Register

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 36 of 36
  1. #21

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    Quote Originally Posted by Damus_Graves View Post
    Discuss plz

    Blackmailed target now votes anonymously


    Edit: have anonymous voting be the system when blackmailer is in game
    I don’t like that. Gives blackmailer so much power when imo he’s already powerful enough. Honestly I don’t see a big problem with the current implementation. Sure the victim can KIND of communicate with votes but it’s not that easy and only 1/5 times will the town actually follow a blackmailed player’s leads. Mafia can easily disrupt the voting communication too by just spamming votes themselves and acting like idiots/jesters or pretending to be silenced. It’s very rare that I’ve seen a blackmailed person successfully lead a lynch.

    In comparison, the thing where disguiser gets revealed instantly if the killed player quits the game is far bigger of an issue imo. I see most people immediately quitting nowadays to spite the disguiser who got them, which effectively makes the disguiser a 1 for 1 kill that’s only worth it when you’ve reached LYLO

    There’s nothing fun about sitting there being forced to just watch the game unfold with no ability to communicate at all. At least in the current implementation you have some chance to try to affect the day chat.
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  2. #22

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    Quote Originally Posted by Damus_Graves View Post
    Mayor cannot PM or receive PM

    Mayor receives Anon PMs?
    Mayor has a time limit on # days extra votes is given
    Think that breaks the role. But itís interesting.
    As I said before, itís my opinion that follow the leader is an important part of sc2mafia. If you get rid of it youíre making a change that pushes the game to be more like forum mafia. Thatís not necessary because people can just play forum mafia if they want. Also, itíd be a bad change because it would severely weaken the town. In forum mafia you have like 48+ hours to discuss all the night actions and decide who to lynch. In sc2mafia you have like 2 minutes. Itís just not enough time to play the game the same way. Scums easily manipulate open discussions simply because thereís not enough time for the townies to analyze each message and see the blatant lies.
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  3. #23

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    I guess my solution would be to allow blackmailed players to vote once and then either put them on a 20 second timer before they can change it. Alternatively we disallow them changing their vote after it's cast completely with a lovely message at the beginning of the day saying "Being blackmailed, you may only vote once -- vote wisely."

    Keeps their ability to vote in tact, and removes the vote spamming situation. It will be much harder to find out if someone is actually blackmailed.

    An added bonus is that if it's 20 seconds in between changing votes, it will let blackmailed players participate with Marshall lynches.
    Last edited by Frinckles; June 1st, 2019 at 03:39 PM.

  4. #24

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    Respectfully I disagree that Follow the Leader is an important meta in mafia. I believe that itís simple the easiest method of solving a game.
    It detracts from the experience of every other player. I donít feel that is the intention behind the role of mayor


    I like the idea of blackmailed targets only voting once.
    The issue I have with blackmailer is that itís systematically useless when the target can communicate through votes. How can you silence the sheriff when they can vote ping who their targets are?

    Disguiser mechanics can be discussed but Iíd rather we make a separate thread so as to not detract from this discussion
    Last edited by Damus_Graves; June 1st, 2019 at 07:45 PM.

  5. #25

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    What's wrong with the solution of hiding the votes of the blackmailed person? I think that's the one that makes the most sense. Is it because it's a UI nightmare?

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  6. #26

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    Quote Originally Posted by Frinckles View Post
    I guess my solution would be to allow blackmailed players to vote once and then either put them on a 20 second timer before they can change it. Alternatively we disallow them changing their vote after it's cast completely with a lovely message at the beginning of the day saying "Being blackmailed, you may only vote once -- vote wisely."

    Keeps their ability to vote in tact, and removes the vote spamming situation. It will be much harder to find out if someone is actually blackmailed.

    An added bonus is that if it's 20 seconds in between changing votes, it will let blackmailed players participate with Marshall lynches.
    Thats not the worst way to deal with it... I think we can make it an option at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    As I said before, itís my opinion that follow the leader is an important part of sc2mafia. If you get rid of it youíre making a change that pushes the game to be more like forum mafia. Thatís not necessary because people can just play forum mafia if they want. Also, itíd be a bad change because it would severely weaken the town. In forum mafia you have like 48+ hours to discuss all the night actions and decide who to lynch. In sc2mafia you have like 2 minutes. Itís just not enough time to play the game the same way. Scums easily manipulate open discussions simply because thereís not enough time for the townies to analyze each message and see the blatant lies.
    I don't agree that "follow the leader" = sc2 and everything else is FM. SC2 Mafia's draw is mafia games that are done in 20 mins or less rather than 20 days. Like I explained in my prelude the entire shouldering of the game on one person can be engaging for that person but it makes the rest of the players seem irrelevant. I think the better option is if people want to force claims do it in the open.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damus_Graves View Post
    Mayor cannot PM or receive PM

    Mayor receives Anon PMs?
    Mayor has a time limit on # days extra votes is given
    Think that breaks the role. But itís interesting.
    Again, this makes the assumption that PMs are always on which they're not. I think there is room in this space however and I think the most likely scenario is that Mayors and Marshalls might not be able to receive PMs once revealed. I think thats the only hardline way to break this meta.


    Quote Originally Posted by Damus_Graves View Post
    Discuss plz

    Blackmailed target now votes anonymously

    Edit: have anonymous voting be the system when blackmailer is in game
    As in someone has voted to try X? - I mean that automatically confirms the presence of a blackmailer in the game. An argument can be made that the current way does also but at least with the current way you can lie about it by just voting. You wouldnt be able to lie any make your vote anonymous unless it affected the entire game and thats not going to happen because that in a sense is forcing Anonymous Ballot + Trial which is already a game option. So in the games where that is actually selected (by the way this thread is going it seems unlikely that people use it) but that just doesnt do anything for the blackmailer -- unless the option to set up the game that way is removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    What's wrong with the solution of hiding the votes of the blackmailed person? I think that's the one that makes the most sense. Is it because it's a UI nightmare?
    That and if a person gets voted up with 6 votes but the top of the screen says 7 votes to lynch it sends a really mixed message. We want people to be playing the game not the UI.
    Photobucket in 2017
    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    if you have elixir to contend with gl hf

  7. #27

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    There would be no text stating that the blackmailed target voted.
    However vote counter would still register the BM vote
    Hmmm. Treats player vs UI.
    Seems backwards


    Removing anonymous ballet isn’t the worst idea to include it in the BM kit.
    It’s the least opted for vote mechanic isn’t tI?
    Last edited by Damus_Graves; June 1st, 2019 at 09:32 PM.

  8. #28

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    It was noted that the current option for victim can vote on trial on already does sorta silence the vote so if we split that option into its own option and then put a cooldown on it, it might work.

    Also pretty favourable still to making revealed governments unable to read PMs - though I don't know if we want to make it an option or just force disable it to maintain consistency
    Photobucket in 2017
    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    if you have elixir to contend with gl hf

  9. #29

  10. #30

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    A quick follow-up post on my previous one:

    I'm currently testing on the live version (to the best of my ability) having PM's disabled and it's effect on the meta-game and the quality of the games as a result. This isn't going to be too scientific or anything, but I'll ask a few people to take a quick survey afterwards and publish the results here; Metrics will include involvement, enjoy-ability, who they think is favored etc. and I'll be sure to include the setup & result.

    Again, this isn't going to be a massive sample size, but it should give us some understanding of it's effects and implications going forward particularly since this is complete removal of private messaging in contrast to just Town Government. From a designing perspective alone, I believe it opens up a substantial amount of room for more roles and interactions.

    I'll add that given preliminary games of trying it out: I am admittedly in favor of completely removing PM's from the game but I'd like to be able to substantiate my claims with something. Obviously removing an option like that could be seen as a big deal to some and I understand that.. ..though none of the players I've discussed it with players have seemed vehemently against it and are instead open to the idea.
    Last edited by Frinckles; June 12th, 2019 at 11:20 AM.

  11. #31

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    I'm probably kind of biased towards Mayor since it's my favourite role (being able to solve the game alone when u know what u are doing makes game a lot easier and enjoyable for this one person who is Mayor) but I will add my 2 cents.

    So u have to remember that revealing as Mayor is kind of a risk, there can be Judge and even if u outvote him there is really high chance u will lynch a townie and if there is no BG in town u might die the next night doing nothing other than reducing town numbers. U are also stripping urself off some intel like vote patterns since triad will be very carefull with mayor around.

    And u can't really stop "one confirmed-guy does everything" meta anyway, since already we have every confirmed Vet/BD/Jailor/Vigi/Escort/basically any town role elevated to a position of some God just bcs he is confirmed and if u won't listen to him/pm him u get lynched. If u disabled pms for Mayor he could look for some confirmed role like BD to receive pms instead of him and Marshall lynches would be even more of a random lynch than now. Only way to do it is disabling pms overall which is already possible in setup so i don't see a problem here, if ppl wanted no pms there would be no pms, apparently majority is fine with how things stand right now.

    Only problem with gov i have is Marshall d2 lynches, unless town isn't down like 4 players n1 already there is no reason to call this random chaotic nonsense d2. Until this point nothing really happend in the game, getting something out of lws is very hard and usually u have some afk guys. Depending on a setup it can solve the game by some one retard randoming half of the town or all evils in a single day and this is just a waste of time for everyone. But i'm not sure if there is anyway to fix it, blocking d2 marshall from lynching seems too hard, since there are some situations when u have to use it d2 to try to save a game.

    Also any role change u do should be setup option so for example if u wanted no pms for Mayor u should be able to set it in Mayor setup instead of doing overall changes in my opinion. I believe save makers should have as much freedom as possible in creating setups.

    Blackmailer i think is in a good spot, it's not too strong and it's not too weak if u use it properly. Hiding the votes tho makes it weaker if u can still see them on vote counter (maybe u should remove that "-" sign which indicates which guy has voted for a silenced person) bcs it confirms that the guy is indeed silenced instead of a normal setup when u can't always be sure if it isn't faked. Silencer shouldn't get ppl lynched, it should deny advanced info from invests and blocking gov from revealing is an intereseting option, also if the guy gets jailed he can't defend himself which can end up rather badly for him.

    Anyway more setup freedom to create more advanced saves the better.

  12. #32

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    I appreciate you taking the time to post your opinions on everything @RufusPL

    Quote Originally Posted by RufusPL View Post
    (being able to solve the game alone when u know what u are doing makes game a lot easier and enjoyable for this one person who is Mayor)
    This is one particularly large issue with private messages. This one player is randomly picked to have such a large impact on the game regardless of whether or not they wanted to. This can end anywhere from being called a hacker (upon doing well) or being chased out of the game by an angry mob flaming the individual. It's also not a very engaging way of playing Mafia for everyone else; With PM's you're expected to submit your last will, click a button and night and hope the Government can solve the mystery for you. An argument could even be made that the town is given a handicap to help them win in this regard. Contrast this to a game without PM's where people need to actively discuss, claim publicly and even develop unsettling trusts in other players and you can see the differences in the amount of responsibility, engagement and awareness that you can expect players to have.

    Quote Originally Posted by RufusPL View Post
    And u can't really stop "one confirmed-guy does everything" meta anyway, since already we have every confirmed Vet/BD/Jailor/Vigi/Escort/basically any town role elevated to a position of some God just bcs he is confirmed and if u won't listen to him/pm him u get lynched. If u disabled pms for Mayor he could look for some confirmed role like BD to receive pms instead of him and Marshall lynches would be even more of a random lynch than now. Only way to do it is disabling pms overall which is already possible in setup so i don't see a problem here, if ppl wanted no pms there would be no pms, apparently majority is fine with how things stand right now.
    Follow-the-anything is a pretty old concept in Mafia and I'm not completely opposed to it when it's implementation is healthy. Take for example moderators in FM / RL games disallowing Cops to be healed to prevent 'follow the Cop' meta-gaming. You're correct that only disabling PM's from Mayor would more than likely translate the problem to another confirmed role but it's a start in the right direction I believe. Players seem to have this expectation that a Government role will appear and take the burden of the game unto their shoulders so they refuse to communicate with anyone else, often until it's too late. Even Epicmafia added a percent chance that PM's could leak to everyone else.. which to me seems like more a band-aid for the problems imposed by private messages in the first place.

    To your second point, you're right. If people want to use PM's I don't have any plans to disable them completely; That said, there are a lot of disadvantages to trying to design/balance around it. Assume we didn't have PM's on: A role like Party Host who simply extends discussion for everyone throughout the night phase could help tremendously ..but with PM's on, it's ability is substantially weaker almost to the point of questionable viability. A telepathic Town or Mafia role who can send players messages privately would be interesting and could offer some unique deception/manipulation opportunities ..but everyone can already do that so the role doesn't make sense to add. There were some great suggestions to add in roles like a Mafia Spy who could 'intercept' PM's, but It feels insincere to develop around a mechanic that I'm not a big fan of. So in short, design space for communicative roles and roles that can be confirmed becomes severely limited.

    Besides the design issues with private messages, it also clashes with a core philosophy of Mafia, at least in my opinion. To put it simply: Mafia is meant to be the Informed Minority vs. the Uninformed Majority -- Is it fair that the Town can essentially use private messages via a conduit like Mayor to circumvent this tenet? Does it de-value other chat channels like the Mafia's? I don't think those questions have simple answers.


    Either way, I think you're right about Marshall being a bit over-the-top and we can visit that down the line. I plan to keep adding options for people to create some unique saves as well.. there are some really great ones coming in the next update.



    Edit: As I'm sure this is a contentious topic -- regular disclaimer that these are just my thoughts and opinions on the matter.
    Last edited by Frinckles; June 14th, 2019 at 12:04 PM.

  13. #33

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny View Post
    Personally I really think one good way to increase the use of unconventional options like that would be additional save slots. I understand that'd require some effort to fit into the game's bank file, but at the end of the day you'd be opening people up to a lot more room for experimentation on their setups. Just having the option to choose between standard 8331 and something unconventional already makes people far more inclined to go through the effort of trying something new.
    I mean we can just make different variants of 8331 or 933 (atleast one for mafia and one for triad) pre-set saves in the game so that people can use their custom save slots on something more unique. We have to make sure those pre-sets are balanced enough that people don't just make a slightly different 8331/933 as their save.

    OR SC2Mafia devs can just be more responsive and add a SOTD category to cycle around the saves of active members of SC2Mafia. Wanna play one of a billion variations of a 8331 or 933 submitted by a SC2 Mafia player in game or on the forums? Select "SOTD - Balanced" or something! Will also free up existing save slots for more out-there saves like cult vs mason (which is honestly the only non 8331/933 save I ever see played, and even then it has a high chance of getting repicked+replaced or leavetrained on)
    Last edited by Grakylan; July 7th, 2019 at 10:00 PM.

  14. #34

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    Quote Originally Posted by Grakylan View Post
    I mean we can just make different variants of 8331 or 933 (atleast one for mafia and one for triad) pre-set saves in the game so that people can use their custom save slots on something more unique. We have to make sure those pre-sets are balanced enough that people don't just make a slightly different 8331/933 as their save.
    This is something we are working on. Current internal census is we will retire SOTD and the other "troll" setups hard saved into the game and replacing them with current meta setups (933, 8331, etc) which will free up the save slot for more experimental setups players would like to try. This isn't set in stone but it is something actively being touched on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grakylan View Post
    OR SC2Mafia devs can just be more responsive and add a SOTD category to cycle around the saves of active members of SC2Mafia. Wanna play one of a billion variations of a 8331 or 933 submitted by a SC2 Mafia player in game or on the forums? Select "SOTD - Balanced" or something! Will also free up existing save slots for more out-there saves like cult vs mason (which is honestly the only non 8331/933 save I ever see played, and even then it has a high chance of getting repicked+replaced or leavetrained on)
    I tested the waters on rebooting SOTD again since it is incredibly outdated. The same road block kept occurring which is simply put, there isn't enough interest at the moment to pull players to the forums let alone submitting setups. At best they have a quick browse of the punished players section and log off. I'm hoping interest will pick up again now the map is actively being worked on after a long hiatus so maybe once some major updates are rolled out we will gain some more traffic and we can kick start SOTD again.
    Last edited by rumox; July 7th, 2019 at 10:17 PM.

  15. #35

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    It was noted that the current option for victim can vote on trial on already does sorta silence the vote so if we split that option into its own option and then put a cooldown on it, it might work.

    Also pretty favourable still to making revealed governments unable to read PMs - though I don't know if we want to make it an option or just force disable it to maintain consistency
    While I think this would improve the quality of the game, I think most players would either not use it (if it's an option) or would probably be quite displeased it. The "follow the leader" meta is deeply ingrained. I've tried disabling PMs in the past, and it didn't make people very happy. Usually they would just call you a troll host, and/or leave.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.

  16. #36

    Re: Discussion 1: The Voting Metagame

    Quote Originally Posted by Magoroth View Post
    While I think this would improve the quality of the game, I think most players would either not use it (if it's an option) or would probably be quite displeased it. The "follow the leader" meta is deeply ingrained. I've tried disabling PMs in the past, and it didn't make people very happy. Usually they would just call you a troll host, and/or leave.
    Bandwagoning and voting with confirmed players is cool with me. But balancing the game going forward whether the mechanic is on or off; trying to consider new roles, role options etc becomes significantly more difficult if there isn't a standard to work with. I don't see an issue using the variants as a place to try out those kind of standards since they're not being used anyway.
    As far as reactions to playing with PM's off, I've gotten good results so far. The worst ones so far just sigh, complain for a 3 seconds .. and then go back to playing the game without mentioning it again. Most complaints come off as frustration over not having something than actually needing something to figure out who is a bad guy. I definitely see Mayor / Marshall players more confused than normal but it also causes the town to play a bit less rabidly and more carefully.
    Last edited by Frinckles; July 9th, 2019 at 10:42 AM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •