Identify mistakes in rulesets that led to imbalanced mafias.
Require people who wish to sign up for mafia to present a ruleset, reviewed thoroughly by multiple people to avoid those mistakes, with some form of playtesting heavily encouraged.
Consider simpler rulesets, based off ones already tested and balanced.
Have at least two weeks between thread posting and game starting for rules to be reviewed by the public while the game is in center focus.
1. This is a bit difficult to people who have not run one, or people who are making their own for the first time. While that is no excuse, oversight should be taken with some sympathy. I think people are trying too hard to be unique, some of the classic mafias run in the past were run using a fairly worked out ruleset and it made things fair (I can see however, how this could take away from the excitement)
2. This would drag times down to a vast degree I feel, though it is an important idea. I feel I touch lightly on what I would do in the previous response, but still, even if a system with so much input isn't used, it is important to start balancing before the game goes live. Perhaps in order to be selected for the next mafia, you must have a ruleset up on your signup post within a few days of the last mafia going live?
4. I touched on this in response two, I feel this two week period can be shifted to around the last mafia going live. Maybe that's unrealistic for the person who is going after math, but certainly after that person it should be easy enough to have some rules posted in advance.
2. How so? Maybe I wasn't being clear/maybe I'm not seeing the issue. I was thinking that say, when mafia 58 comes up, within a few days (before the game starts) the ruleset for mafia 59 MUST be up. It could be up before, but in order to be considered as the next mafia game, it must have an active ruleset up. If they don't, it would simply skip to the next person in line /with/ and active ruleset.
I think I misinterpreted what you meant, I thought you meant after the last game ended people had to submit the ruleset, but I see now you meant that they had to have the ruleset made to signup in the first place, correct?
I touched on this on the last thread and do not time to go into detail here.
I do not think this forum needs heavily critiqued overly balanced mafias. This is not a mafia forum. This is not Town of Salem. If people want that, they can go there. I think a standard check by Kuroaitou to make sure the rules are functional, and then any breaks found during the sign up period being fixed, are more than sufficient. Tossing mafias up far in advance and letting the whole community critique them will burn out ideas, make mafia generic, and/or lead away from creativity.
If such overly analyzed generic mafias are desired, then we should have two sign up lists: one for creative thematic mafias, and one for a base game (that could be given thematic paint coats) with the same roles.
I forsee a "too many cooks" situation that will make mafia's either beaten before they start by over analysis, This is what regularly happens now, but it happens after the game starts. If these issues are fixed before the start, it would actually reduce the possibility of solving the game, as many recent mafias have been. bland from over standardization, I would personally rather have games be a little bit more bland if the tradeoff is an large increase in quality, and I expect any removed variety to be minimal considering games more complex than even the crazier mafias here can be balanced or lose there hype by being talked to death. Games would only need to be discussed for a short period of time, and not by all the likely players even, so I wouldn't forsee loss of hype being a significant issue. It might even increase it, with someone potentially having knowledge that the game is balanced and they contributed to it. I think if someone /wants/ to show their mafia to mafia pros for comments, fine. But I'd prefer Kuro (as he has the staff position for it), okay their functionality as sufficient Kuro would need assistance to do that anyways, as one additional person isn't enough for most games. Myself, qwerter, and Kuro all failed to notice the major balance flaw in my mafia, for example.
If players think a mafia is broken beyond belief they can not join. The thing is, for some reason we keep failing to recognize games as broken until they're actually shown as such, despite there being players capable of doing so. We want to prevent broken mafias from being common in the first place. If several players are afraid of unbalanced rule sets, they can make "How to make a balanced mafia" guides. This is a large part of my proposal, so agreed. But, like I said, this is not a mafia forum. If we wanted to get nitty-gritty on rulesets we might as well go there. Or just play Town of Salem or something. No, this isn't a mafia site, but for some reason mafia has always really hooked to this place. It's a core part of an active section and as such I feel it should be higher quality than it currently is, even if some work has to be put in to achieve that. I heavily dislike this suggestion the more I think about it and the net benefit is a possibility of slight balance increase (that guides would do just as much for.)I think that net benefit is worth the effort I'm suggesting, even if I'm wrong about your three initial points.
After a mafia is posted for signups, the next person on the list has one week to get their setup ready. Kuro will choose ~3 experienced mafia players from a group of volunteers to arrange a time for them to meet with the host in a pad and focus on balancing the setup. I believe that coming at every issue found and the mafia as a whole from several different viewpoints all at once in a focused discussion will be very effective at ironing out any problems. The mafia would be posted at the normal time when 50% of the players in the previous mafia are dead, and the community would be able to give feedback for minor changes during the week of signups.
Notice me Senpai.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/off-topic-discussions/open-discussion-about-forum-mafia-games/
Is there anything in particular from that thread you think is relevant here?Yes, even if not all. I still firmly believe in points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. I'd even go as far to say that Numbers 1, 4, 5 and 8 are golden rules.
Can we talk about how silly it is to have a no-posting-during-night phase rule, while still allowing players to PM each other during night phase? This is just so ridiculous, but only a couple players have ever questioned it.
OKAY-Is there still a need for this? I haven't read Nae's rules yet, but if there is a need, I can start analyzing them.
As of now, I will begin compiling a list of players who would like to volunteer their services in helping out balance a future mafia game onto the main post. If you're interested, please state so.
The list will be organized top-bottom by a combination of mafia activity (how many games have you played/hosted), as well as forum experience (players who have been on the forum longer will be placed higher on the list). Mafia hosts will then ask a few of the listed players (including the FGO, who will exclude themselves from the list automatically due to simplicity purposes) to assist in balancing, the FGO will create a pad to help edit, analyze, and look for any potential game exploits, controversial mechanics, or other broken rules/plays.
OKAY-Is there still a need for this? I haven't read Nae's rules yet, but if there is a need, I can start analyzing them.
As of now, I will begin compiling a list of players who would like to volunteer their services in helping out balance a future mafia game onto the main post. If you're interested, please state so.
The list will be organized top-bottom by a combination of mafia activity (how many games have you played/hosted), as well as forum experience (players who have been on the forum longer will be placed higher on the list). Mafia hosts will then ask a few of the listed players (including the FGO, who will exclude themselves from the list automatically due to simplicity purposes) to assist in balancing, the FGO will create a pad to help edit, analyze, and look for any potential game exploits, controversial mechanics, or other broken rules/plays.
We talked about this earlier, but I wanted to suggest incorporating popular vote into our process for selecting the next mafia host. My plan is outlined below.Support, 100%.
- The next 4 players on the Mafia Sign-Up List send their ideas to Kuro, who creates a polling thread with the four ideas.
* If someone does not have their idea ready, the next person in line submits in their place.
- Players vote on their favorite ruleset.
* Would be easiest to do the voting as a regular forum poll, but alternate voting is a possibility as well.
- The most popular ruleset is selected.
* The winner becomes the next host, and they are free to join back on the Sign-Up List.
* If someone finishes in 4th place twice in a row, they are moved to the end of the Sign-Up List.
- The process repeats itself. Those who did not have their ruleset win may modify it if they wish.
The purpose of this idea is to give participants more control over the rulesets they play with. If there's a ruleset they won't enjoy, they won't vote for it. However, we still retain a Sign-Up List, and we avoid having the same 1-2 people from hosting every time. It's sort of a compromise between our current system and a direct popular vote. It's also more democratic than having an elite cabal of veterans tinker with the rules before they are enacted.
I would be willing to implement this system beginning with Mafia #59, which I am scheduled to host. I would happily risk losing my spot as a host in order to implement a better overall system for deciding hosts.
We talked about this earlier, but I wanted to suggest incorporating popular vote into our process for selecting the next mafia host. My plan is outlined below.Support, 100%.
- The next 4 players on the Mafia Sign-Up List send their ideas to Kuro, who creates a polling thread with the four ideas.
* If someone does not have their idea ready, the next person in line submits in their place.
- Players vote on their favorite ruleset.
* Would be easiest to do the voting as a regular forum poll, but alternate voting is a possibility as well.
- The most popular ruleset is selected.
* The winner becomes the next host, and they are free to join back on the Sign-Up List.
* If someone finishes in 4th place twice in a row, they are moved to the end of the Sign-Up List.
- The process repeats itself. Those who did not have their ruleset win may modify it if they wish.
The purpose of this idea is to give participants more control over the rulesets they play with. If there's a ruleset they won't enjoy, they won't vote for it. However, we still retain a Sign-Up List, and we avoid having the same 1-2 people from hosting every time. It's sort of a compromise between our current system and a direct popular vote. It's also more democratic than having an elite cabal of veterans tinker with the rules before they are enacted.
I would be willing to implement this system beginning with Mafia #59, which I am scheduled to host. I would happily risk losing my spot as a host in order to implement a better overall system for deciding hosts.
- Players are not allowed to intentionally try to lose. Mafia may not kill each other through night kills or abilities, but they are allowed to lynch each other.
So what I am thinking is a mafia with no roles besides mafia and civilian. Mafia members won't know who each other are. Lynches and night kills happen at the same time. Lynch voting is private by pm'ing the host. Mafia can accidentally kill each other. Night kill is random between the mafia targets or majority if they choose the same person, but civ targets always trump mafia targets. Each night phase players will get a choice of options to hopefully sway things towards their favor. Hopefully the options will change each night. The lore will support the gameplay. People will be required to post at least once a day phase, and not voting is not allowed. You will also be able to call someone out once a day phase to make them post. Thoughts?What would be the civvy:mafia ratio? It's an interesting idea, you should test it with 4-5 people in chat one time. (Testgames should definitely be played for such new meta, I think)
I'd probably start with the typical 1/5 that we use. Mafia can't really interact but there is no easy way for civs to ID mafia... both sides have a pretty big disadvantage compared to usual games.Nah, the civvies often deal with problems like this. Sometimes the cop gets killed Night 1, then the doctor fails to save anyone. It would maybe equalize things a bit.
Except a civ could do that too and then tell everyone who else claimed to be mafia.As I mentioned, it's something that already happened. The civs indeed tried to interfere, but it ended up with the mafia gathering together and all the civs who fake-claimed mafia being lynched (including the mafia member who started it). That one involved role abilities though, and it was also a first. It's not impossible though to correctly guess which claimant is a real mafia member and who's bluffing. And from then it's also not hard to hint some false informations to the civs.
So what I am thinking is a mafia with no roles besides mafia and civilian. Mafia members won't know who each other are. Lynches and night kills happen at the same time. Lynch voting is private by pm'ing the host. Mafia can accidentally kill each other. Night kill is random between the mafia targets or majority if they choose the same person, but civ targets always trump mafia targets. Each night phase players will get a choice of options to hopefully sway things towards their favor. Hopefully the options will change each night. The lore will support the gameplay. People will be required to post at least once a day phase, and not voting is not allowed. You will also be able to call someone out once a day phase to make them post. Thoughts?
You can't blame players for using strategies that are within the rules. Limiting stuff is up to the organizer, while the players are (and should be) free to use anything allowed.
RULES:rule is intended to do what Root did in his mafia which was having the thread be the place the game occurs within having a few specific exceptions for game-aspects like a mafia pad or Masons-type-civ-role pad which would be a TPad or similar setup and monitored by the host. The wording really ought to have "or via PM" removed. I will argue this point vehemently, insistently, and consistently from this point forward until the change is made.
11. All mafia discussion has to occur either in this topic or via PM. The mafia will be allowed to talk in a titanpad created by the host.
| Others |
| Your main goal is to kill all Chosen in the game. This is done by using the lynch system. |
| Chosen |
| The "mafia" of the game. Your goal is to kill Others, until they are all dead or unable to fight back in any way. Every round, each Chosen can vote for a target by sending a PM to the host. The target with the most votes is killed, or the most recent vote decides the kill if there is a tie. |
Signups for the next mafia should start at either....
A) When all of Mafia/3rd party/as fits by ruleset is killed
B) When there's 1/2 days left before the Lynch or Lose situation
This prevents a mafia from being eclipsed by another mafia, potentially throwing the game, such as my mafia is in risk of. Puts a bad taste in my mouth about hosting again.
Didn't you retroactively extend a timer by 5 days?rofl, seriously. You're IN the game. Was there ever a 5 DAY discrepancy between rounds? No. That was clearly a joke, as I updated the round 1-2 hours later.
Regarding m63:
Not revealing information after death is a cardinal rule of mafia. It should always be known as being in place. It violates the spirit of the game.
Submachine was given a warning, but I don't find this to be enough. I think he should be outright banned from mafia, if not forum games, for several months, if not permanently.
Those who supported him should also be suspended from mafia for a short period of time.
I find that a bit drastic lol... people make mistakes, best to let them learn from this mistake. Everyone now knows this was a mistake and it will never happen again.
Sky herself changed the rules to make it legal.
I am not aware of any previous incidents. Can you point them out to me?
They did apply. They always applied. I was trying to get Sub out of his punishment.
2 rule proposals:
1) If you request to be modkilled (maybe if you're modkilled at all?), you are banned for 1 mafia.
2) All standard mafia rules that apply in a given mafia must be included in the host's OP to ensure everyone understands which rules apply.
What do yall think of a game where instead of voting for who to lynch, you vote for who to save? Make it so players can't vote for themselves and if there is a tie, voting happens again but you can only vote to save any of the people that just tied for the least amount of votes. The game would take longer, but it would be very interesting to play. I imagine this format could fit in to any mafia ruleset.So like
I am not familiar with all functions of Discord, but until the following things get sorted out, I highly advise against using it in any future mafias:
- Discord voice chat: Everything said in voice chat cannot be tracked.
- Deleting messages: Discord messages can be deleted without trace.
- Fake usernames: Anyone can log in and pretend to be someone else. If someone creates a new account just for this, it cannot be tracked who the account belongs to.
- Editing messages: Messages can be edited multiple times. If Discord only shows the last modification, untrackable information can be created.
I'll follow onI am not familiar with all functions of Discord, but until the following things get sorted out, I highly advise against using it in any future mafias:We can likely address all those things in Discord, but for now I made you a blab channel that shouldn't be accessibly by guests.
- Discord voice chat: Everything said in voice chat cannot be tracked.
- Deleting messages: Discord messages can be deleted without trace.
- Fake usernames: Anyone can log in and pretend to be someone else. If someone creates a new account just for this, it cannot be tracked who the account belongs to.
- Editing messages: Messages can be edited multiple times. If Discord only shows the last modification, untrackable information can be created.
Deleting messages: Discord messages can be deleted without trace.
There are several options for how we deal with chat after Mafia 71, but none of them will involve the required posting of chat logs, so any discussion on this will only be relevant for Mafia 71.
The discussion rules we used for 71 have worked in the past, but this time it got out of control, so it is no longer one of our options, which are now as follows:
1) Free communication
2) Blab allowed but only in a separate mafia room
3) Thread only
After 72, we will have played a game with 1), a game similar to 2), and a game with 3). Then, having gotten a feel for all of the options, we will decide what direction we want to take.
Spectator chat: https://discord.gg/zdeEhcg
My Championship game has started.
Information: https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/threads/21905-Season-6-General-Information
Game thread: https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/threads/23018-Season-6-Game-11-Love-and-Hate-Mafia-The-Mafia-Championship
Spectator chat: https://discord.gg/zdeEhcg