the Kidnapper/Interrogator role. Sometimes games are close enough that 1) skipping a lynch to confirm the alignment of a Jailor claim, combined with 2) allowing Kidnapper/Interrogator role to RB a town role that night becomes a very costly way of confirming a Jailor claim.

    What I would advocate for, however, is a hard cap on the number of Jailors in any game to 2. I have been in games where as many as 4 Jailors have been rolled, which is just insanely powerful because it gives town zero incentive to ever use a lynch when instead they can just jail and RB 4 players every night.

    This hard cap would also mean that many games with 1 Jailor and 1 Kidnapper/Interro become dangerous for town because they need determine if it's better to risk having a Kidnapper on the loose or give up the chance to have 2 Jailors active.
  7. Replies
    8
    Views
    1,712

    ►►Re: Remove Veteran, shitty role that is not about social deduction◄◄

    •

    "Vet is about luck"

    This is true. However, that does not mean that it does not belong in the game. SC2Mafia is a game that is tremendously influenced by luck. Do evils run into a bodyguard? Who dies to a jester? Who was doused by a visit when arsonist ignited? Who are the town randoms? How strong is the Mafia/Triad role assignments?

    The beauty of SC2Mafia is that the game does not revolve around pure strategy execution in a game with perfect information (for example chess), but rather a tremendous amount of unknown variables, compounded by randomness, and further complicated by deception, which drives players to learn to adapt to changing circumstances and strive to create frameworks of understanding despite having imperfect information.

    There is a reason that poker is interesting and receives attention in a way that chess does not - the elements of randomness and luck are incredibly exciting to play and watch. What matters isn't the hand that is dealt - it's how players react to new information, and how they try to maximize their odds of success based off their analysis.

    I would say veteran fits in a similar fashion with many other roles such as Jailor or Bodyguard or even Doc. 99% of saves limit the veteran to how many times they can alert, and this in itself has a poker-like element where veterans are incentivized to bluff their alerts and save them for when they feel they will be targeted. There is considerable strategy here that is very nuanced, and can make for some very tense games.

    Lastly, early game deaths, in general, are extremely luck based. It sucks to visit a vet, but it also sucks when Town Government just happens to be killed Night 1 or when a Marshall reveals to be immediately lynched by Judge.

    "Vet does not contribute to social deduction"

    To the contrary, vet does contribute to deduction directly by being able to directly confirm themselves as veterans when they kill an intruder. I think you mean vets do not contribute to social investigation, but there are many other roles (BG, Doc, Vigi) that don't directly contribute that either.

    "Vet is a role about lottery draw of kills"

    True, but I think that is okay. Vet is currently the only thing that NI killing roles (GF, SK, etc.) have to worry about. It forces evil roles to calculate carefully based on what information they have. Otherwise there is no strategy and you would be free to blindly target (because it's not like you can predict where a bodyguard is going to be anyway). In my opinion, it's not always a great idea to send out all 3 Mafia/Triad members specifically because of the risk of veterans. Especially for roles like Blackmailer who do very little when blindly blackmailing someone (and thus potentially exposing themselves for no reason) rather than only activating only when they have a high-priority target they want to muffle. In fact, what is a Blackmailer doing visiting a vet rather than a confirmed investigative role that might actually have a lead? (Not to say that there is never value in making a vet shut up, but targeting recklessly should be punished, and vet is currently the only role that does this)

    "I don't have a Veteran in my setup."

    More than fair. I think keeping a role in the game but allowing players to remove that option in their own save is the best way. However, a better option is to reduce the odds of the role in the save rather than removing it entirely. A large part of SC2Mafia should be looking at role probabilities and using that to drive strategy rather than removing chunks of the game entirely purely for simplicity's sake.
  8. Forum:Mafia Discussion

    Thread:High-risk plays

    Thread Author:Aero

    Post Author:Aero

    Replies
    6
    Views
    1,354

    ►►High-risk plays◄◄

    I wanted to discuss some scenarios, many of which I have personally been in, which can enable the use of unconventional/high-risk gambits. Because of their "feast-or-famine" nature, when these types of strategies work they can seem like brilliant plays. but when they fail, they can seem like throws/trolling. I have ended many games with praise in the former case, and with threats of being reported in the latter case.

    The line between overly aggressive gambits and malicious gameplay can be very thin, often times at superficial glance appear to be only distinguished by whether or not they worked (which is of course highly luck-dependent). I think there can be a productive discussions in exploring some of these scenarios and whether these strategies provide an expected risk-adjusted/probability-weighted positive effect on the role's win condition.

    Scenario 1: The Unlucky Sheriff

    We have all been there before. Sheriff (LW: n1: NS n2: NS n3: NS n4: NS) being put onto the stand and having nothing to show for it. This is made worse if all of the individuals you investigated are also dead (and thus appearing to be just a cheap fake LW cobbled together with information that everyone already has).

    In this situation, being put on the stand based on an evil accusation, in my experience, very often results in a lynch. The lack of a convincing LW combined with whatever accusation which brought you to the stand, usually makes it impossible to compel voters to INNO rather than GUILTY.

    One common strategy that many people who play with me frequently know that I use in this scenario is to falsely claim jester (by claiming an impossible role in the save, typically evils like cult or MM or arso). Unsurprisingly, this can lead to some angry towns when I flip sheriff.

    However, the reason I choose this approach is because I want to try and adjust the odds in which I face an overwhelming likelihood of being lynched. There is no incentive to die honorably as my LW does not benefit the town. The only possible way that I can help the town is to continue living, continue investigating, and hopefully find a worthwhile lead.

    The reason for false jester claim is twofold: 1) dissuade towns from voting GUILTY on someone you know is town (yourself) and 2) dissuade evils from killing a neut benign at night. Both goals serve to maintain the town population count, as well as extend your personal survival in order to continue investigating.

    In situations where town is on the fringe of losing majority vote, towns are much more likely to INNO if they feel pressured to not waste a lynch on a neut benign (even with a solo guilty + doc) as they will feel pressured to lynch an evil. Because evils are likely to avoid GUILTYING a jester as well, it further increases the odds that you survive a trial that you otherwise have no defense for.

    Q: But that doesn't make sense, because even if you come up with a lead, nobody will listen to you.

    A: False. Just staying alive adds tremendous value as a voting town, doubly so if you can get a lead. Once you present a lead, it is likely that you will be targeted by evils, and even if you did not, you can still -SUICIDE in order to publish your lead to the town. A -SUICIDE should not be considered a poor strategy if you were going to get lynched before anyway. Not only that, it implies that the town was able to shift their lynch to another target. While the other target might also end up being town, a 10% chance of lynching an evil is better than a 0% chance of lynching an evil (which is what happens if you are lynched).

    Q: By claiming jester, you will cause damage to towns' abilities to analyze graveyard and role-count.

    A: This is true, but keep in mind it cuts both ways as evils will be confused as well, and more likely to target poorly; evils tend to avoid wasting nights killing jesters, and if there are town killings in play (vet, bg, etc.) this increases the likelihood they will hit a dangerous town rather than killing you. Even if they do kill you anyway, it will be at the cost of an evil night, not a town lynch.

    Q: By claiming jester, you will bait jailor and vet shots.

    A: In a desperate scenario where town is close to losing majority vote, I believe jailors are misplaying by executing a jester rather than searching for evil killing roles. I believe a similar dynamic exists for vets, as they can find NI/kill evils with their bullets. Nonetheless I believe it is still better for a vet to waste a bullet than for town to waste a daytime lynch.

    Scenario 2: The Hateful Vigi

    Simply put, I employ this when a Mafia/Triad Support is still in play and I suspect a possible Consigliere/Administrator who has outed an evil, but especially if it is a neut killing like MM. After I confirm myself as vigi, I publicly state that I will be killing an invest role that is (any degree of likelihood to be a town) after publicly accusing them of being a Consig/Admin.

    The reason for this is twofold. If the target is actually a town (which Mafia/Triad will very clearly know since it is not one of them) it provides an indirect protection as they will seek to kill a different target as they do not want to waste a kill when vigi will already target them. If the target actually is mafia, there is an overwhelming likelihood that I will be targeted by mafia. This provides opportunities for invest roles to find leads out of my death (as I am a confirmed vigi) - in extremely lucky cases a bg on confirmed vigi could even lead to a shootout.

    The question is, do I actually ever shoot the target I publicly accuse? Typically, no, at least not on the night following. If I am attacked and survive, I will push to vote up the original target for a refreshed LW, and after that, I will consider shooting on the next night. But the real strategy here is to "bluff" a vigi attack in order to protect a possible town invest role and potentially bait an evil onto me.

    Underpinning the strategy is the attempt to try and "expand" the vigilante role from just a point-and-click killing machine to try and manipulate/provoke evils.

    Q: What if the target had uncovered and lynched a Mafia/Triad? Shooting a confirmed town invest would be malicious gameplay.

    A: False, because very frequently a mafia invest role may sacrifice a teammate in order to appear "confirmed." While the odds are more likely if it was a neut killing (e.g. MM) that they uncovered, lynching a fellow evil is not necessarily a bad strategy, and thus town should not assume it is a 100% confirmation that the invest role is town.

    Scenario 2.5: The Traitorous Gangster

    This leads to my sub-point, which is that purposefully exposing and lynching a fellow Mafia/Triad should not be considered a throw, even if it does not lead to a Mafia/Triad victory. While it is rude to your teammate, it can be a valid strategy, especially with a weak TG that is easily manipulated. If a potential spy is in play, it should not be expected to premeditate this strategy during night-chat either (and PMs during day are even more suspicious).

    Scenario 3.X: Tactical Town Deaths

    In the current meta of 8331 and 933, in general towns should be far more aggressive with tactical sacrifices in order to enforce and propogate information. 933 in particular should be town-favored, except many players are not experienced enough and are often fooled by evils or just pure spam. In 50% of games, town gets a significant advantage and should be far more aggressive in order to force a victory - aggression that can sometimes be seen as throwing since it involves death of town roles.

    Sheriffs in particular should -suicide if they have a lead, especially if town is already in a strong position (e.g. 6 towns, 1 mafia, 1 NK), as it reduces the likelihood of spam/nonsense confusing towns and allowing evils to kill while town wastes time. This is particularly if leads are nearly foolproof as there are no more framers, witches, etc.

    Similarly as a vigi, when town is in an advantageous position, the best way to press that advantage is to actively shoot invest roles that claim to have a concrete lead e.g. shoot lookout if town is not believing/lynching according to their claim that # is evil.

    Again, in these scenarios, while you would be delighted to end up killing an evil role, you are actually intending to kill a town in order to enforce confirmation of the town role, prompt town to follow their lead/LW, and press the town's numbers advantage against a minority of evils that cannot actually survive a town that trades blow for blow.

    In the case of 6 town vs 1 GF vs 1 SK, two towns at most will die at night to GF and SK. This increases to 3 if vigi shoots an invest role. The next day, the town vote is 3 votes (sufficient for a lynch) vs 2 evils, which guarantees that town can now follow the invest LW and lynch an evil. The count is now 3 town vs SK. This is a reasonable position for town.

    On the other hand, if town is unable to secure a convincing lead, each day that they do not lynch an evil, they lose 2 towns. 6 towns 1 GF 1 SK is actually not a huge lead because it means if they fail to lynch an evil on the first day, they are reduced to a 2v2 by the second night, which is almost a guaranteed town loss.

    You can see here how the immediate 6v2 numbers game is not nearly as critical as ensuring that information is confirmed to accurately enforce a 3v2 lynch.

    Q: What if as vigi you hit a BG? This could result in 1 GF kill, 1 SK kill, and 2 town deaths since vigi chose to attack a town. 6v2 suddenly becomes 2v2 in one night.

    A: This is one of the few cases where bad luck results in a worse outcome in targetting a town. However, the blame is not entirely on the vigi, but rather spread across the town.

    1) If the bg is on the town invest because that town invest is confirmed, the vigi should not have to shoot them in order to confirm their LW - the rest of the town (6v2) should be lynching according to their leads. This is a failure on the part of the town as a whole, not just the vigi.

    2) If the town invest is NOT confirmed (which is why town is not lynching according to their LW) then bg should NOT be on that role. A bg that protects an invest claim that the town does not trust/believe is usually not a good strategy because they still won't be trusted the next day and evils are more likely to target confirmed roles. Unsurprisingly, the bg should also stay on confirmed roles since evils rarely know how many bgs there are until they die to them.

    Scenario 4.X: General Win Condition Questions

    Is asking to be converted into cult considered griefing? You are still playing to win but you are technically cooperating with an entity that you are supposed to lynch at the moment.

    Is indirectly playing to enable conversion considered griefing? (e.g. as vigi shoot enforcer rather than cult to potentially allow them to convert you) You aren't going out of your way to obstruct your win condition but you are opening the opportunity to leave behind your current "team" in order to maximize your personal chance of winning.

    Is killing "potential" allies considered to be griefing? E.g. Evils killing survivor, mafia/triad killing witch, judge killing evil for solo win, etc. They are not part of your win condition and you can choose to kill them but it is unnecessary to ensure your own win condition.

    ------------------------------------------

    These are just a few examples, but I think it is already plenty of room for discussion. Would be curious to hear what others think about each scenario.
Results 1 to 8 of 28