quote:

---

Originally posted by Gawain:
@Tran, your comparison between the General Discussion and this thread as being subject to or requiring the same rules is a false dichotomy; there is no competition inherent to the discussion in the GD, whereas there absolutely is in the conversation of the Mafia, WW, etc. threads.

---

If that's true, then my comparison to the Politics thread is valid. The point of politics isn't to attack someone's person, but the discussion of political topics inevitably leads to it. The mods on this site have traditionally allowed such, despite the fact that this means that particular thread is held at a lower standard than other threads. I fail to see why the Mafia thread should be any different; if we can hold one thread which is based on a competitive subject where tempers are likely to flare to a lower standard and allow for some mild personal attacks, why not a second?

As for the UBB games, I don't think adding more bad guys (killer) is what the cits need to actually win a game. The problems I see stem from this:
1) Lack of interest within a game.
2) The doctor is irrelevant. He doesn't save.
3) Cits end up relying on the cop too heavily, because he is their ONLY source of information on living players.

I believe we should increase the power of ONLY the cits. If they become too dominant, we can always remove some function, increase the mafia powers, or introduce a 'wildcard' role.

Solutions to #1 - Shorten the round times. 3 Days for Day, 24 hours for NK. If you don't vote/submit in that time, your action is wasted. Also, increasing the # of roles could make more people interested in playing.
Solutions to #2 - Add a 2nd doctor? This lets the cits save a little more often, puts us to 6 roles, and lets a doctor survive late into the game much more often.
Solutions to #3 - I still believe that the cop, if killed without revealing any names, should either release the role of 1 player at random, OR name ALL the cits they scried (to be decided before game starts). This removes some of the pressure to reveal from the cop, possibly keeping him around longer in the process.

I'm sorry, but when people continually latch onto repeatedly bad arguments, sometimes the only way to get to them is to call them a dunce.

Nder, I have said before "You have the worse arguments ever." You agree that it's practically the same as me calling the argument maker bad at the game. Then why did you never get on me for it?

I'm sorry, but when people present bad arguments, I cut them down severely (and for good reason), and people think I'm making a knock on them, and they react inappropriately. In essence, if people think I am the problem by reacting to poor arguments, then said person should not play. But if people didn't attack bad arguments, the game would be stagnant.
It's inherent in the game - if people repetitively make bad arguments, or defend them or hold onto them it's inevitable that someone is going to say something crass. It's part of the game. Again, I'm not saying that people go around saying "You ******* is suck at this game you noob" but it's in the presentation. Saying "You are making a bad argument[s]" is much better than saying "You suckzorz quit playing"

A few things:
1.) Player participation is lacking.
2.) Decreasing the time of the days is asanine. Even more lurking would occur.
3.) I like the way mafiascum does it, but alas, whatever.
4.) There are some BALANCED theme games I have stowed away where EVERYONE, and I mean, EVERYONE, has a unique role, whether neutral, pro-town, or pro-mafia. I have different ones for different numbers of people. I would be intrigued to put them into place on this site, as I think everyone having a lot of roles would be a way to keep people interesting. It is a lot of work for the mod, but I would like to do it, and could maybe host a game in CONJUNCTION with Josh/Nder/PD to make it less daunting. Big theme games are fun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
Nder, I have said before "You have the worse arguments ever." You agree that it's practically the same as me calling the argument maker bad at the game. Then why did you never get on me for it?

I'm sorry, but when people present bad arguments, I cut them down severely (and for good reason), and people think I'm making a knock on them, and they react inappropriately. In essence, if people think I am the problem by reacting to poor arguments, then said person should not play. But if people didn't attack bad arguments, the game would be stagnant.
It's inherent in the game - if people repetitively make bad arguments, or defend them or hold onto them it's inevitable that someone is going to say something crass. It's part of the game. Again, I'm not saying that people go around saying "You ******* is suck at this game you noob" but it's in the presentation. Saying "You are making a bad argument[s]" is much better than saying "You suckzorz quit playing"

---

The same reason I haven't smacked anyone else. It's been our policy to not punish individual players for things like this. Either everyone plays nice and the games continue or they don't, and the games end. I'm not willing to get into a situation where people complain that if I smack player x, I have to smack player y, and the whole thing will snowball.

You are free to cut down the arguments, and it's always a good idea to attack a bad argument. The point is, attack the argument, not the person. There's a world of difference between "Your argument is bad because of reasons 1, 2 and 3" and "You have the worst arguments ever" or "You suck at arguing." It's all about separating the player from the game.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
I'm sorry, but when people present bad arguments, I cut them down severely (and for good reason), and people think I'm making a knock on them, and they react inappropriately. In essence, if people think I am the problem by reacting to poor arguments, then said person should not play. But if people didn't attack bad arguments, the game would be stagnant.

---

But how is this productive to a game that should be a mental exercise and should be fun for all players? I don’t think we should punish players who have different mindsets or outlooks than somebody else. I full-heartedly believe we should encourage it.

If anything makes the game stagnant, it’s that the players lose the will to win after a certain period of time (especially when the cop dies).

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
But how is this productive to a game that should be a mental exercise and should be fun for all players? I don’t think we should punish players who have different mindsets or outlooks than somebody else. I full-heartedly believe we should encourage it.

If anything makes the game stagnant, it’s that the players lose the will to win after a certain period of time (especially when the cop dies).

---

1a.) Nder, I understand. It makes sense. It's just so hard...I would love to come back and play, but the lurking is just awful and I am sick of losing and being frustrated.
1b.) I understand that, but poorer arguments are easier to pick apart. I am not attacking their mindset or outlook, I'm more or less attacking their logic and presentation. The problem is, so many people on these boards use poor arguments and people agree with them. So, how do I combat that? Attack the poorer arguments. People then get mad at me, so I die. The poor arguments continue. The cits lose. Vicious circle.
2.) I feel you, dak. But the loss of a cop should not be that detrimental. But the stigma of "we can't win without the cop helping us" is what is killing the cits.
Again, a large theme game with masons, roleblockers, watchers/trackers, 2 shot vig, serial killer, framer, etc. would make a very interesting game that everyone would enjoy, especially when you can claim any role you want. But again, for such a game to work, where claiming can occur and a wagon can change, the time restrictions need to be lifted or the voting system needs to be changed.

I am suggesting a huge overhaul, just once, to see if everyone likes it. I can no doubt host/mod the game, as I have done it before, and I'm sure the changes will be intriguing to all parties involved. I will also try my darndest to make the game even/balanced with the amount of roles running around, which can be tough.

EDIT: dak, two mafia families makes the game crazy. I played in one game with it, and there were practically NO cross kills (where mafia kills mafia). To balance it out, there usually needs to be around 25-30 players *large game*. However, when I played it, each mafia group got a kill each night, rather than alternating. Again, it would still be very difficult to balance out; if there are 2 mafia groups of 3 each, you would almost need to up the cit count to +7-9.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
I am suggesting a huge overhaul, just once, to see if everyone likes it. I can no doubt host/mod the game, as I have done it before, and I'm sure the changes will be intriguing to all parties involved. I will also try my darndest to make the game even/balanced with the amount of roles running around, which can be tough.

EDIT: dak, two mafia families makes the game crazy. I played in one game with it, and there were practically NO cross kills (where mafia kills mafia). To balance it out, there usually needs to be around 25-30 players *large game*. However, when I played it, each mafia group got a kill each night, rather than alternating. Again, it would still be very difficult to balance out; if there are 2 mafia groups of 3 each, you would almost need to up the cit count to +7-9.

---

I am totally for having a game or two where the old doors get blown off the hinges and there are many new roles. As they say, there is no cure for experience.

The only two mafiascum games I found which had multiple families was a "universe" mafia game which was a game of two sub-games and another one which had 26 players. The idea about having alternating nightkills was mine alone, but I figure that if we are going to give out a lot of roles and try something entirely new then we should really blow it open. THREE moving entities instead of one would be awesome IMO.

The total chaos would make it a very intuitive game.

@ dakrum ~ i like the idea of two teams of two mafia each. that's only + 1 mafia and if other cit roles are being
implemented then i think there wouldn't be a big problem with the number of mafia. the problem i see is with the
NKs. i think 2 NK's a round is to many, but if they NK's alternate i'm not sure if one mafia team will be able to
react to clever cits fast enough to save them selves. on the other hand the way that the mafia has been herding the
cits would change drastically because then you have mafia A pulling the vote this way, B pulling it that way, and a
few of the cits pulling it what ever way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rayragnarok:
@ dakrum ~ i like the idea of two teams of two mafia each. that's only + 1 mafia and if other cit roles are being
implemented then i think there wouldn't be a big problem with the number of mafia. the problem i see is with the
NKs. i think 2 NK's a round is to many, but if they NK's alternate i'm not sure if one mafia team will be able to
react to clever cits fast enough to save them selves. on the other hand the way that the mafia has been herding the
cits would change drastically because then you have mafia A pulling the vote this way, B pulling it that way, and a
few of the cits pulling it what ever way.

edit~ i'm not saying its not worth trying, just pointing out some of the possible problems with it

---

as i've said in chat already, i am all for this. a 3 way competition will make it more interesting to play and to watch.

__________________
40 Eye of Ugin and 4 foil Eye of Ugin for Black Lotus!?

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
as i've said in chat already, i am all for this. a 3 way competition will make it more interesting to play and to watch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gawain:
I like the idea of a 3 way competition a lot actually. It opens up a lot of possibilities for the 3rd "faction." The first thing that came to my mind was the Feds...

---

__________________
40 Eye of Ugin and 4 foil Eye of Ugin for Black Lotus!?

A Cult has always been one thrown around. But I've seen two mafia factions work as well, I would just have to throw in the idea that they only get one NK every other round to balance it out.

In addition, it definitely adds crazy dynamics when you get people picking mafia members and revealing their results.

Again, I could do it (obviously not now but later), but I would have to know from nder or what not that I have the green light to go ahead with a radically different game.

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:

yea. it would be pretty exciting and funny to see Mafias killing Mafias, or a Doctor saving Mafias.

---

I think it would be pretty exciting to see a Doctor save anyone :P

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
I would have no problem implementing a game with 2 factions.

A Cult has always been one thrown around. But I've seen two mafia factions work as well, I would just have to throw in the idea that they only get one NK every other round to balance it out.

In addition, it definitely adds crazy dynamics when you get people picking mafia members and revealing their results.

Again, I could do it (obviously not now but later), but I would have to know from nder or what not that I have the green light to go ahead with a radically different game.

---

my $0.02

__________________
40 Eye of Ugin and 4 foil Eye of Ugin for Black Lotus!?

Mafia roles

I like how the Killer, Detective (our game's cop) and homeless bum function. Those are what i want to try to export into our game.

Perhaps we could modify the detective so that he can't kill, but he does get the bum and they can talk. Ragnarok thinks that's too much, but I think that, and a Killer, are excellent roles as a starting point for changing the game.

If we implement a killer role or a neutral party, then I would want that role to have almost as much or an equal amount of power as the mafia. I strongly think that having two near equal sides is better than having one completely inferior side. That would essentially create a microcosm (smaller version) of the problem that the cits currently have IMO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
BTW, the idea for 2 factions was first started in the chat by junichi and not me. Just to set the record straight - give the credit to him please.

If we implement a killer role or a neutral party, then I would want that role to have almost as much or an equal amount of power as the mafia. I strongly think that having two near equal sides is better than having one completely inferior side. That would essentially create a microcosm (smaller version) of the problem that the cits currently have IMO.

One thing I would like to keep relatively steady is to have the most important round of the game still be at 3 (NK three and lynch three). It is very difficult to gather much compelling evidence during round 1, so my only worry about having two NKs a round with 17 cits is that only 9 players could be left at that point. That seems like a recipe for complete disaster. It seems that a game that allows two NKs a round would be much better served with a group of at least 20 players.

---

quick suggestion/question:
What if double NK doesnt start till round 3?

for example:
round 1: Mafia A NK
round 2: Mafia B NK
round 3: Mafia A & B NK

would that solves the problem?

__________________
40 Eye of Ugin and 4 foil Eye of Ugin for Black Lotus!?

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
quick suggestion/question:
What if double NK doesnt start till round 3?

for example:
round 1: Mafia A NK
round 2: Mafia B NK
round 3: Mafia A & B NK

would that solves the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
BTW, the idea for 2 factions was first started in the chat by junichi and not me. Just to set the record straight - give the credit to him please.

---

No, as i proposed the killer role before- and I have Junichi on ignore in chat. I arrived at that conclusion independent of either of you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
If we implement a killer role or a neutral party, then I would want that role to have almost as much or an equal amount of power as the mafia. I strongly think that having two near equal sides is better than having one completely inferior side. That would essentially create a microcosm (smaller version) of the problem that the cits currently have IMO.

---

I like the 3/1 balance in maf/killer, because the killer has a special power: a Voodoo that he can use once per game. I think this, and the fact that he can just sit back and watch the maf and cits pick each other off, is a fair enough balance.

It seems counter-intuitive, but in the chat mafia games I've played, sometimes the Detective and Bum will check the Killer, then allow him to live. They make his identity known but don't kill him. The bum revealing the Killer sometimes leads to the mafia shooting the bum, and the killer using his Voodoo on the bum; hence, the bum commits an act of self-sacrifice to kill off both a maf (from the Voodoo) and the killer (the town will vote him out). It happens a lot more than you would think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum: BTW, the idea for 2 factions was first started in the chat by junichi and not me. Just to set the record straight - give the credit to him please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tranderas: No, as i proposed the killer role before- and I have Junichi on ignore in chat. I arrived at that conclusion independent of either of you.

---

trand, dakrum was just trying to be cool buy saying that he didn't come up with what he said, which was different
from what you said all-together. darkum proposed juni's idea of having to sets of mafia, you proposed a mafia and
a killer. its not even like everyone was saying "good job dakrum, your so smart and wonderful!" your response wasn't
called for dude.

junichi, i think that double NK starting round 3 is a great idea, then the cits will have have some info to go
off of before the slaughter starts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rayragnarok:
trand, dakrum was just trying to be cool buy saying that he didn't come up with what he said, which was different
from what you said all-together. darkum proposed juni's idea of having to sets of mafia, you proposed a mafia and
a killer. its not even like everyone was saying "good job dakrum, your so smart and wonderful!" your response wasn't
called for dude.

junichi, i think that double NK starting round 3 is a great idea, then the cits will have have some info to go
off of before the slaughter starts.

i like the idea of having two doc's like thror proposed, with 2 NKs and 2 save there might actually be a doc save
once per game. even if the two doc's alternate untill round 3 like the mafia. its + 1 role and it wouldn't make
a i wouldn't expect to see more then 1 a game.

---

Your constant criticism of me that you've insisted on pushing recently isn't called for, either, and i strongly suggest you hold your tongue in the future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
Your constant criticism of me that you've insisted on pushing recently isn't called for, either, and i strongly suggest you hold your tongue in the future.

.

---

Or what...?

This is the kind of language that leads to problems. Is diplomacy just completely dead on these forums? Is any perceived slight, whether intended or otherwise, to be met with a withering counter-burn no matter what? Is the policy of response on MOTL just to escalate the situation?