Page 143 of 143
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:09 pm
by Jamiet99uk
Vecna wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:02 am
Fluminator wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 2:42 pm
The only time I'd endorse a closed setup is if it's advertised as bastard and people signing up know it's going to be a gongshow.
Im not trying to start a shitshow here (weeeeellll maybe a little), but if the mafia council feel they wanna hold sway over such decisions in such a way here, maybe they should actually put in more effort into properly reviewing the setups first. (do setups even still go through that though?)
2 out of the last 3 setups have had MAJOR imbalances in them that never shouldve made it through a review process. This setup in itself went into signups with even more confirm-able roles and the signup thread had to correct it.
Also, its not that difficult to design closed setups that have no bastard elements in them whatsoever. Stating that every closed setup should advertise as having bastard elements attached is just short sighted. There are plenty of websites out there that have a very good track record with playing high quality closed setups.
All it takes is advertising it with a few pointed questions such as: Are there mechanisms that can change investigative results? Are there more than 2 teams (TvS)
The last time I ran a large game was Mafia 51 which was in November/December 2019. At that time the "Council" consisted of Darg and Tom Bombadil since Hellenic Riot had taken a step back from the Mafia community at that time.
I did consult them on my setup - and I feel that setup was reasonably balanced, if swingy (and it's always been my view that "swingy" does not equal "unbalanced"). Their input was helpful and assisted me in finalising the setup. It would have been less balanced without their questions and suggestions. Worcej, as my co-GM for that game, also helped a great deal to refine the setup from my original draft.
Even at that time, six games ago, it did feel like this "Council" consultation was more discretionary than mandatory. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I get the impression M56 (i.e. the game that Squigs just ran) was not subject to that process of scrutiny?
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 3:59 pm
by Hellenic Riot
I have no idea who runs the Council anymore; I stood down from it when I left the mod team and I later saw it abolished before coming back again, presumably with new people.
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:19 pm
by Tom Bombadil
For some context I did not review this setup, nor can I comment on balance as I didn’t really follow the game. But I try to review as best I can.
The spring time is hard for me with real life work - and the recent uptick in site usage the past several months has pushed me to focus almost exclusively on mod work versus mafia. Now that we have 4 new mods trained I should be in better shape.
Some things to consider though is that complicated setups are hard to balance in hypotheticals because of how many variables there are. Second, I will get better at providing feedback on balance as I do more of these. Third, usually the setup is provided in advance - so if you think it may be imbalanced, you can either say so or not join.
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:35 pm
by dargorygel
Adding to Tom's comments, the present manifestation of the council has a purposefully background approach. We aren't Kings. We help when needed. This last set of games has made me personally adjust that approach. We have not dug as deeply with experienced GM's setups. And perhaps we should. Just to make sure the site is enjoyable.
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:54 pm
by Jamiet99uk
dargorygel wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:35 pm
Adding to Tom's comments, the present manifestation of the council has a purposefully background approach. We aren't Kings. We help when needed. This last set of games has made me personally adjust that approach. We have not dug as deeply with experienced GM's setups. And perhaps we should. Just to make sure the site is enjoyable.
As Squigs's co-GM, did you review the setup before it ran? Whether you did or not, what did you, or do you, feel about the balance of it?
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:01 pm
by Fluminator
Have you guys considered that Tom and Darg purposely let the last few games be unbalanced so y'all would come running back to the council and give them more power again?
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:17 pm
by dargorygel
Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:54 pm
dargorygel wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:35 pm
Adding to Tom's comments, the present manifestation of the council has a purposefully background approach. We aren't Kings. We help when needed. This last set of games has made me personally adjust that approach. We have not dug as deeply with experienced GM's setups. And perhaps we should. Just to make sure the site is enjoyable.
As Squigs's co-GM, did you review the setup before it ran? Whether you did or not, what did you, or do you, feel about the balance of it?
I read it a few days before the start (and only volunteered to Co because it's bad to GM alone... as it turns out HIS trouble overlapped with my scheduling difficulties...) Squigs is an experienced Mafia GM, and our practice has been to NOT delve too deeply into such GM's. I did note with squigs the possibility of a massclaim... he convinced me that the setup would work (he gave his reasoning above.) This was not technically a full mass claim. And while I think that the partial claim DOES take the brainwork out of the mafia experience, and as I hinted earlier, I have now become less willing to approve setups like this...
Wow... that was rambly. In short, games will be more deeply examined by the Council...
And Flum is right.... mwah ha ha HA ha ha... because Tom and I (and whoever is on the council, ever) LOVE having things to keep us busy!
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:18 pm
by dargorygel
"Even at that time, six games ago, it did feel like this "Council" consultation was more discretionary than mandatory. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong,"
You are not wrong, Jamie.
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:05 pm
by Squigs44
People keep saying the setup was wildly imbalanced, but no one has responded on my detailed analysis of the set up. Just cause mafia got blown out of the water doesn't mean the set up was wildly imbalanced. Two scum slips and a day 1 pile onto Macca before the claim was not the mafia losing due to the setup. If you want to avoid the "problems" that my setup had, maybe talk about the specifics of the setup like I did in my analysis. I feel like I'm being picked on specifically for being responsible for this crap fest, when I think this setup is much more balanced than at least 3 other games this site has hosted in the last year, but people are just dismissing my arguments.
Vecnas point about how the setup originally had more confirmables is a valid point. Remember that I threw this set up together last minute to give Chaqa and emc more time on their designing their game. As soon as I saw that vulnerability, I removed it and did a more thorough examination of the setup, and I found that a mass claim was no longer game breaking.
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:08 pm
by Squigs44
I do want to follow that up by saying that having setups reviewed more throughly is a good idea and should avoid this type of problem in the future.
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:10 pm
by Tom Bombadil
I’ll look at this setup later this week and share my thoughts. But in general when scum gets lynched d1 the game is going to be “town sided”. That has little to do with the setup.
And setups with many PRs take advantages and make them bigger. So if town gets and edge by lynching scum D1 - that is a bigger swing in a PR heavy setup versus a vanilla setup.
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:00 pm
by worcej
Squigs44 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:05 pm
People keep saying the setup was wildly imbalanced, but no one has responded on my detailed analysis of the set up. Just cause mafia got blown out of the water doesn't mean the set up was wildly imbalanced. Two scum slips and a day 1 pile onto Macca before the claim was not the mafia losing due to the setup. If you want to avoid the "problems" that my setup had, maybe talk about the specifics of the setup like I did in my analysis. I feel like I'm being picked on specifically for being responsible for this crap fest, when I think this setup is much more balanced than at least 3 other games this site has hosted in the last year, but people are just dismissing my arguments.
Vecnas point about how the setup originally had more confirmables is a valid point. Remember that I threw this set up together last minute to give Chaqa and emc more time on their designing their game. As soon as I saw that vulnerability, I removed it and did a more thorough examination of the setup, and I found that a mass claim was no longer game breaking.
I did not personally think there was anything wrong with the setup - you highlighted it well: the scum team imploded on themselves and then with the mass claim of roles set, they had little options.
With some time to reflect, the mass claim definitely did not break the game - but there is merit in debating if it is worth the cost of the PR's effectiveness.
I will say though, that there appears to be a growing group of players (myself included) that do not enjoy it when games come down to these claim situations. Things will continue to escalate in terms of arguments and lack of participation if people do not want to understand why we do not like participating in these activities.
Re: Mafia 56: Scout Camp
Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:32 am
by BismarckAlive
worcej wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:00 pm
Squigs44 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:05 pm
People keep saying the setup was wildly imbalanced, but no one has responded on my detailed analysis of the set up. Just cause mafia got blown out of the water doesn't mean the set up was wildly imbalanced. Two scum slips and a day 1 pile onto Macca before the claim was not the mafia losing due to the setup. If you want to avoid the "problems" that my setup had, maybe talk about the specifics of the setup like I did in my analysis. I feel like I'm being picked on specifically for being responsible for this crap fest, when I think this setup is much more balanced than at least 3 other games this site has hosted in the last year, but people are just dismissing my arguments.
Vecnas point about how the setup originally had more confirmables is a valid point. Remember that I threw this set up together last minute to give Chaqa and emc more time on their designing their game. As soon as I saw that vulnerability, I removed it and did a more thorough examination of the setup, and I found that a mass claim was no longer game breaking.
I did not personally think there was anything wrong with the setup - you highlighted it well: the scum team imploded on themselves and then with the mass claim of roles set, they had little options.
With some time to reflect, the mass claim definitely did not break the game - but there is merit in debating if it is worth the cost of the PR's effectiveness.
I will say though, that there appears to be a growing group of players (myself included) that do not enjoy it when games come down to these claim situations. Things will continue to escalate in terms of arguments and lack of participation if people do not want to understand why we do not like participating in these activities.
I have played a lot of FTF mafia. I think the setup was fine. Despite the "lucky" Macca scum flip, I thought the mafia team did well to kill the unconfirmable no-show and introduce that variable into the massclaim numbers. And enough town people helped the mafia with strategies and suggestions. So, I put it down to inexplicable play by the scum team. Other people can weigh in on this thought, but I don't think any mafia game on this site has ever had so many scumslips.