GreyICE wrote:BTW, the "perfect scum win" happens most often when there's a sea of really bad players and you get good players pulling scum - something like a DDD/UK/x scumteam in a town full of nimnuts. I don't think I've ever seen a perfect scum win where the town didn't just make me kinda flinch at the player list.
No question the double claimed vigs were getting lynched if the town had an extra lynch, and then things would have started to fall into place. Not saying that anything was ultra-horrible in the scumteam's play, just that it would never have gotten a flawless victory (and might have lost them the game) in a 13.
zoraster wrote:Can anyone who's better with calculations tell me what the chances are that two or more teams will have the same point total in the following scenario:
1. Win rate is 50/50 for all four games
2. There are 10 town and 3 scum in each game
3. Teams are assigned roles randomly (duh).
4. Points for winning as scum and town are the same and there are no points gained or lost otherwise.
The probability is 1. There are 12 scum total and 13 teams. So either 2 teams are all town in which case they get the same score or there are 12 teams with one scum each. But then each team that has scum in the same scum group scores the same amount of points.
Scumchat is awesome. Yarr!
~"Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind."~
Ah good point. I actually didn't ask the question I meant to which was what is the likelihood that the teams with the HIGHEST point total have the same points?
Still, that's a little troubling as those teams with all town will necessarily tie if they win. hmm. This seems less than ideal.
I have considered having an MVP awarded at the end by the mod of that game (maybe even an MVP for the losing team too), but I do hate to interject subjectivity.
Last edited by zoraster on Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
also, something I just realized - suppose there are two teams, and they both get four town role PM's. Scoring system only based on factionwide performance means that these two teams are GUARANTEED to get the same point total. Bug or feature? I'm leaning toward the former, but it's hard to think of individual point modifiers that won't lead to metagaming. I'm operating under the (pretty safe, in my view) assumption that once the four games begin figuring out the teams will be relatively easy.
p.edit. ninja'd by zoraster!
"Don’t buy a dozen eggs if you just want a hardboiled egg. Don’t buy a head of lettuce if you just want a salad. Don’t buy eggs and lettuce if you want egg salad because those are not the right ingredients." -Julius Bloop
Ah and you actually reninja'd me. So I guess the question is whether offering a small bonus to an MVP awarded by the mod of each game is too much mod involvement. And it might not even solve the problem (if two teams have all town roles and win each time, that doesn't assure either will have won MVP in any of their games)
zoraster wrote:what did you mean by your colored suggestion?
My biggest problem is kind of that I'm trying to guess at things I don't really know.
Can anyone who's better with calculations tell me what the chances are that two or more teams will have the highest points and have same point total in the following scenario:
1. Win rate is 50/50 for all four games
2. There are 10 town and 3 scum in each game
3. Teams are assigned roles randomly (duh).
4. Points for winning as scum and town are the same and there are no points gained or lost otherwise.
DDD?
EDITED
Figuring out the probabilities would be a pain in the ass; here's a few quick simulations...
Sim1: 3 team tie with 3; 5 team tie with 2; 4 team tie with 1; 1 team with 0
Sim2: 1 team with 4; 4 team tie with 2; 7 team tie with 1; 1 team with 0
Sim3: 1 team with 4; 7 team tie with 3; 3 team tie with 2; 1 team with 1; 1 team with 0
Sim4: 8 team tie with 2; 3 team tie with 1; 2 team tie with 0
MVP is silly anyway. I've seen more times where a really good scumhunter gets a day 1 scumlynch, then eats dirt.
Clearly he did his part, helped his team, they NKed a Vanilla and he got 1 scum on day 1. Was he the MVP? Well if the town won, I kinda doubt it. But he certainly wasn't BAD.
"MVP" is actually still not quite fair, either. For example, when I'm VT, I lovelovelove getting NK'd N1. This is good town play. But what are the odds I'm going to be called "MVP" if the town wins? Even if I wagon scum and draw the NK, the sheer fact that I wasn't alive to vote for the other two scums makes it unlikely that I'll get town MVP. It's biased towards the living.
p.edit: Ninja'd for the second time today, GreyICE this time. I am slow for some reason
"Don’t buy a dozen eggs if you just want a hardboiled egg. Don’t buy a head of lettuce if you just want a salad. Don’t buy eggs and lettuce if you want egg salad because those are not the right ingredients." -Julius Bloop
Assuming the best team wins all 4 games (which means there's only way to tie them) and has exactly 1 scum role, the probability that there is another team with the same alignments (and thus the same points) is >66%.
Scumchat is awesome. Yarr!
~"Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind."~
Good town play, and the possibility of scoring for it.
Hunting scum. This is pretty much just reflected in faction win/loss. Can't quantify 'starting the wagon'. MAYBE we can have a scumhunting MVP award but I already expressed my reservations.
Drawing the NK as a VT. Can't score this, VT PM's are randomly distributed and scum could deliberately not shoot players on good teams.
Being active and posting content. This could work, though we'd need human judgment somewhere to avoid "I'm gonna say 'John Madden!' ten times a day so I will have the most posts"
Not being mislynched. This has potential. While scum *could* go for a less-than-ideal mislynch to try to ML a player on a good team, this seems like acceptable metagaming because it's detectable and risky
Am I missing something else?
"Don’t buy a dozen eggs if you just want a hardboiled egg. Don’t buy a head of lettuce if you just want a salad. Don’t buy eggs and lettuce if you want egg salad because those are not the right ingredients." -Julius Bloop
clearly what I need to do is add another 10 games.
And good points on MVP. Not fair.
But anyway, I think this highlights why doing something like I had before is almost necessary if nothing else than to provide stratification. It doesn't solve the problem of two teams that are on the same faction in every game, though. I'm not sure there is a solution to that without involving some unfairness. Having joint winners isn't unreasonable. It'd just suck to have DDD's Sim4 result with 8 joint winners, but that probably is helped by a stratification scheme.
I still like the idea of giving the town points for being on a scum wagon and the scum points for being on a town wagon. It may push metagaming, but so be it - metagaming can be fun.
I love Hito's idea about 'mislynch.' Pushing a mislynch on a good player can be very difficult.
Personally I would just do it binary 0 for win, 1 for loss. As long as you set up the teams so that repeating patterns are avoided and do not announce the teams anywhere (and make sure people dont squeal) you minimize odds of overlap. Maybe have a posthoc informal vote amongst all 52 players as to which team should win if a tiebreaker is needed.
But any lynch scoring will be unfair to parties that die early in the game.
shaft.ed wrote:Personally I would just do it binary 0 for win, 1 for loss. As long as you set up the teams so that repeating patterns are avoided and do not announce the teams anywhere (and make sure people dont squeal) you minimize odds of overlap. Maybe have a posthoc informal vote amongst all 52 players as to which team should win if a tiebreaker is needed.
But any lynch scoring will be unfair to parties that die early in the game.
what do you mean repeating patterns?
And I'm not comfortable making people not announce their team. I don't think the mods should reveal teams, but I'd rather give players the option of announcing or not.
A vote after the fact among all the players may just tend toward a popularity contest.
Last edited by zoraster on Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
What about a tie breaker like this: after Day 1 is finished in all games, each team must choose one player they think is scum from a game where their team is town. If the scores are tied at the end, the team that made the correct choice wins. If both (or everyone) picked correctly, joint winners.
zoraster wrote:What about a tie breaker like this: after Day 1 is finished in all games, each team must choose one player they think is scum from a game where their team is town. If the scores are tied at the end, the team that made the correct choice wins. If both (or everyone) picked correctly, joint winners.
Yeah, meanwhile someone is gonna flip out and screw up and make themselves obvscum by the end of day 1, then everyone whose town in that game ties.
maybe. but it seems fairly unlikely. If they're really that obvious, why weren't they the D1 lynch? In my experience, one person's "obvious" scum is another person's town or at least neutral read.
zoraster wrote:after Day 1 is finished in all games
D1 won't necessarily finish at the same time in all games, though.
well if i put this rule into effect it would. Or at least N1 wouldn't happen until all Day 1s have finished. It's a downside.
Anyway, I think I need to step away from the scoring problem for a bit. I'll figure out something. I'm sure someone will be unhappy with the way I go about doing it, but that's life.
Last edited by zoraster on Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
So Troll anticipates Troll will likely participate in this thing.
To Troll the appeal really be playing in a game with 3 others to help Troll figure out what be going on (in exchange for Troll's help in their games.) The points do little to add to that aspect of the game. Were it up to Troll, Troll would simply give one point for each win, zero for each loss and live with the fact that it be somewhat likely that teams will be tied at the end of the process. After all, in games of mafia we seldom have a single winner and that no gives anyone trouble that Troll has noticed. Anyone who has tried to set up a tournament has already seen the troubles inherent in trying to standardize strength of win over multiple games; Troll no thinks it be worth the effort.
Anything which be added in terms of complexity for the points be likely to lead to somewhat suboptimal play in the games themselves as the teams attempt to game the point system. Troll would rather have play in the individual games be as competitive as possible simply having each team playing to win each game (as this binary system does) seems the way to achieve that.
Zorblag wrote:So Troll anticipates Troll will likely participate in this thing.
To Troll the appeal really be playing in a game with 3 others to help Troll figure out what be going on (in exchange for Troll's help in their games.) The points do little to add to that aspect of the game. Were it up to Troll, Troll would simply give one point for each win, zero for each loss and live with the fact that it be somewhat likely that teams will be tied at the end of the process. After all, in games of mafia we seldom have a single winner and that no gives anyone trouble that Troll has noticed. Anyone who has tried to set up a tournament has already seen the troubles inherent in trying to standardize strength of win over multiple games; Troll no thinks it be worth the effort.
Anything which be added in terms of complexity for the points be likely to lead to somewhat suboptimal play in the games themselves as the teams attempt to game the point system. Troll would rather have play in the individual games be as competitive as possible simply having each team playing to win each game (as this binary system does) seems the way to achieve that.
-Zorblag R`Lyeh
As always, troll is surprisingly* articulate and well thought out. I think what he says is true: namely, that what makes the thing appealing is the team aspect, not necessarily the team beating everyone else aspect. Still, I'd love to come up with a scenario that managed to find a way to figure out one winner in a fair way that doesn't compromise the integrity of the individual games.
Maybe shaft.ed's suggestion is the right way to go: a point for winning with some sort of tie breaker. It certainly makes my life easier.
@zor: If you are looking for a tie breaker, maybe something similar to amount of players on the team that didn't reach L-3, or something similar to that may work.
After all, the point is for your team to be better than the rest.
"Animorpherv1's posts are so powerful that prolonged exposure may cause vertigo, nausea, acute tinnitus, and in rare cases, death." - vonflare
