General Mafia theory discussion

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

What game are you guys talking about?

 

[th3kuzinator]

FFI X

a

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'd always expect indies to have priority in that situation.

And its like X1 said. These types of decisions are the nature of closed setups. He bet on a mechanical assumption and lost because of it.

The point is that there's no way to tell that beyond reading the mod.

If it's based on a PR, you can force a situation where you'd think they'd use the PR to verify, making it a matter of it an actual matter of skillful manipulation. This applies for anything in a closed setup, sure you know nothing for sure, but based on events in the game and your own ability to read and manipulate players you can determine these things.

However in this case, there was no way to differentiate them from survivor twins until endgame itself, except by reading the mod.

 

[th3kuzinator]

And I could have gone into endgame expecting to win with my 2v2 wincon and then gotten shafted because mafia had an execute and therefore could take us out at an unexpected turn. I'd have had no way to plan for that scenario except by reading the mod. If I had planned to win in that scenario just to find out that mafia had a PR that could stop me, would it be ******* modding?

No. It wouldn't.

Mafia had no idea there was an indy faction and thus couldn't plan for it (even though the mafia team clearly did acknowledge they thought an indy existed...) and we had no idea what type of PRs mafia had and thus couldn't have planned for being executed at endgame.

Nich executing Sang was the last thing in my mind I would have expected from the setup. Say he had executed me in that instance. Game over and there was no way in hell I could have planned for that (and don't even try to give me that **** that I could have read the setup and hypothesized about the existence of scumcutioner. If that's the case the mafia team could have done the same with the existence of indies and planned for it.).

These things are the nature of a closed setup.

Are you done yet?

 

[adumbrodeus]

And I could have gone into endgame expecting to win with my 2v2 wincon and then gotten shafted because mafia had an execute and therefore could take us out at an unexpected turn. I'd have had no way to plan for that scenario except by reading the mod. If I had planned to win in that scenario just to find out that mafia had a PR that could stop me, would it be ******* modding?

No. It wouldn't.

Mafia had no idea there was an indy faction and thus couldn't plan for it (even though the mafia team clearly did acknowledge they thought an indy existed...) and we had no idea what type of PRs mafia had and thus couldn't have planned for being executed at endgame.

Nich executing Sang was the last thing in my mind I would have expected from the setup. Say he had executed me in that instance. Game over and there was no way in hell I could have planned for that (and don't even try to give me that **** that I could have read the setup and hypothesized about the existence of scumcutioner. If that's the case the mafia team could have done the same with the existence of indies and planned for it.).

These things are the nature of a closed setup.

Are you done yet?

Again, the difference is, if it's a power you can actually attempt to provoke it in order to check it, and read whether they have it based on their reactions. You can't do that with wincons.

You could have planned for that, by provoking a circumstance that they would use execute or another power that would've messed with your plans. That seems to be exactly what happened.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Again, the difference is, if it's a power you can actually attempt to provoke it in order to check it, and read whether they have it based on their reactions. You can't do that with wincons.

You could have planned for that, by provoking a circumstance that they would use execute or another power that would've messed with your plans. That seems to be exactly what happened.

You really think that an indy pair with no knowledge of mafia prs would try and bait a hypothetical scumcutioner into doing something and guaging reactions would be a feasible thing to do? First off thats just stupid and not something that any normal player would go out of their way to check.

Secondly, you can do that with wincons. You can indy slip if mafia puts you in the right position to do so. Claim FBI agent and say your target is specifically indy and you have a guilty. Go balls deep. See what they do. However, is that a feasible move for mafia to do?

Hell no.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Nope, but you know there's mafia left or the game would be over. We only know that we don't have majority.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You really think that an indy pair with no knowledge of mafia prs would try and bait a hypothetical scumcutioner into doing something and guaging reactions would be a feasible thing to do? First off thats just stupid and not something that any normal player would go out of their way to check.

Secondly, you can do that with wincons. You can indy slip if mafia puts you in the right position to do so. Claim FBI agent and say your target is specifically indy and you have a guilty. Go balls deep. See what they do. However, is that a feasible move for mafia to do?

Hell no.

Yes. Not only do I think that you should be considering that possibility in a setup I consider it an important element of strong play.


Between a survivor duo and a duo that endgames up to 2 mafia? If at least one of the mafia is dead that's impossible. Since their wincondition is the same there is literally no way to pick out the difference.

 

[th3kuzinator]

We know that how? Could be a separate indy. Could be cult.

And what does you only knowing you don't have majority have to do with why this was a ******* modding situation. We were arguing on how you couldn't plan for an indy and thus the endgame decision was unfair (despite you banking on a join in the first place, meaning you obviously planned for an indy), then we were arguing about how you should have been told your wincon to you couldn't bank on it but I've already explained thats the nature of closed setups. Now you're trying to make a point that you only know you don't have a majority and this somehow hinders you?

Again, we don't know whats out there either. You're just escalating the fact that you also don't (which, again, you conceded to figuring out anyway).

 

[th3kuzinator]

Yes. Not only do I think that you should be considering that possibility in a setup I consider it an important element of strong play.


Between a survivor duo and a duo that endgames up to 2 mafia? If at least one of the mafia is dead that's impossible. Since their wincondition is the same there is literally no way to pick out the difference.

So you think its feasible for indies to bait a scumcutioner shot when he have no idea about the mafia PRs?

Are you serious?

So then I'm assuming you also concede your previous point that wincons couldn't be baited, because they can. This mean, by extension, you also think it feasible for mafia to bait indies by fake claiming FBI guilties.

Are you serious?

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

My win con was as follows:

You are aligned with the Mafia and you win when the outnumber every other faction or nothing can prevent this.

Your faction could do NOTHING to prevent us from forcing No Lynch until we shot July. The game was ended on an arbitrary decision which we had no way of knowing.

 

[adumbrodeus]

So you think its feasible for indies to bait a scumcutioner shot when he have no idea about the mafia PRs?

Are you serious?

So then I'm you also concede your previous point that wincons couldn't be baited, because they can. This mean, by extension, you also think it feasible for mafia to bait indies by fake claiming FBI guilties.

Are you serious?

Yes.

Part of playing mafia is running through worst case scenarios and figuring out what PRs could potentially exist that can mess with your plans. In turn, you have to figure out what scenarios would've caused them to use abilities that would've messed with your plans. To be safe, you can manipulate events to create scenarios that you think would bait them out. It's a basic skill of mafia (more so the former then the latter).

Obviously people vary widely in ability in this skillset and since it's a matter of reading and manipulation if the other side is good enough they can counter it, but regardless you should always be TRYING.

If you're good enough to read that the indies have a 1-shot NK and bait it out or otherwise render it void before achieving parity, then obviously you played more skillfully and deserve the win.


Regardless, the main point is variances in indy wincons only apply in exactly one situation. Because of the nature of overlapping scenarios where the indy wins but makes a massive difference to all the other players in the game reading wincons becomes untenible.

This is simply due to the fact that without any sort of standardization, an indy can literally win in ANY situation. Sucks to be everyone else if they win alone.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Oh my goodness did you really just come full circle when I shut you down on that point. We've already gone over this. Now its not that you couldn't have planned for indies. Its that you couldn't have planned for indies that had a different wincon than what you assumed they had. IE, you gambled on the setup and lost.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision. It was decided from the beginning. You not being told is the nature of closed setups.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Yes.

I'm pretty sure this conversation is now over.

Even if you try and feasibly argue this position (which is terribad) I just showed you why the mafia could have done the same thing and indy baited this setup just as easily (lolno) as we could have baited the mafia PR. Therefore your point is moot.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Sucks to be everyone else if they win alone.

Pretty much. When an indy outplays all other factions and wins alone it sucks to be those factions who just got outplayed. Duh.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm pretty sure this conversation is now over.

Even if you try and feasibly argue this position (which is terribad) I just showed you why the mafia could have done the same thing and indy baited this setup just as easily (lolno) as we could have baited the mafia PR. Therefore your point is moot.

Regardless, the main point is variances in indy wincons only apply in exactly one situation. Because of the nature of overlapping scenarios where the indy wins but makes a massive difference to all the other players in the game reading wincons becomes untenible.

This is simply due to the fact that without any sort of standardization, an indy can literally win in ANY situation. Sucks to be everyone else if they win alone.

Unlike attempting to read for PRs that are a threat to you, in which case there's only a limited number of types.


But I guess it's totally cool to include my "endgames everyone when there are exactly 7 players left during a day phase and they're alive" indy.

 

[th3kuzinator]

I knew you'd make that argument.

Now you're getting into unbalanced indies. Having a 2v2 indy lover pair wining vs two mafia is not a setup imbalance. An indy winning with 7 players left on the field is either imbalanced or won because of incredibly poor town/mafia play. If anything your "but it was just an arbitrary decision" was a better point than what you're now trying to argue.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Now you're drawing the line for imbalanced. And doing it wrong. : /

 

[th3kuzinator]

Before we let this go on a tangent, Ryker, was the role of lovers in FFIX imbalanced indies y/n?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I knew you'd make that argument.

Now you're getting into unbalanced indies. Having a 2v2 indy lover pair wining vs two mafia is not a setup imbalance. An indy winning with 7 players left on the field is either imbalanced or won because of incredibly poor town/mafia play. If anything your "but it was just an arbitrary decision" was a better point than what you're now trying to argue.

No, you're missing the point. You could literally substitute ANY WINCON WHATSOEVER FOR THAT!

 

[th3kuzinator]

No, you're missing the point. You could literally substitute ANY WINCON WHATSOEVER FOR THAT!

For what, exactly?

Caps lock is pretty cool.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

No, you're missing the point. You could literally substitute ANY WINCON WHATSOEVER FOR THAT!

Chrono Cross mafia.

You are Lavos, independent true final boss. You lose when the entire town posts color coded text in the correct sequence in turn specified by alphabetical order. You or any other non town role can interrupt this order.

No one is given any indication it exists.

Closed set-up, whatever man, it's fair. You took a gamble on the set-up and assumed nothing *******ish existed. You must be dumb.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Before we let this go on a tangent, Ryker, was the role of lovers in FFIX imbalanced indies y/n?

Yes. It was also underpowered.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Chrono Cross mafia.

You are Lavos, independent true final boss. You lose when the entire town posts color coded text in the correct sequence in turn specified by alphabetical order. You or any other non town role can interrupt this order.

No one is given any indication it exists.

Closed set-up, whatever man, it's fair. You took a gamble on the set-up and assumed nothing *******ish existed. You must be dumb.

lol.

Way to completely misuse an example.

Adumb was talking about an indy who wins and thus endgames every other player at an unreasonable stage in the game. The example you just posted dictates when the indy loses due to a specific sequence of events that has no drawback on the rest of the remaining player list.

Good try though, you're almost getting it!

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

lol.

Way to completely misuse an example.

Adumb was talking about an indy who wins and thus endgames every other player at an unreasonable stage in the game. The example you just posted dictates when the indy loses due to a specific sequence of events that has no drawback on the rest of the remaining player list.

Good try though, you're almost getting it!

Hey, mafia destroy the town. There's no town left to stop him. Mafia are end gamed. You understand the sentiment and are instead straw manning my argument.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Oh my goodness did you really just come full circle when I shut you down on that point. We've already gone over this. Now its not that you couldn't have planned for indies. Its that you couldn't have planned for indies that had a different wincon than what you assumed they had. IE, you gambled on the setup and lost.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision. It was decided from the beginning. You not being told is the nature of closed setups.

Besides, this is what I was responding to when I was mocking your post.

 

[adumbrodeus]

For what, exactly?

Caps lock is pretty cool.

For the wins at 7 role.

It's essentially a stand-in for any random indy wincon. It could be something that rarely happens (a day phase starts with 4 players in a 13 man game with one killing faction for example), but the core *******ishness of the role is not so much it's power but the fact that the infinite possible variations in potential indies mean that if you don't limit them to acting similarly to another mafia with a few other limited variations then you create situations where players have no way to not get blindsided by an indy's wincon because they had no way to predict it.

lol.

Way to completely misuse an example.

Adumb was talking about an indy who wins and thus endgames every other player at an unreasonable stage in the game. The example you just posted dictates when the indy loses due to a specific sequence of events that has no drawback on the rest of the remaining player list.

Good try though, you're almost getting it!

Actually you missed the point. The purpose of the role was not the stage it won in, the purpose was that it was utterly random and there was no way to detect it based on behavior or bait it.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

For the wins at 7 role.

It's essentially a stand-in for any random indy wincon. It could be something that rarely happens (a day phase starts with 4 players in a 13 man game with one killing faction for example), but the core *******ishness of the role is not so much it's power but the fact that the infinite possible variations in potential indies mean that if you don't limit them to acting similarly to another mafia with a few other limited variations then you create situations where players have no way to not get blindsided by an indy's wincon because they had no way to predict it.

Which is why joint wins exist. That way independent win cons can exist and not **** up other players who accomplish their win cons.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Besides, this is what I was responding to when I was mocking your post.

First of all I don't know any of the specifics of that indy in the game and what his actual wincon was and whether he could joint or not. I don't know if he had any buffs such as bp/unlynchable etc.

Secondly if he was a sole survivor that endgamed two or more mafia in an endgame situation then thats an imbalanced indy and has nothing to do with FFIX. Indies can be imbalanced and mods can be *******ish. That again has nothing to do with this specific incident where Gheb wasn't *******ish.

You're trying to mock the logic in my post by using an example that doesn't even fall under that category. Explain to me how an indy pair winning in a 2v2 is imba.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Kuz, in FFIX, tell me how the mafia win con was not achieved.

 

[th3kuzinator]

At the time that our wincon was achieved, yours hadn't been.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Nope, there is an addendum at the end of my win con that says, "Or nothing can prevent it." Your achievement of a win con does absolutely nothing to prevent my achievement of a win con. Therefore joint if not mafia win through playing it out as you were still threatened by Night kill and could not do away with the threat through any means.

 

[th3kuzinator]

You didn't have majority and something could prevent it.

You know what that something is?

Our wincon that explicitly stated we won in a 2v2 situation against any other faction.

Boom.

 

[th3kuzinator]

And yes.

The achieving of my wincon can and did prevent the achievement of yours. That's why we won.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Kuz, are you high right now? What makes that any better than a Jester who ends the game when he gets lynched on D1? Or an indy who ends the game when there are 7 players left. Or a BP/LP indy who can end game the entire mafia team? Or an indy who end games town simply by being alive and lynching all the mafia (hint hint)?

 

[th3kuzinator]

I wish I was high.

If you really need me to explain to you why indy lovers winning in a 2v2 endgame situation is different than a jester lynched D1 or an indy that ends the game with 7 players left or BP indy who can endgame an entire mafia team then I'm pretty sure you're the one that's baked.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Humor me. I'll respond in the morning.

I also like the way you ignored the final example.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Also, the argument isn't whether the role is a balanced role, it's whether it end gaming makes sense and why. Each of the examples, please.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Seriously, why should indy lovers end game town? If the indy lovers go after scum, then the town has NO reason to lynch them other than "someone here MIGHT be Indy." Town literally would have to depend on scum to keep them from losing or make a REALLY stupid move.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Also, don't bother with the 7, try the 4 in a 13 man game with only 1 nk per night.

Cause that's legit hard, and requires a forced NL or a successful doc protect, if you manage it, you legitimately outplayed everyone in the game, so you deserve your win, right?