The Mafia Discussion Thread

[oldskool]

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

[-A-]

Can WWE even continue? What do other people think?

[R.W.]

We don't know it's a mistake yet, so I'll reserve judgement for now.

[Katsuya]

WWE Mafia just got annoying towards the end. I was going to put effort in, then decided...nah. Besides, I was happy that I twigged TGC as being JTTS. That was good enough.

[Matt]

Since I still haven't decided yet...

-Matt- has a proposal for something he'd like to run. I'll let him explain it to you, and you can all decide on whether it's a good idea or not.

I refer you to this!

Right, so... basically a mafia tournament... but hear me out, because this one won't be shit (well as shit).

It'll run under a winner stays on format... note, WINNER not survivor. And will consist of three rounds. The first will be a series of small games (all 5 or 7 player games), the winners will move onto a second round which will be 2 slightly larger games (10-12 players). The winners (again, winners not survivors) of these 2 games move onto a third game which will decide the eventual winners.

The tournament would be open to anyone and everyone, and each game would be a different traditional variant sot he game would rely on good play and teamwork as opposed to luck and roleclaiming. I have most eventualities planned for, so barring any freak results (such as the mafia winning every game in the first round) there will be minimal spontaneity and improvisation.

What I asked RW for was permission to run this outside the list as it would be ridiculous to try and run it inside the list, as it will take approx. 8 weeks (I think that's what I worked it out) to complete as it is. Currently, I hope to start to run it in March/April. I have all the games and such planned out (barring one small error I've just seen in my plans), all that would be needed to do is write out the PMs, etc: and obviously get the permission needed.

So yeah, I know mafia tournaments have failed before, but I really feel this could work and besides, it can't hurt to try, can it?

[DFF]

Since I still haven't decided yet...

-Matt- has a proposal for something he'd like to run. I'll let him explain it to you, and you can all decide on whether it's a good idea or not.

I refer you to this!

Right, so... basically a mafia tournament... but hear me out, because this one won't be shit (well as shit).

It'll run under a winner stays on format... note, WINNER not survivor. And will consist of three rounds. The first will be a series of small games (all 5 or 7 player games), the winners will move onto a second round which will be 2 slightly larger games (10-12 players). The winners (again, winners not survivors) of these 2 games move onto a third game which will decide the eventual winners.

The tournament would be open to anyone and everyone, and each game would be a different traditional variant sot he game would rely on good play and teamwork as opposed to luck and roleclaiming. I have most eventualities planned for, so barring any freak results (such as the mafia winning every game in the first round) there will be minimal spontaneity and improvisation.

What I asked RW for was permission to run this outside the list as it would be ridiculous to try and run it inside the list, as it will take approx. 8 weeks (I think that's what I worked it out) to complete as it is. Currently, I hope to start to run it in March/April. I have all the games and such planned out (barring one small error I've just seen in my plans), all that would be needed to do is write out the PMs, etc: and obviously get the permission needed.

So yeah, I know mafia tournaments have failed before, but I really feel this could work and besides, it can't hurt to try, can it?

I like the idea.

[-A-]

I'd definitely play. The only problem would be that they'd be rife with meta-gaming, particularly in small games. You'd definitely have people voting out the best players regardless of whether they think they're scummy. I know the 'winner, not survivor' thing would somewhat reduce the impact of it, but people would still see that between two candidates they have more of an incentive for one person to lose.

As long as only 1, maybe 2 games are running at once, it should be OK. Just have it take up the Traditional Mafia slot. There are only 4 games on there at the moment and if you're running in April they'll probably be done by then.

[Matt]

I'd definitely play. The only problem would be that they'd be rife with meta-gaming, particularly in small games. You'd definitely have people voting out the best players regardless of whether they think they're scummy. I know the 'winner, not survivor' thing would somewhat reduce the impact of it, but people would still see that between two candidates they have more of an incentive for one person to lose.

As long as only 1, maybe 2 games are running at once, it should be OK. Just have it take up the Traditional Mafia slot. There are only 4 games on there at the moment and if you're running in April they'll probably be done by then.

Yeah the plan is for just 1 or 2 games to be running at the same time, probably just 1 and certainly just 1 past the first round. But I don't think the "good players being lynched" would be a problem because it'd be in the town's interest to keep the best players alive plus, like you say, it's irrelevant if they're nightkilled or whatever because they still win if their side wins.

[-A-]

Yeah the plan is for just 1 or 2 games to be running at the same time, probably just 1 and certainly just 1 past the first round. But I don't think the "good players being lynched" would be a problem because it'd be in the town's interest to keep the best players alive plus, like you say, it's irrelevant if they're nightkilled or whatever because they still win if their side wins.

It's not totally irrelevant, though. If the groups of 7 are randomly selected, you can pretty much guarantee that the highest-reputation town player will die on the first night and their success will be totally in the hands of other people. Say you've got a scum group of Pesci and Split against a town group of MPH, Essa, Jam, Norro and FD. MPH will probably get night-killed on the first night without having played well or badly, but he can advance to the next round if the rest of the town play well. It's not really a case of teamwork - the person who dies first has done nothing at all either way.

It works the other way as well, with the lynch. In a big game, I agree that townies want there to be a few good players around to spot things that you don't. In a small game, if it comes down to me and 2 other people I'd prefer that they be shit rather than good, so I have a better chance of winning. If I'm completely torn between GoGo and Slogger and both are equally scummy, I'll probably want to vote for GoGo (especially if it's not lynch or lose.) Take GoGo's influence as one of the best players out of the game and I've got a better chance of winning.

Edited February 4, 2009 by -A-

[TheRossWalker]

JAM FUCKED UP! JAM FUCKED UP! JAM FUCKED UP! /ECW Crowd

And that was called for, how?

I'm taking it in here to keep it out of Jam's thread, but that was out of line, Ace. Let the game finish before you call anyone on anything.

[Matt]

Yeah the plan is for just 1 or 2 games to be running at the same time, probably just 1 and certainly just 1 past the first round. But I don't think the "good players being lynched" would be a problem because it'd be in the town's interest to keep the best players alive plus, like you say, it's irrelevant if they're nightkilled or whatever because they still win if their side wins.

It's not totally irrelevant, though. If the groups of 7 are randomly selected, you can pretty much guarantee that the highest-reputation town player will die on the first night and their success will be totally in the hands of other people. Say you've got a scum group of Pesci and Split against a town group of MPH, Essa, Jam, Norro and FD. MPH will probably get night-killed on the first night without having played well or badly, but he can advance to the next round if the rest of the town play well. It's not really a case of teamwork - the person who dies first has done nothing at all either way.

It works the other way as well, with the lynch. In a big game, I agree that townies want there to be a few good players around to spot things that you don't. In a small game, if it comes down to me and 2 other people I'd prefer that they be shit rather than good, so I have a better chance of winning. If I'm completely torn between GoGo and Slogger and both are equally scummy, I'll probably want to vote for GoGo (especially if it's not lynch or lose.) Take GoGo's influence as one of the best players out of the game and I've got a better chance of winning.

Point taken, but that mentality is unavoidable to an extent and playing for yourself rather than your team will probably lead to you crashing out eventually, regardless.

The games won't be randomly selected, the roles within them will be, but the games themselves will be balanced to give the most equal and fair games possible (this is to protect both "lesser" and "better" players, the former from being bandwagoned early on and the latter from being nightkilled night one just because they're better than the other players).

[-A-]

Sounds good, I think some kind of seeding's probably a good idea for the first round. The whole tournament is never really going to prove who the best player around is, it's just something interesting and new and splitting the groups up helps that.

[Mr Evil Guy]

Seed the players for each game. That'd be sick.

[-A-]

I know we have Survival Standings, Scummies and the Power 10, but the idea of seedings still arouses me.

[-A-]

I have most eventualities planned for, so barring any freak results (such as the mafia winning every game in the first round) there will be minimal spontaneity and improvisation.

Is that just so you can adjust the numbers (because scum groups are smaller) or will people stay in the same teams from round to round?

[Matt]

I have most eventualities planned for, so barring any freak results (such as the mafia winning every game in the first round) there will be minimal spontaneity and improvisation.

Is that just so you can adjust the numbers (because scum groups are smaller) or will people stay in the same teams from round to round?

Its to adjust numbers yes, because I can't be exact with how many winners there'll be. The scum groups will actually be bigger in round 2 because the games will be a little larger but regardless, the "teams" will change up to some degree but again, I'll try and keep it as fair as I can for as long as I can.

[Josh]

I have most eventualities planned for, so barring any freak results (such as the mafia winning every game in the first round) there will be minimal spontaneity and improvisation.

Is that just so you can adjust the numbers (because scum groups are smaller) or will people stay in the same teams from round to round?

That would mean the concept is broken after round 1, right?

Also, the fact that you get aroused by mafia scares me.

[-A-]

I still fantasise about you too Josh, don't get jealous

EDIT: I was being stupid, obviously you can't stay in the same group from round to round. All the information is public from the previous rounds so once someone got lynched in the second round you'd know exactly what alignment their partner(s) from the first round were. Ignore me.

EDIT2: Were you meaning that the actual town/scum groups will be decided by seedings? I don't think that would necessarily be a good idea because it would make it easier to figure out who's in which group. It's like in other games where people tend to assume there'll be one of the best players in a group, one of the weaker players and then someone from in between. Occasionally you've got to have a newbie scum group or a totally l33t scum group to keep people on their toes. I reckon only the composition of each game should be seeded, then the teams would be random. That's probably what you're suggesting anyway

Edited February 5, 2009 by -A-

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Bad idea if town/scum alignments are anything other than completely random.

[-A-]

I love it when games get down to 3/4 people, it's what mafia's all about for me. I live for endgame.