Print

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

[webadict]

Also, you lose 66% of the time if Town always shoots. Which they will if they follow your solution.

TT lose
TM win
MT lose

By Town not shooting, both players actually win 66% of the time. But, none of that matters, since the Mafia side doesn't count.

[Leafsnail]

I get that people wouldn't sign up to play a game just so they could immediately shoot the other person, but there would definitely be a bias towards shooting the other player because that's more likely to make you win.  Making it so that you're just as likely to win either way would be a lot better.

The idea that you should expect people to care about their opponent's victory is ridiculous, though, and I'd again say it violates the "play to win" rule.  When I say "play to win" it means "try to win the game you are in", not "try to create a metagame that will allow you to win more overall even if it damages your chances this game".

[webadict]

I get that people wouldn't sign up to play a game just so they could immediately shoot the other person, but there would definitely be a bias towards shooting the other player because that's more likely to make you win.  Making it so that you're just as likely to win either way would be a lot better.

The idea that you should expect people to care about their opponent's victory is ridiculous, though, and I'd again say it violates the "play to win" rule.  When I say "play to win" it means "try to win the game you are in", not "try to create a metagame that will allow you to win more overall even if it damages your chances this game".

Your logic is flawed in that it only cares about the Town side. If you always shoot, the opponent will do the same. In essence, you will lose 66% of the time, since no one would ever trust you. This is the result of not caring. You will lose every time as Mafia and half the time as Town. The other way you are given the win two thirds the time. Why? Because the other Town wins if you're Town and win. There is a net gain in win potential by not shooting for all situations.

You can play to win and care if your opponent wins. Inherently, you are better off if both you and an opponent win. Your win is wanted above the opponent's, but having both is a better solution.

[Leafsnail]

I agree that if you take "play to win" to mean "play in such a way that you will win future games once your pattern has been established" then your strategy is good.  However, the commonly understood interpretation is "play to win this game".  Again, I'd compare it to claiming honestly every time you draw mafia.  In the long run, it would probably boost your winrate by making you a confirmed townie in the majority of your games.  But it's not allowed because you're damaging your chances of winning the game you are playing now.

e: Alternatively there's the "unbreakable meta-promise" where you flip a coin in your town games and make the promise on half of them.  That makes you a confirmed townie pretty often without making you too much more suspicious in your scum games, and I think that's another unacceptable meta-trick.

[webadict]

I agree that if you take "play to win" to mean "play in such a way that you will win future games once your pattern has been established" then your strategy is good.  However, the commonly understood interpretation is "play to win this game".  Again, I'd compare it to claiming honestly every time you draw mafia.  In the long run, it would probably boost your winrate by making you a confirmed townie in the majority of your games.  But it's not allowed because you're damaging your chances of winning the game you are playing now.

e: Alternatively there's the "unbreakable meta-promise" where you flip a coin in your town games and make the promise on half of them.  That makes you a confirmed townie pretty often without making you too much more suspicious in your scum games, and I think that's another unacceptable meta-trick.

That's not true unless you accept that a majority of people care nothing for other people, which isn't true. The viable solution is to assume that your opponent is nice, until they prove otherwise, in which case you're meant to copy them.

Why?

A player who is Nice can be someone that never shoots.
A player who is Naughty can be someone that always shoots.

Two Naughty players that face each other will only win 33% of the time.
Two Nice players that face each other will win 66% of them time.
A Nice player vs a Naughty player will give the Naughty player a 66% win, and the Nice player will never win.

Two Nice players will continue to be Nice until one turns Naughty. Two Naughty players will continue to be Naughty until one can show the other one that they will play Nice.

In essence, your solution fails, because both players can be Nice and get the same win rate as only one of your Naughty players. You cannot win more by being Naughty than you can be being Nice. All you do is screw over the opponent.

Do you know the type of people that pick this route? They are the kind of people that must destroy the things they cannot have. Lacking empathy.

Your solution is faulty, and your justification comes from your own short-sightedness. Your lack of trust is evident, and it will cause everyone else to not trust you. It's a tragic spiral of defeat.

The proper response is copy your opponent. It will give you the greatest win rate for your situation. If your opponent will shoot, then you must too. If you opponent will not shoot, then you are mutually benefiting each other.

But, in the end, two Nice players will always come out ahead of everyone.

[Leafsnail]

So if someone has just no-shot, you wouldn't try to find out if they're mafia before making your decision?  You'd just no-shot in return regardless out of consideration for the other player, even if you believe they're probably mafia?  If the answer to these questions is "no" (or if you think that anyone else could answer these questions with a "no") then your argument breaks down - shooting the other player is more likely to make you win because after a no-shot the other player has a free choice and might shoot you.  If the answer is "yes" then that's surely a direct violation of the "play to win" principle.

Two nice players would do best in the long run, but you could use the same argument to show that every mafia member should claim immediately in every game (if every game is a town win then everybody has a much higher win percentage).

[Leafsnail]

Although having said all that, I guess there would be no real way to prevent that meta strategy from occuring.  If people are indeed biased against making their opponent lose then Trust Mafia is simply impossible to balance, as far as I can tell.

[webadict]

If you're not considering the opponent, then you're not playing the game.

You've got it wrong. By copying the opponent, you are following their style of play. If they always shoot, you always shoot. If they never shoot, you never shoot. If they actually play the game, then you actually play the game.

And yeah, I could use the same argument for Mafia. If no one wants to try to play the game, the Mafia shouldn't either.

The fact that you're hung up on meta is incredibly silly. It feels like you're hung up on an invisible line you've convinced yourself exists. But it doesn't. The game, itself, is balanced. Your strategy is just inferior in theory. It only "wins" for one game. Afterward, you have broken the opponent's trust. This might be where the name comes from.

[Leafsnail]

If we ignore meta then the game is balanced for "mafia exists 50% of the time", though.  If we assume that both players are earnestly trying to play to win this particular game, and will shoot if they think someone is mafia and not shoot if they don't think they're mafia then:

- Shooting: you win 33% of the time, when your opponent is mafia
- Not shooting: you lose 33% of the time, when your opponent is mafia.  You then lose a further 33% of the time if your opponent shoots you, for a total of 33%.  So it's the same as shooting.

Or, from the point of view of someone who's just seen their opponent not shoot:

- If your opponent had a 50/50 chance of shooting when town, then three possibilities existed.
1. Your opponent is a townie who shoots (33%)
2. Your opponent is a townie who does not shoot (33%)
3. Your opponent is a mafia member who cannot shoot (33%)
If your opponent went with no shot then 1) is eliminated.  So you're left with the equally likely option 2 and option 3 - and again, you have an equal chance of being correct either way.

And something only needs to work for one game for it to be worth doing.  My win in Prince's Guard (and to a lesser degree Bellsounder and that Supernatural game where I was a devil) has probably damaged my long-term winning prospects by making it so that no-one will ever trust a plan proposed by me again.  But your goal should always be to win the game you are currently playing, so I still proposed those plans.

[Toaster]

I'll run it if you two want to face each other a few times to try it out.

[ToonyMan]

All of the Kings of Mafia are going to be dead at this rate.

[zombie urist]

Dangan Ronpa semi-mafia.

Basically a series of murder mysteries. Everyone is super good at something (baseball, singing, etc). A person is selected as the murderer and he chooses who to kill at night. Then during daytime players roleplay and interact with the scene and each other to piece together clues and correctly determine the murderer.

Its only semi-mafia because scumhunting isn't really the main focus of the game, but can be utilized with your investigations to find the culprit.

Playing the visual novel/watching the anime shouldn't be necessary.

[webadict]

Dangan Ronpa semi-mafia.

Basically a series of murder mysteries. Everyone is super good at something (baseball, singing, etc). A person is selected as the murderer and he chooses who to kill at night. Then during daytime players roleplay and interact with the scene and each other to piece together clues and correctly determine the murderer.

Its only semi-mafia because scumhunting isn't really the main focus of the game, but can be utilized with your investigations to find the culprit.

Playing the visual novel/watching the anime shouldn't be necessary.

Well, why can't you set up fake clues for either the scum to "find" or the others to find. You could make scumhunting a thing if you tried.

[ToonyMan]

Leafsnail has a more generic version of DR mafia that involves "auctions".  It should be earlier in the thread let me find it...

Starts here.

[Leafsnail]

I like the idea of forum mysteries but I don't think they mesh too well with mafia.  Either the mystery has to be unsolvable or the mafia has a chance of being hit by something out of their control.

One way it could work is if the culprit and mod devised the mystery together, so it's not just something the culprit gets handed down.