Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[webadict]

That's what I did in the original Trust Mafia, but it's not what I want here.  If there's a 50% chance of the other person being scum then the correct option is to shoot them - shooting a mafia member is a guaranteed win while not shooting a townie isn't (they may still go on to shoot you).  This is made up for by the fact that they are twice as likely to be a townie.

Oh well in that case I rescind my statement. You should NEVER shoot. As town your win rate becomes 2/3 of the time.

That's why this statement is wrong - the other person might still shoot you.  Your win rate is 1/3 if you shoot and 1/3 if you don't shoot.

But how do you work out the alignment? Mafia and Town both want you to not shoot. But even then it's a one-day game so all you have is their word to go on and you'd have nothing to base their reactions off of.

You can make the same argument for any other mafia game - town and mafia both want to not get lynched, so how you meant to work out anybody's alignment?  Answer: find out if they care about lynching scum or not.  It's the same in this game.

I don't see the issue, Leafsnail. Just have the game end as soon as one person shoots. Isn't that how Trust Mafia worked?

[Leafsnail]

The issue with the original Trust Mafia is that it's heavily biased against scum due to the ultimatum breaking strategy.  Because of that strategy scum needs a dummy shot.

You can scumhunt without night actions and voting patterns - there are some setups that start at lylo, and they basically expect you to do the same thing.

[notquitethere]

I think we have very different ideas as to what constitutes scum hunting or interesting gameplay.

[Leafsnail]

Since you don't seem to believe in any form of scumhunting other than VCA and counting people's posts I agree.

I mean it's ok if that's your opinion but there are a lot of setups with no nights and no real chance to analyze votecounts (such as SS3 which I've played quite a bit on IRC) so it clearly isn't one that everyone shares.

[webadict]

Since you don't seem to believe in any form of scumhunting other than VCA and counting people's posts I agree.

Burn.

[notquitethere]

No, those are simply the most effective methods. Catching people in lies, grilling them over their reasons for voting and seeing how people interact with one another can all be fruitful ways to scumhunt. And none of these are present in Random Pointing Trust Mafia.

[Nerjin]

I don't know to be honest. I feel like the game COULD work it just needs something. I'll say this: I like the idea. It's a nice fun little idea that could really be helpful but... I dunno how to make it work.

[Leafsnail]

The thing is you can catch someone in a lie - the lie that they don't know what your alignment is and are instead trying to work it out, and the lie that they have a choice about whether or not they're shooting you (they either have to pretend they haven't decided or force themselves to arrive at the conclusion that you're town).  Or you can find that their thought processes are honest and conclude that they're town.

I also think the first Trust Mafia game (which was Nerjin vs Imiknorris) had some meaningful scumhunting interactions, even if it was short.  The issue that needs to be fixed is the ultimatum strategy, and giving the mafia a dummy shot should solve that.

[webadict]

Giving the Mafia a dummy shot doesn't seem too bad. I can't tell how impactful it would be.

[Leafsnail]

Well that's what I did with the new setup, basically.  The problem is making it so that shooting the mafia isn't favourable always.

[webadict]

Well that's what I did with the new setup, basically.  The problem is making it so that shooting the mafia isn't favourable always.

It's... not?

How would it be favorable? It'd be a straight 50% win rate if you always shot as Town, as well never shooting as Town. Now, if you assume that you  shoot 50% of the time as Town, then the win rate is:

TT
50% chance to shoot for each side means 25% win rate.
TM
50% chance to win.
MT
50% chance to win.

(.33)(.25) + (.66)(.5) = .416%

Not that skewed, considering that each side has the same win percentage. But, you're not better off shooting the other side, because a double Town loss is seen as worse than a Mafia win.

In essence, the point chart would be:

Win as Town: +1
Win as Mafia: +1
Loss as Town: -1
Loss as TT: -2
Loss as Mafia: -1

Because nobody wants to lose. But, also, if you opponent goes the dumb "Never shoot at all", then the opponent is the one that can exploit it.

Come on, Leafsnail, keep it together.

[Leafsnail]

Not that skewed, considering that each side has the same win percentage. But, you're not better off shooting the other side, because a double Town loss is seen as worse than a Mafia win.

What?  No it isn't.  You lose just as much either way if you're a townie who's making a decision.

My point is simple: if the other player is mafia 50% of the time and town 50% of the time, then:
- Shooting them: you win 50% of the time, if they're mafia.
- Not shooting them: you lose 50% of the time, if they're mafia.  Then you have an additional chance of losing if the other player decides to shoot you.

So chance of winning if you shoot = 50%.  Chance of winning if you don't shoot < 50% (assuming your opponent shoots you half of the time it's 25%).

[webadict]

Not that skewed, considering that each side has the same win percentage. But, you're not better off shooting the other side, because a double Town loss is seen as worse than a Mafia win.

What?  No it isn't.  You lose just as much either way if you're a townie who's making a decision.

My point is simple: if the other player is mafia 50% of the time and town 50% of the time, then:
- Shooting them: you win 50% of the time, if they're mafia.
- Not shooting them: you lose 50% of the time, if they're mafia.  Then you have an additional chance of losing if the other player decides to shoot you.

So chance of winning if you shoot = 50%.  Chance of winning if you don't shoot < 50% (assuming your opponent shoots you half of the time it's 25%).

Yeah, but this is assuming you're playing like a douchebag. Also, that you're not playing. In the end, I would feel worse for shooting a Town following that than I would actually playing the game and not shooting a Mafia player. Because I'm not a jackass. Like most people.

[Leafsnail]

That's a really strange position to take.  In fact, it actually goes against the "play to win the game you are currently playing" rule.

If you're prepared to sacrifice your chances of winning a particular game if that increases the overall number of winners shouldn't you just claim truthfully every time you get a mafia role PM?  That would allow more people to win.

[webadict]

That's a really strange position to take.  In fact, it actually goes against the "play to win the game you are currently playing" rule.

If you're prepared to sacrifice your chances of winning a particular game if that increases the overall number of winners shouldn't you just claim truthfully every time you get a mafia role PM?  That would allow more people to win.

No, this would be your solution. My solution is to treat every game as it's own, and shoot based on facts gathered. Because then the game would be fun. Which is the exact opposite of what your solution is, so I'm fairly certain that no one would play like that, because it'd be super not fun.

I have no idea why anyone would think the optimal solution would be the chosen one. We're not robots. We're not trying to protect our best interests. We're trying to read another person. Because it's a game. The optimal solution is playing the game if the other person is playing, and to not play the game if the other person isn't. It results in the highest amount of fun to be had or, rather, the least amount of unfun to be had.

So, if you simply shoot everyone at the beginning of the game, not only does everyone hate you, but no one wants to play with you. Guess you found the best answer, didn't you?