General Discussion & Mafia Ideas, Balancing, and Critiques

[Linkcat]

What this topic should be used for:

Questions, queries, criticisms, comments and anything else about the Forum Game section, Forum Games, and Forum Game Organizers.
Discussion about mafia in general and its metagame.
Discussion about problems with unbalanced mafias and how to make a balanced mafia.
Posting mafia ideas for community feedback.

Spoiler for Original OP:

Okay.

So those who are reading this, you've probably come across a few mafia forum games that didn't -quite- turn out in regards to balance, but was still fun otherwise (hopefully). Although the FGO should not have a say in regards to a mafia's theme or specific rule set, potential participants should be allowed to make balancing concerns public to the host so as to have a more fair (and consequently and hopefully more fun) mafia game.

This topic should only be used for one of the following reasons:

• Discussing about mafia in general and its metagame
• Potentially creating a group/pad for discussing particular mafia games, current, past, or future

This post will most likely be modified in response to what players want from mafia games in general, and to keep updates on the general state of the mafia gaming (and Forum Game section as well).

[ddevans96]

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.

[killsdazombies]

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.

In order


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)


Perhaps, this thread could be made to showcase some past mafias that were very successful balance wise, with explanation, and perhaps even show the previous two mafias with brief commentary on what was, and wasn't balanced.


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?


3. I touched on this in response one, and I agree wholeheartedly, despite my desire to make a unique mafia myself


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.

[ddevans96]

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)

Identifying mistakes would be a community effort, probably within this thread, not an individual requirement. There's enough experienced players here to be able to go through all the recent mafias and compile mistakes as a reference and guideline for future hosts.

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?

There's currently roughly 15 people signed up to host mafia, even if only a few of these presented rulesets before they're close to hosting, we'd still be set for a while, especially with more rulesets coming in over time. There'd be no time lost in the system as a whole, in fact I think your proposal would actually make things take longer than currently.

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.

I agree, I think to keep times between mafias manageable rules for one can be posted while the other is ongoing, with about a week of overlap and then a week in between for unconflicted review before the later one begins.

[killsdazombies]

1. I like the idea of a guideline for future hosts, I think that would help players tremendously


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.


Considering how vast the waitlist is at the moment, thinking about it now, your system does make a lot of sense. 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?

[ddevans96]

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.

Sorry, I misread, I thought you meant the ruleset needed to be posted within a few days of the previous mafia ending, which is equal to or slower than the current, you meant within a few days of the previous one starting, which I'm completely in agreement with. That would give plenty of time for review and wrap into my (4) nicely.

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?

Yeah, I think having at least the core of a ruleset should be a requirement for signing up to host. Between that, the time between it and having to post it, and the time between posting and starting the game I think there should be plenty of time for review without slowing down the schedule.

[Naesala]

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.

[Linkcat]

I have a proposal.

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.

[ddevans96]

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.

Quote from your post in the other thread, my responses added in ice blue.

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.

I'd support this, honestly any system is better than what we have now.

[Submachine]

Notice me Senpai.

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/off-topic-discussions/open-discussion-about-forum-mafia-games/

[ddevans96]

Notice me Senpai.

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/off-topic-discussions/open-discussion-about-forum-mafia-games/

That discussion ultimately didn't provide any solutions, for a number of reasons, which is why we're here a year later. Is there anything in particular from that thread you think is relevant here?

[Submachine]

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.