zoraster wrote:5. Young and Beautiful were the only team that won all four games. I know it was suggested in the dead thread that something other than wins should determine things, but ultimately any team that is perfect in their games should be eligible for a victory.
As someone who didn't participate (didn't know how cancer treatment would affect my time on site) but followed along, I feel fairly confidently neutral in saying this: This is pretty terrible.
It's been shown long ago that win/loss records don't really correlate in any way to talent/ability or contribution. This is especially true when game imbalance and uneven distribution of factions plays a factor. I never won a paragon based on win/loss record, and though I haven't tallied my raw statistics in years, I know that at least as of like 2011 I had more town losses than wins. There's something fundamentally wrong with the scoring when a team that did relatively little in their victories happened to be the only team that went 4-0, because their non-teammates carried them to victory four times. The idea that overall win/loss record should be a major determining factor in Team Mafia is about as backwards as can be.
If there is something "fundamentally wrong" with it, then there is something fundamentally wrong with Team Mafia as a whole. Either we operate under the (perhaps fictional) idea that skill influences wins or we don't. But I'm not having a winner of Team Mafia as a whole be a team that won fewer games than another team. It would be unfair, it would defeat the purpose of Team Mafia, etc. It's one thing to use subjective measures as a tie-breaker. It's another to act as if wins and losses don't matter -- they do.
Ultimately I don't know how much simpler or fairer it can be than this: If you win more mafia games than other teams, you win Team Mafia. Any other standard is unacceptable.
This actually doesn't make much sense because if you objectively look at the players in this team you'd see that they comparatively did less and were somewhat of a drain on their team in each of their games due to various reasons. Anenenin tried once he replaced in sure, but the rest of the team mates either lurked or were busy and lurked and lucked themselves into a win.
I do in many ways understand the irony of me making this observation since so many people were upset that we won team mafia last time when we were replacements, but even though we were a team of replacements, each of our team put in a lot of effort into our game. We may not have been the best players but the effort was there and was obvious from how we played and how we worked together as a team.
Yeah, I mean everyone isn't going to be happy all the time. If we had things right though, if we had gotten the normal game right then three teams would have gotten all four game wins which would have made the winner less clear or even someone else as winner, but young and beautiful weren't in the normal game, and it feels weird/wrong somehow that our mistake in normal gave someone the win that wasn't even in normal. And it bums me out that the other teams that would have been up for a win put in a lot of effort into their games.
(If I'm completely wrong about how the wins would have occurred had we been right never mind this point.)
zoraster wrote:5. Young and Beautiful were the only team that won all four games. I know it was suggested in the dead thread that something other than wins should determine things, but ultimately any team that is perfect in their games should be eligible for a victory.
As someone who didn't participate (didn't know how cancer treatment would affect my time on site) but followed along, I feel fairly confidently neutral in saying this: This is pretty terrible.
It's been shown long ago that win/loss records don't really correlate in any way to talent/ability or contribution. This is especially true when game imbalance and uneven distribution of factions plays a factor. I never won a paragon based on win/loss record, and though I haven't tallied my raw statistics in years, I know that at least as of like 2011 I had more town losses than wins. There's something fundamentally wrong with the scoring when a team that did relatively little in their victories happened to be the only team that went 4-0, because their non-teammates carried them to victory four times. The idea that overall win/loss record should be a major determining factor in Team Mafia is about as backwards as can be.
If there is something "fundamentally wrong" with it, then there is something fundamentally wrong with Team Mafia as a whole. Either we operate under the (perhaps fictional) idea that skill influences wins or we don't. But I'm not having a winner of Team Mafia as a whole be a team that won fewer games than another team. It would be unfair, it would defeat the purpose of Team Mafia, etc. It's one thing to use subjective measures as a tie-breaker. It's another to act as if wins and losses don't matter -- they do.
Ultimately I don't know how much simpler or fairer it can be than this: If you win more mafia games than other teams, you win Team Mafia. Any other standard is unacceptable.
This is extremely narrow.
Why not go with a weighted system? You can still have overall record matter MORE, but come up with other qualifiers that can tip the scales if the "perfect record" team gets outperformed by a large margin.
I mean it's like saying in a hypothetical football game because you performed better than the other team but lost because of some lucky bounces they got that you deserve to win the game instead. The score is what matters in the end.
In post 616, Regfan wrote:Know its probably been asked by others but would like to see the scum and team QTS, I'm fine with both of mine being released.
You can release the nightless from me too.
I'm never ever ever ever ever ever ever again playing a vanilla nightless... and maybe not even a nightless!
But like the westeros team only didn't win four games because of the nightless game, which is probably the hardest game for scum to win in the first place but were instrumental in the large theme win due to the titus vig which turned that game completely around.
In post 656, Zachrulez wrote:I mean it's like saying in a hypothetical football game because you performed better than the other team but lost because of some lucky bounces they got that you deserve to win the game instead. The score is what matters in the end.
Yeah but you don't give MVP to a crappy player who won because their team did well in that scenario.
Also this analogy is gonna be painful because of how we're going to use "team" to mean three different things.
If you can name OBJECTIVE standards (i.e. not things like surveys, mod opinion, etc.) that feel like the evaluate a true winner I'm open to considering them. I tried last time to factor some other stuff into it, namely being correct on Day 1 lynch (either being correctly on a lynch of a scum, or correctly off a town lynch). But that experiment didn't work, and I don't think it proved to be any more satisfying.
But it's more beauty pageant than tournament if you start to lean heavily on subjective standards over your primary objective ones (i.e. winning).
No, a team that wins 4 games when all other teams win 3 games is the correct winner. That's not "narrow" at all. Sometimes the team you think performed better doesn't win -- that doesn't mean the result was "wrong" though. Because it's World Cup Time (women's): the soccer match isn't decided by the team that had the most shots on goal -- it's decided by goals.
In post 661, zoraster wrote:the soccer match isn't decided by the team that had the most shots on goal -- it's decided by goals.
In post 660, SleepyKrew wrote:Yeah but you don't give MVP to a crappy player who won because their team did well in that scenario.
Also this analogy is gonna be painful because of how we're going to use "team" to mean three different things.
I don't understand why subjective measures like mod opinion and surveys aren't okay.
I'm not awarding an MVP. I'm awarding a winner.
Anyway, as I've said, I think they're fine things to use for determining the winner when the game wins are equal. Had town won the Mini Normal, it would have been determined by the tie breaker factors: surveys and mod opinion.
I like getting nk'd N1 when I'm a VT, it's basically my favorite thing to do and it helps my faction win. I'm never going to be the standout hero of a game where I got shot N1 though!
"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
I've considered giving penalties to teams who are lynched Day 1, but rejected it as it incentivizes power claims and gives advantages to those who are power roles.
In post 664, Zachrulez wrote:Why even play to win if sweeping might not even matter?
are you kidding
I think it's a fair question, particularly for people who feel like their play style isn't particularly valued by others.
I mean losing to another team that swept due to the scoring mechanics or subjective measures. I can complain but generally accept the result. But 3-1 winning over a sweep?...
In post 664, Zachrulez wrote:Why even play to win if sweeping might not even matter?
are you kidding
I think it's a fair question, particularly for people who feel like their play style isn't particularly valued by others.
But what about for people who don't actually play. Singer vigged scum in the large and the winning team was still trying to make an argument that she was scum because the player hadn't been reading the game or the rules.
That's not disvaluing play style, that's just asking that people who actually put some effort in are recognized. (I mean granted someone on his team pointed out his incorrect theory after some time, but still that's a problem when awarding a winner I think.)
In post 661, zoraster wrote:the soccer match isn't decided by the team that had the most shots on goal -- it's decided by goals.
In post 660, SleepyKrew wrote:Yeah but you don't give MVP to a crappy player who won because their team did well in that scenario.
Also this analogy is gonna be painful because of how we're going to use "team" to mean three different things.
I don't understand why subjective measures like mod opinion and surveys aren't okay.
I'm not awarding an MVP. I'm awarding a winner.
Anyway, as I've said, I think they're fine things to use for determining the winner when the game wins are equal. Had town won the Mini Normal, it would have been determined by the tie breaker factors: surveys and mod opinion.
Yup see the use of the word "team" has caused a breakdown in communication and idk if I care enough to try to fix it
okay attempt #1:
MVP simply means "the best"
If a crappy player is on the winning team, you wouldn't call the crappy player "the best"
Also in this soccer tournament, teams aren't fixed and players are playing for individual prizes and switch between teams and whatnot
So if the crappy player's team goes 4-0, it's not because of the crappy player that they went 4-0. The crappy player is still crappy and not "the best".
