The Mafia Discussion Thread

[The Mask of Norro]

As an aside: Webcomic Mafia. We're approaching the one-year anniversary of the start of Webcom Mafia III... and what I want to know from all of you is this: I've an idea on how to continue the franchise, if you all want me to, that won't conflict with the running story of the series and will, in all actuality, help develop it further.

The original Webcomic Mafia series followed a set group of people, and in-particular spanned the distance of two "towns", the Webcom I town that was destroyed (and turned into Memorial hall at the end of Webcom III) and then the town fought in during both II and III. These were the two "main" towns of the industry.

What I want to do, with future potential Webcom games, is to show the "Lost Wars" of the Webcomic Wars. Smaller wars fought throughout the industry that added more fuel to the fire that lit up the industry during the first three games. It would reveal small branches of old mafia groups, new scum groups that never succeeded in getting on the same level as Gamers United and the Sunday Strip Mafia, et all... basically, it would stay true to the story of the Webcomic Mafia franchise, without building onto the ending of it, which was basically the ultimate rise of the industry.

Not only would this fit in with the series, and give a new 'feel' to the next game... but it would include an entirely new cast of characters to build on, and provide new game mechanics to play around with.

This is still in the conceptual stage, especially considering I'm currently doing MythMaf, but I wanted everyone's thoughts on it. I'm very picky about sequels to my Webcom series, they have to be just right for me to go forward with them... but I've a good feeling about this particular idea.

[Jimmy]

I really dig it. I'd definitely go for it, but maybe don't make it quite so big as Mythology Mafia. I think the series could benefit from a few less player to be honest. But I love the idea, and I LOVED Web Com III.

[The Mask of Norro]

Generally speaking, I can handle games with up to 40 players tops in them. MythMaf has been dragging on not because of my inability to handle the game size so much as my inability to handle the game size during my old schedule. Because I was being worked so many hours and had so much else to do, I didn't exactly have all the time in the world to handle the game.

I found out Saturday that I was laid off from my job (It was retail and meh, I'm starting to branch out now with my graphic designs... contract work should hopefully be easy to come by soon), so I suddenly have plenty of time to get MythMaf up to speed.

The other problem, though, is player activity. Generally activity is great if the game is active, MythMaf is suffering because it drug because of my schedule.

If Webcom IV, for example, had exactly 40 players... I could honestly handle that. I could balance the system out, I could keep things moving, it's really not too difficult to handle. It's a matter of scheduling everything is all. Sure, it would be challenging, but still easily doable to be honest.

I prefer the larger game format for the Webcom series simply because of the variety it brings and balance issues with my groups. MythMaf was a step in another direction and though I've enjoyed it, it's not going as I'd hoped it would (again, due mostly to scheduling). The next MythMaf I run will be MUCH more organized and put-together than this one, and the same goes for if I actually go through with the next installment to the Webcom series.

[Jimmy]

It's not that you can't handle it, it's because a hand full of players won't live up to their commitment and games thus suffer or die out.

[Gongsun Zan]

I like how Norro needs to write two essay-length posts just to tell people he's considering running WebCom IV.

[The Mask of Norro]

I like how Norro needs to write two essay-length posts just to tell people he's considering running WebCom IV.

I like how to this day people still don't seem to understand that if there is an opportunity for me to tl;dr the shit out of everyone, I'm going to take it.

[HailtotheYo]

It's not about surviving yourself, it's about the Town winning. I tell you, that's half the problem with Mafia on EWB - people too concerned about protecting themselves and not acting in the best interests of the town.

That's from RW in the Devil's Rejects Mafia game. It has to do with Matt saying that his "shield" role sucks because in essence if he uses it correctly he can't win the game.

Now, I'm not advocating Matt's stance exactly but I'm not just out and agreeing with RW either. The Mafia Games have this kind of label on them that lends to Matt's way of thinking. I mean, after all there's a thread entitled "Mafia Survival Standings" and under its original form it labeled the people listed as "skilled mafia players" simply because they survived.

Just saying ...

[Pleatherface]

The Skilled Mafia Players list is a bit of a joke, simply due to my presence anywhere on it. *nod* But honestly I have to agree with RW's line of thinking even if I personally disagree with his playing in aforementioned game.

Reading -Matt-'s statement that he'd been protecting shitty players, people less likely to draw the mafia's attention, and people less likely to reveal themselves due to inactivity or disinterest simply so he could survive and win... That made me want to strangle him.

That kind of logic is what will see matt labeled an acceptable loss townie (such things do exist.) in that he plays for himself above others and may aswell be an individual, and I wouldn't be overly shocked to see him lynched for it atleast once in a forthcoming game, whether just or unjust.

It gives the town no incentive to keep him around when the statistical chances of a hitting a townie early game with a lynch not backed by evidence is well-beyond average.

In any given game, he might be scum, so why take the chance? This kind of thinking not only damns matt, but if taken too far damns pretty much any new player, or someone that's made a visible mistake, or is even perceived to make one.

It also can see other players choose to look out for themselves. To sum up, what good would -Matt- be doing as a self-less protector that refuses to be selfless, why should he even be playing?

Take a look at West Coast Avengers. Look at Blehschmidt. Poor fellow tried several times to die to save a more important townie, but failed each time, and if I'm correct actually won the game.

A win he deserved for trying.

Bottom Line: If you're not going to play the role you've been assigned to the best of your ability, ask to be replaced. I can understand if he was actually concerned a better player may be scum, but to avoid targeting simply to save himself is shameful.

[StevenRichardsRules]

GoGo, get into the Saved by the Bell Mafia thread and rap already!

[Matt]

It's not about surviving yourself, it's about the Town winning. I tell you, that's half the problem with Mafia on EWB - people too concerned about protecting themselves and not acting in the best interests of the town.

That's from RW in the Devil's Rejects Mafia game. It has to do with Matt saying that his "shield" role sucks because in essence if he uses it correctly he can't win the game.

Now, I'm not advocating Matt's stance exactly but I'm not just out and agreeing with RW either. The Mafia Games have this kind of label on them that lends to Matt's way of thinking. I mean, after all there's a thread entitled "Mafia Survival Standings" and under its original form it labeled the people listed as "skilled mafia players" simply because they survived.

Just saying ...

Glad you posted this because I was going to do it myself, but was too lazy I never said my shield role sucked, I just said it wasn't "a great ability" like Summ said it was. Nor did I say that mafia wasn't a team game (albeit it came over that way), but it was not a good play for me personally to protect a "good" or "important" player to help the town win, because I'd die doing so.

You need to play for the team to help you win, if sacrificng yourself was a good play we need to overhaul the ranking systems and make it so every townie wins if the town win (and ditto for scum or cult) not just the ones who survived.

[TEOL]

This is the source of the double principle of LAL, which can stand for both Lynch All Liars (anyone caught telling a direct lie should be lynched even if they appear to be town, simply because their misinformation is still not helpful to the town) and Lynch All Losers (anyone who isn't working to help the overall victory of the town should be lynched even if they appear to be town, simply because the town's main focus should be victory for the town as a whole).

[Matt]

The Skilled Mafia Players list is a bit of a joke, simply due to my presence anywhere on it. *nod* But honestly I have to agree with RW's line of thinking even if I personally disagree with his playing in aforementioned game.

Reading -Matt-'s statement that he'd been protecting shitty players, people less likely to draw the mafia's attention, and people less likely to reveal themselves due to inactivity or disinterest simply so he could survive and win... That made me want to strangle him.

That kind of logic is what will see matt labeled an acceptable loss townie (such things do exist.) in that he plays for himself above others and may aswell be an individual, and I wouldn't be overly shocked to see him lynched for it atleast once in a forthcoming game, whether just or unjust.

It gives the town no incentive to keep him around when the statistical chances of a hitting a townie early game with a lynch not backed by evidence is well-beyond average.

In any given game, he might be scum, so why take the chance? This kind of thinking not only damns matt, but if taken too far damns pretty much any new player, or someone that's made a visible mistake, or is even perceived to make one.

It also can see other players choose to look out for themselves. To sum up, what good would -Matt- be doing as a self-less protector that refuses to be selfless, why should he even be playing?

Take a look at West Coast Avengers. Look at Blehschmidt. Poor fellow tried several times to die to save a more important townie, but failed each time, and if I'm correct actually won the game.

A win he deserved for trying.

Bottom Line: If you're not going to play the role you've been assigned to the best of your ability, ask to be replaced. I can understand if he was actually concerned a better player may be scum, but to avoid targeting simply to save himself is shameful.

So when you're a vanilla townie and someone claims investigator and they need protecting, you make a fake protector claim so that the Scum take you out and not the investigator or the real doctor.

If we're going to call even dead townies winners, then fair enough, but I fail to see why anyone should lose a game when they could win it.

[TEOL]

So when you're a vanilla townie and someone claims investigator and they need protecting, you make a fake protector claim so that the Scum take you out and not the investigator or the real doctor.

Poor example, since like I just said, Lynch All Liars, and that particular lie has proven in the past to typically be more trouble for the Town than the Scum, but still.

[Pleatherface]

What service do you provide? How can you win the game? By sitting back and letting other people pinpoint the scum for you? By being a useless vote that doesn't care who gets lynched aslong as it's not you and by the logic is easily manipulated?

The truth is, in that situation, by choosing the path you did, you can't win. Someone else can win for you.

The idea that you'd sooner an investigator die than yourself who can do nothing in the situation you laid out is puzzling, and says some unflattering things about your character in these games, and I sincerely hope that's not how you truly feel man.

[Pleatherface]

By similiar logic, investigators who aren't a-list players should never come forward with results, so they don't make themselves targets and thus can win the game. Is that about right matt?

Even, if they have a list of 3 or 4 scummies they should keep quiet till the town stumbles about and dumb luck lynches the threats, and they're certain there's only one left, just to be on the safe side?

[Matt]

What service do you provide? How can you win the game? By sitting back and letting other people pinpoint the scum for you? By being a useless vote that doesn't care who gets lynched aslong as it's not you and by the logic is easily manipulated?

The truth is, in that situation, by choosing the path you did, you can't win. Someone else can win for you.

The idea that you'd sooner an investigator die than yourself who can do nothing in the situation you laid out is puzzling, and says some unflattering things about your character in these games, and I sincerely hope that's not how you truly feel man.

Or you can try and work out who the scum are without using abilities. I don't think I ever said I don't care who gets lynched, that's a ridiculous statement that I didn't make. By choosing the path you give me, I'm almost certain to not win and no-one "can win for me" either.

When you sign up for a game, you want to win surely, not to help someone else win.

[Pleatherface]

When you put yourself over the town it makes you an individual. I'm sorry but I can't agree with that being a sound play.

Everyone wants to win, that's not a revelation or a strong valid arguement.

It's your choice and talking to you about it wont change it, I just can't really see how you would reach that sum total.

But if you wanted to stay alive and win, I supose you did well on that front.

[Pesci]

Now, I'm not advocating Matt's stance exactly but I'm not just out and agreeing with RW either. The Mafia Games have this kind of label on them that lends to Matt's way of thinking. I mean, after all there's a thread entitled "Mafia Survival Standings" and under its original form it labeled the people listed as "skilled mafia players" simply because they survived.

Just saying ...

To be fair, I made the survival standings thread and I changed it from "wins" to survivals after a couple of hours since I realised it encouraged selfish play. I never called them skilled mafia players anywhere. I just did it because it's fun to keep track of. RW added the skilled thing into the waiting list thread.

I agree with you, though. The victory of the side you're on is always more important than personal gain. I think the better players tend to realise that.

[Mr Evil Guy]

My only point of playing mafia was personal gain. I did the whole go for the team shit early and then I realized it wasn't rewarding to be fucked last second of a deserving win every time cause mafia finally realizes that you beat them.

[SeanDMan]

How I play depends on the game and the role. If it makes sense for me to play for myself, I will, and have, as evidenced by Triple H in WWF 1999. Mostly, I was always getting nightkilled before I could do anything, so...