|
Captain Foo posted:ok for my erlang mafia simulator i have figured out how to get it to generate me a list of ?GAMESIZE (currently set to 13) players, randomly assign town/scum, and give the starting attributes for all players: suspicion, stubborn, engagement. Please simulate me tia
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Nah i'm trying to sort of learn erlang by implementing a game of forums mafia as a bunch of interacting finite state machines You're daring to dream: to find a way to free us all from having to play mafia ever again. You're doing the lord's work
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
There is actually a simple solution to the problem of scumclaiming in alternate-universe mafia. Scumclaiming gets you modkilled in every game. Boom. Done. Move on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
i had a few beers last night and woke up feeling like garbage and still do. i was starting to think holy crap am i getting old if i cant handle a few beers what the hell, then i remembered that i didnt eat any food after noon other than a carrot and half a bag of cheese poofs. oops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:ok for my erlang mafia simulator i have figured out how to get it to generate me a list of ?GAMESIZE (currently set to 13) players, randomly assign town/scum, and give the starting attributes for all players: suspicion, stubborn, engagement. Please download my wetware to the cyberzone
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:There is actually a simple solution to the problem of scumclaiming in alternate-universe mafia. Scumclaiming gets you modkilled in every game. Boom. Done. Move on. this is a not good solution to a problem that was already solved by opop. uranus posted:i had a few beers last night and woke up feeling like garbage and still do. i was starting to think holy crap am i getting old if i cant handle a few beers what the hell, then i remembered that i didnt eat any food after noon other than a carrot and half a bag of cheese poofs. oops. I dunno whether to call you a weak baby or a feeble old man help me out here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
i'm a weak baby who has that super fast aging disease, and has aged into a withered, quivering husk that disintegrates when alcohol is put into it without food
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
a buttoned benjamin I see, a rare case, I am afraid it is terminal. I am sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
The idea that scum games are easier to win, so you'd purposely give up an easier win to work on harder games doesn't quite sync for me. And then making the easier to win games worth more doesn't add up either. The idea for the first game was to make it a small number of multiverses so to make each game more valuable in the general sense, and also to make it less of a pain to run and play. I was thinking 3 would be a manageable start point. I also wanted to keep it simple for the first one, but I have toyed with the idea of some cross reality shenanigans to keep things interesting. For instance in a 3 reality game, giving up a a game means you have to win the other two. so the stakes are higher. 4 realities you'd need to win 3/4. 5 realities is when you start getting some leeway. But the idea still remains, for all number of realities, that there is a prisoners dilemma where if everyone cooperates, then you can practically ensure the best result for everyone. And you'd need wildcards for that. I wouldn't support making scum games worth more, but I'd think putting in an SK which is worth more points. But the discussion of points just leads to a more obvious solution: A Mafia league season. You'd probably use the rugby union thing where there are bonus points to encourage good play. And you just encourage players to be in as many of the games as possible to maximise their points. As for multiverse mafia, I'm still pondering it. I was thinking making it like "The One" mafia so you get stronger as you die in other realities. But that might just encourage people to tank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
well the idea is that mafia win "by default." The town has to actually put in effort to win a game, since they not only have to be there for voting, but if they vote randomly they lose almost certainly. That's why it's "easier" to be scum, especially in a game where the town are distracted juggling four+ other games simultaneously. Since statistically speaking people are scum only 1/3-1/4 of the time, if someone only cares about winning most of the time, they can (and used to!) sacrifice their ability to be scum in order to improve their town game. This is why Truth or Dare is banned - because people were using it to confirm themselves the times they answered "I am town" at the cost of occasionally saying "I am scum" and not getting to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I think the more certain truth is that scum will try to do whatever best manipulates expectations, so saying what scum are more or less likely to do is dumb. Balance against game ruining states, but scum will do whatever they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
nah that's not true either. When you create incentive structures you need to expect people will generally try to pursue those incentives. "Scum can do anything!" may be occasionally true but from a design perspective it's a huge cop-out and is not very helpful to boot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:ok for my erlang mafia simulator i have figured out how to get it to generate me a list of ?GAMESIZE (currently set to 13) players, randomly assign town/scum, and give the starting attributes for all players: suspicion, stubborn, engagement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
everyone up to kumba has been added
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:05
|
|
Captain Foo posted:ok for my erlang mafia simulator i have figured out how to get it to generate me a list of ?GAMESIZE (currently set to 13) players, randomly assign town/scum, and give the starting attributes for all players: suspicion, stubborn, engagement. Add me, I'm ~dynamic~
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:ok for my erlang mafia simulator i have figured out how to get it to generate me a list of ?GAMESIZE (currently set to 13) players, randomly assign town/scum, and give the starting attributes for all players: suspicion, stubborn, engagement. Add me, if I can't play for real I may as well play in the Matrix
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:nah that's not true either. When you create incentive structures you need to expect people will generally try to pursue those incentives. "Scum can do anything!" may be occasionally true but from a design perspective it's a huge cop-out and is not very helpful to boot. You're right, it isn't helpful, but letting your incentives give scum an advantage because of wifom is equally unhelpful IMO
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:You're right, it isn't helpful, but letting your incentives give scum an advantage because of wifom is equally unhelpful IMO now now I wrote a big thing a long time ago about how dismissing something as "WIFOM" is dishonest. maybe giving the scum an advantage might not be the right choice but the reality is we need to give the scum a reason to actually play the game. Scum already are more likely to lurk and dodge attention that way since we incentivize lurking by voting out people who post a lot; putting them in a bunch of games where they know everyone's attention is spread out over many games at once essentially gives them carte blanche to check out before day 1 even begins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Only scum post in mafia games, if someone is posting they are probably scum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:now now I wrote a big thing a long time ago about how dismissing something as "WIFOM" is dishonest. You see this as a problem of setups, I see it as a problem of playerbase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
put me as scum in all of the games 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:You see this as a problem of setups, I see it as a problem of playerbase. it becomes a problem of setups when we make a game that explicitly takes The Great Metagame into consideration. this is ignoring of course that if we make "win a majority of the games" the criteria for winning, the optimal strategy as per Murmur's example above is for all the scum to claim and thus let literally everyone win. if we change the win condition to "wins the most out of everyone" (or something similar) then it becomes a contest that has a lot more to do with luck than skill (since this is a team game ultimately, and if you get put on a team who doesn't want to play well no amount of your own effort will fix that). I dunno the more I think about it the more it just seems untenable. A nifty idea that wouldn't work well in practice unless you run them back to back, which wouldn't really be significantly different than normal mafia games. Birdstrike posted:put me as scum in all of the games I considered something like this, where the pretension is it's RNG'd but someone (potentially multiple) players get put on the same scumteam over multiple games, but that's not ideal either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
If I had the time, I'd run it and just see how it goes. Because we run plenty of bad games here, it wouldn't matter too much if it flopped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:this is a not good solution to a problem that was already solved by opop. nah actually it's a great solution since we should be modkilling people who want to replace out anyway more modkills in the meta tia
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:nah actually it's a great solution since we should be modkilling people who want to replace out anyway
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
CCKeane posted:Only scum post in mafia games, if someone is posting they are probably scum. Also, only scum lurk
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:that is also a bad thing wow. modkilling people for asking to replace out is madness. Games don't start because there's not enough people and then people immediately drop out. I don't have time for it. More kills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
I have already modkilled 6 players in the next game I plan to run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:I have already modkilled 6 players in the next game I plan to run. Sorry, something came up
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Specifically, we need to stop treating games as special fragile snowflakes that fall apart the moment one person vacates or doesn't show up to begin with. Yeah, it might take some on-the-fly rebalancing. So what? So, next game I run, when I get around to it, no replacements. You have to drop, fine---no harm, no foul. But if you don't play, I'm not going to go digging for someone to come off the bench for you. hexwren fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:Games don't start because there's not enough people and then people immediately drop out. I don't have time for it. More kills. I think punishing a team because a player on it wants someone else to play in their stead because they can't or won't is a terrible idea. Not the least of which because we should be encouraging people to ask for replacements if they can't play, not discouraging them. Allen Wren posted:Yeah, it might take some on-the-fly rebalancing. So what? lol oh ok
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
we should modkill people that are actively lurking, not people that acknowledge they can no longer play and ask for a replacement
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
It made soldiers game pretty hellish, because you can't modkill in one thread without doing it in the other thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
No replacements. Modkill if someone can't give a good reason to not participate. Your game is going to not play on rails and will not go where you design it to go, so just let whatever happens happen, including modkills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:I think punishing a team because a player on it wants someone else to play in their stead because they can't or won't is a terrible idea. Not the least of which because we should be encouraging people to ask for replacements if they can't play, not discouraging them. This is the right opinion. busb posted:It made soldiers game pretty hellish, because you can't modkill in one thread without doing it in the other thread. Is this past tense? Did that end? I didn't follow it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
EccoRaven posted:I think punishing a team because a player on it wants someone else to play in their stead because they can't or won't is a terrible idea. Not the least of which because we should be encouraging people to ask for replacements if they can't play, not discouraging them. Why should we encourage it? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it already feels like the majority of the games that are run end up requiring at least one replacement. I'm frankly tired of it. As a player, I'd much rather have someone's flip than someone else trying to post in their place and having to reconcile two posting styles to one possible role. quote:lol oh ok thank you for your useful contribution to this discussion
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:we should modkill people that are actively lurking, not people that acknowledge they can no longer play and ask for a replacement I say both, but we need more modkilling in general, imo Amoeba102 posted:No replacements. Modkill if someone can't give a good reason to not participate. Yes, exactly this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:Why should we encourage it? I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it already feels like the majority of the games that are run end up requiring at least one replacement. I'm frankly tired of it. As a player, I'd much rather have someone's flip than someone else trying to post in their place and having to reconcile two posting styles to one possible role. If this is only your personal preference because of  and has nothing to do with making the games better, then I think it starts and stops right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:No replacements. Modkill if someone can't give a good reason to not participate. what is the functional difference between a good reason and a bad reason that allows you to justify arbitrarily choosing the fate of your own game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
lots of bad opinions about modkills itt.busb posted:It made soldiers game pretty hellish, because you can't modkill in one thread without doing it in the other thread. nah you can very much do one thread and not the other I dunno why you think you couldn't. unless it would "give too much of the setup away" or something. Amoeba102 posted:No replacements. Modkill if someone can't give a good reason to not participate. this isn't a job, it's not some sport with prizes at the end, it's as close to For Fun as things can be. we have literally no obligation to show up to games for which we've sign up aside from the general obligation of Don't Be a Jerk. modkilling someone because they can't "give a good reason not to participate" is bonkers since, surprise, modkills actually do seriously mess with the balance of a game, especially if the game is small or it's late in the cycle. Replacements are super inconvenient to find and super hard to muster but it's almost always better for your game to get a replacement than to modkill someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:34
|
|