Team Mafia General Thread

[gandalf5166]

But only because we assumed that teams would be public.

[Rhinox]

They chose to do so, though, is what zoraster is saying.
I want my team to be a surprise! Rhinox no tellings

OP seems to imply that teams will be spoiled after signups for team mafia begin but before players are designated to games.

Don't worry I forgot already and I'm too lazy to go back and find the PM


So then, those in this tournament of sorts will not only be playing their own game, but possibly some sort of greater metagame of "we should lynch/kill so-and-so because his/her 3 partners already won so killing him will limit his team's points"?


Also, was wondering, if there is enough interest, any chance of getting a 5th mod for this and running 5 games for teams of 5 instead of teams of 4? Just so people aren't left out.

[zoraster]

They chose to do so, though, is what zoraster is saying.
I want my team to be a surprise! Rhinox no tellings

OP seems to imply that teams will be spoiled after signups for team mafia begin but before players are designated to games.

Don't worry I forgot already and I'm too lazy to go back and find the PM


So then, those in this tournament of sorts will not only be playing their own game, but possibly some sort of greater metagame of "we should lynch/kill so-and-so because his/her 3 partners already won so killing him will limit his team's points"?


Also, was wondering, if there is enough interest, any chance of getting a 5th mod for this and running 5 games for teams of 5 instead of teams of 4? Just so people aren't left out.

First, yes. We're going to try and limit the amount of stuff you mentioned through the following ways:
1. Not announcing teams
2. Points will be slightly tweaked to counter lylo strategic voting, but I wouldn't overestimate the effect this will have.
3. Other than speaking in Team QTs, no outside game discussion will take place. In other words, if you're in Game B, you can't say in the Game B thread "Well, in Game A they're doing X..."

It won't prevent it altogether, but I think the incentives for winning will be high enough that it'll discourage most of it. The biggest threat I see is if all three other games end, the team compositions have become common knowledge, and two teams with players alive in the final game are tied for first with no other teams able to pass them if they both lose. I think that's a relatively unlikely scenario, however.

Second, I did briefly consider expanding to 5 games when I realized how popular this ended up being, but I think it's best left to a future version of this. For one thing, a lot of teams have already arranged themselves and I don't want to cause a huge reshuffling shortly before the games go up to get a fifth, but I also think it'll be an ideal size to create team play. From my perspective, it's better to be a little cautious when doing this new thing to make sure that I can handle it with minimal problems and then expand it later.

That said, if it's a success I'd be willing to run it again in a year (the thought was it could be the starting book-end to summer with the /in-vitational as the other bookend), and I'd give more serious thought to expanding the thing to 5 or 6 games.

[Regfan]

There's a miniscule chance that I might have a spare slot in my team. As of the current moment I have three of us guarenteed so if anyone is still hunting down a spot shoot a PM my way and if I do end up with the spare spot I'll have you.

[gandalf5166]

Well, at least my team has given minimal info.

[Ythill]

The team I am on is going to win. By a lot. Just sayin.

In signing up for this, I informed Zor that I will be needing a temporary replacement for about 3-4 weeks starting in mid-June. I'll probably wait until sign-ups are complete before actually recruiting. At that time, I will be looking for a player who I can trust to play well and keep up with four games, who is available during that time and not already on a team.

@Zor:

Since dead players can still post to the team QT, I am assuming that I will be allowed to employ a temp replacement even if I'm dead in my game. If this is not the case, please let me know at some point.

[Faraday]

Not sure I could find another team member as good as ahhh, wizrak and parknourie, so finding a 5th would be difficult.

[zoraster]

The team I am on is going to win. By a lot. Just sayin.

In signing up for this, I informed Zor that I will be needing a temporary replacement for about 3-4 weeks starting in mid-June. I'll probably wait until sign-ups are complete before actually recruiting. At that time, I will be looking for a player who I can trust to play well and keep up with four games, who is available during that time and not already on a team.

@Zor:

Since dead players can still post to the team QT, I am assuming that I will be allowed to employ a temp replacement even if I'm dead in my game. If this is not the case, please let me know at some point.

Yeah i think that's fair. So long as only one player is "active" at a time (don't want teams of eight forming to get an advantage )

[StefanB]

Not sure I could find another team member as good as ahhh, wizrak and parknourie, so finding a 5th would be difficult.

Lol, I would ad Magnetic, ask Mith should be at the level of at last parknoirie.

[Ythill]

I disagree that keeping the games pure should be auto-prioritized over ending with a winning team. Obviously, it would be best to keep the games as pure as possible but I think we can come up with an acceptable method of determining a winner.

I've been doing some brainstorming. The following ideas might be useful or horrible...

(But first a word about base points. Zorb and I agreed that, with four sets of eyes on each game, town is going to be naturally favored. IMO, points for a scum win should be slightly higher than those for a town win if the games themselves are balanced. In all cases below, the amounts of the base awards can be varied relative to bonuses depending on how important you'd like the tie-breaking mechanic to be. I think it best if base awards are set high enough that a full point swing in the bonuses is less than the award for a single town win.)

Judging Panel

This is a pretty simple idea that has already been discussed. Basically, have a team of four judges that breaks ties. If two or more teams tie for first, each judge reads one of the games and ranks the players from the tied teams. Judges' results are combined and averaged to determine a winner. Somewhat subjective, but certainly the least likely to alter play.

Optimal Role Awards

Each role PM would contain a second wincon which is a description of optimal play for that role. For example, a cop's wincon might be "target two scum and get them lynched

or

claim with three living innocent results"). Achieving the wincon nets a point for your team. Assigning wincons would be extra work, and this seems to open more debate than it closes (what should the VT wincon be? etc). Probably a bad idea...

Voting Awards

Your team gets one point any time a player of the opposing alignment is lynched with your vote on him/her. This will effect voting dynamics near the hammer, and may speed games up considerably if players are not cautious. Negative points for lynches of the same alignment could mitigate a bit of this. The system could be ramped to slow the pace as the game progressed if the benefits and penalties associated with lynch-votes diminished as the days passed. For example, a correct D1 lynch vote might be worth 3 points, D2 & D3 = 2, D4+ = 1.

Punishment Points

Dock teams points for prods, forced replacements, modkills, and/or rules violations. Perhaps not the best for breaking ties, but certainly has a desirable effect on the games. So long as the base points are high enough, some level of this could/should be combined with any other system.

Team Survivor/Lyncher

Each team would select one player to be their survivor. Regardless of that player's actual role/alignment, the team gets a point for every day phase that the player survives. Alternatively, each team selects a lyncher. Regardless of that player's actual role/alignment, a team loses one point for each lyncher who is involved in lynching one of their players.

These ideas could be combined. Either by having teams select both a survivor and a lyncher, or by having them choose only one of the two.

Team Elimination

Every night, each team selects an opposing player to mark. Players accumulate marks, which have absolutely no effects on the games themselves. However, at the end of the tourney, the tied teams are compared and the one with the

fewest

marks wins. This would put teams who have revealed themselves at a disadvantage. However, I

really

like this idea (and the next one) because they exploit the Team Mafia mechanic to help determine a winner

without changing the games at all

.

Team Hunting

Every night, each team submits the names of four opposing players. Points are awarded based on the number of players that share a team. For example, naming four players from different teams would be worth no points. Point awards would escalate through the following guesses: 2:1:1, 2:2, 3:1, 4. I think this method has already been broken by the fact that teams have revealed themselves. However, it might be considered for next time.

[Ythill]

Pulling an idea out of that for brevity's sake:

If we can come up with a creative method of determining tie-breaker points based purely on the meta game, it shouldn't matter to the individual games.

(I just wish nobody had revealed their team.)

[Faraday]

I prefer a draw than any of those really.

[Faraday]

Eh, judging panel's okay and even then meh. I dislike the rest of them though.

[Zorblag]

So Troll no knows if Troll had said it in thread but Troll does agree that these games are much more likely to be town-skewed than most just because all the town players in every game will have additional eyes watching the game and attempting to help them out. Troll no thinks that the scum teams gain that much from people watching and advising but town gains a fair amount.

As far as points go, Troll will give the following as another argument against counting anything other than just wins for determining which team "won" this whole thing:

Suppose we have at least one team which wins all four games. Troll would argue that them should win the whole thing just like them would any game of mafia on it's own; arguing which contributions were most valuable detracts from the game more than Troll suspects people will generally realize and there really no be a great way to distinguish between various contributions much of the time. Further, if multiple teams won all of their games Troll feels that it would be pretty silly to distinguish between them just like it would be silly to try to pick the winner out of town players in a single game that town won. If everyone plays their best to win each of their games individually then we probably be getting what we want out of this experience.

If there be some need to try to distinguish between the teams that won the most games Troll would suggest taking it to the scummies ceremonies; if there be a huge need for someone to stand out in this game that be the natural place for it to happen on these forums anyhow.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Faraday]

Troll's post is pro. A+

[popsofctown]

Wait. Teams aren't going to remain secret the entire time are they?

[hitogoroshi]

Wait. Teams aren't going to remain secret the entire time are they?

They're going to be annouced at the end.

I suspect that within a day Edgar Allen PoE is going to name em all, though...

[Ythill]

Suppose we have at least one team which wins all four games. Troll would argue that them should win the whole thing just like them would any game of mafia on it's own...

Precisely why the base awards should be large enough in comparison that TOTAL BONUS SWING < SINGLE TOWN WIN. That way the bonuses will

only

resolve ties.

If everyone plays their best to win each of their games individually then we probably be getting what we want out of this experience.

Way to assume that everyone wants what you do.

If I wanted to play straight mafia, I'd sign up for a regular mafia game. The reason I'm willing to keep up in four simultaneous games and basically dedicate the mafia portion of my summer to this is for the team v. team competition. A meta setup that has a high probability of resulting in a tie flies in the face of that motivation.

It is entirely possible to find a way to determine a winner without skewing the games themselves, or with only desirable effects on the games. In the absence of detrimental effects on the games, the argument that it is unnecessary to determine a winning team is just lazy.

[Faraday]

It is entirely possible to find a way to determine a winner without skewing the games themselves, or with only desirable effects on the games.

And yet no one has came up with one..

[popsofctown]

What if there was just some penalty that interacted between teams, punishing teams that mislynched other teams, but only with respect to eachother.

For instance, it's near LyLo and I'm playing against Faraday and I notice his teammates are, of course, kicking butt in the other games, so I lynch him heedless of what his alignment is. If he's town, I lose a tiebreaker point for if our respective teams come up tied at the end.


Pretty sure someone will rapidly break that. 3, 2, 1, go

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Faraday's team shouldn't win a tiebreaker because Faraday got lynched - that's silly.

[Faraday]

Why the fuck am I being lynched is a better question. Don't be mean!

[popsofctown]

No, it's because he got voted, not lynched.

misreading a player is bad play.

[gandalf5166]

So what if Faraday is playing like a tard? Should Faraday win because he was playing badly?

I like the judges idea.

[Faraday]

Should Faraday win because he was playing badly?

IMO? Yes.