Board 8 > Mafia discussion topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

Meow1000 posted...

Vanilla/Doctor/Scum going into night isn't endgame. Vanilla/Survivor/Scum is. Scum and Survivor win.

Alright I just flat out disagree.

What if there's a town BP/Survor/Scum?

And scum doesn't know there's a BP?

You absolutely have to process the final night legitimately in order to uphold the integrity of the game.

turbopuns2 posted...

Meow1000 posted...

Vanilla/Doctor/Scum going into night isn't endgame. Vanilla/Survivor/Scum is. Scum and Survivor win.

Alright I just flat out disagree.

What if there's a town BP/Survor/Scum?

And scum doesn't know there's a BP?

You absolutely have to process the final night legitimately in order to uphold the integrity of the game.

You seem to be somehow missing the point.

BP is the exact same as doctor. It's a way to prevent scum from winning. You just gave the exact same scenario and acted like it was a different one.

You always process actions if anything in the game can prevent scum from winning. Doctor and BP both classify.

You never process actions if scum has already won.
---

Meow1000 posted...

You always process actions if anything in the game can prevent scum from winning. Doctor and BP both classify.

You never process actions if scum has already won.

My point is survivor should not just win because scum wins.

Survivor has to SURVIVE.

turbopuns2 posted...

Meow1000 posted...

You always process actions if anything in the game can prevent scum from winning. Doctor and BP both classify.

You never process actions if scum has already won.

My point is survivor should not just win because scum wins.

Survivor has to SURVIVE.

Survivor has to survive until town or scum reach their victory condition. Upon that lynch, scum has won the game. By being alive when scum has won the game, the survivor wins too.

In that vein, an example 3 scum + 2 town + survivor is a scum+survivor win. If it's 3-3-1 and survivor helps scum lynch a town member, the game is immediately over and survivor wins along with scum. We have seen games end like this before.

Survivor should always turn on town when it benefits them to, and town should always lynch survivor at first opportunity.
---

Meow1000 posted...

Survivor has to survive until town or scum reach their victory condition. Upon that lynch, scum has won the game. By being alive when scum has won the game, the survivor wins too.

Scum doesn't win until they shoot someone.

What if scum lynches town at final 4 and says "we all unanimously agree to no kill tonight because we are afraid town has a BP and a tracker and we need to go for the lynch instead."

(Unlikely but that doesn't matter)

Do you just say "No. Overruled. You must shoot and you win."

?

I mean if you do, fine, but then we disagree on a very fundamental level, lol.

The game would not enter the night phase unless there was a chance scum could lose to begin with.
---

Well alright then.

And I'd say we have at least 3 games where a survivor sided with scum once the game hit Mylo in order to win with them

The victory condition is "If you are alive at the end of the game." Either faction winning is the end of the game.
---

Yeah we just subscribe to different philosophies which is fine. Especially if it only comes up about 3 times every decade or so.

And clearly we need some ballsy town to start faking survivor at lylo

I've actually thought about it before, but I've only made lylo as town 3 times ever, and the most recent time was years ago. I also had a modconfirmed role.

(Scum decided to leave Town Chris and Town Blade alive in final 5. It did not end well for them.)
---

Meow1000 posted...

but I've only made lylo as town 3 times ever

you made it there during the bp miller princess game
---

I didn't. I trusted Wigs not to blow the game at lylo. That day wasn't lylo and town still had a 100% chance of winning if Wigs doesn't somehow blow the final three.

I was also not including AIM. AIM numbers are impossible to estimate.

I was at lylo in Dragonball Z, in Baku's experimental... And the third isn't coming to mind right now. DBZ was the first forum Mafia game I ever played.

I know I was there as scum in SHM's game, and a game about three years ago that I don't remember the name of. I engineered a game winning scumhammer on a scum player "lol".
---

Meow1000 posted...

I didn't. I trusted Wigs not to blow the game at lylo.

oh yeahhhh lmao
---

turbopuns2 posted...

Yeah we just subscribe to different philosophies which is fine. Especially if it only comes up about 3 times every decade or so.

If you subscribe to a different philosophy as a host you need to say that in the rules prior to a game.
---

Corrik posted...

turbopuns2 posted...

Yeah we just subscribe to different philosophies which is fine. Especially if it only comes up about 3 times every decade or so.

If you subscribe to a different philosophy as a host you need to say that in the rules prior to a game.

I do. In my games mafia's win con is control the vote. If they are even with town and there is a survivor, mafia does not control the vote.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

I do. In my games mafia's win con is control the vote. If they are even with town and there is a survivor, mafia does not control the vote.

So 2 mafia + 2 town + 1 survivor is not mafia victory?
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

I do. In my games mafia's win con is control the vote. If they are even with town and there is a survivor, mafia does not control the vote.

So 2 mafia + 2 town + 1 survivor is not mafia victory?

Not sure why it would be? They can't force the lynch and if mafia gets lynched, even with the night kill they still don't control it nor is the Survivor guaranteed to survive

Independent is independent, why would it count towards mafias vote control numbers?

Plus mafia wouldn't even know they were 2/2/1, they would assume 2/3.

ShatteredElysium posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

I do. In my games mafia's win con is control the vote. If they are even with town and there is a survivor, mafia does not control the vote.

So 2 mafia + 2 town + 1 survivor is not mafia victory?

Not sure why it would be? They can't force the lynch and if mafia gets lynched, even with the night kill they still don't control it nor is the Survivor guaranteed to survive

Independent is independent, why would it count towards mafias vote control numbers?

Plus mafia wouldn't even know they were 2/2/1, they would assume 2/3.

Because you have to play to win. Repeat ad nauseum. = /
---

Who wouldn't be playing to win in that scenario? Are you saying the Survivor could just peace out and no lynch with scum? Because I still firmly support that if the Survivor opts to no lynch in that scenario, the night phase should still happen allowing Mafia to night kill them and get the solo win.

Night phase doesn't process in a normal scenario because it doesn't matter who scum kill in a Town vs Scum endgame night phase. It absolutely should happen in any sort of Town vs Survivor vs Scum endgame because it affects the overall result.

Survivor can still win with scum if scum target the remaining town member but there's no guarantee they do. Which is why it would be risky for the survivor to side with scum on the no lynch (or any lynch), they would be relying on the scum not betraying them and night killing them to get the solo win.

ShatteredElysium posted...

Who wouldn't be playing to win in that scenario? Are you saying the Survivor could just peace out and no lynch with scum? Because I still firmly support that if the Survivor opts to no lynch in that scenario, the night phase should still happen allowing Mafia to night kill them and get the solo win.

Night phase doesn't process in a normal scenario because it doesn't matter who scum kill in a Town vs Scum endgame night phase. It absolutely should happen in any sort of Town vs Survivor vs Scum endgame because it affects the overall result.

Survivor can still win with scum if scum target the remaining town member but there's no guarantee they do. Which is why it would be risky for the survivor to side with scum on the no lynch (or any lynch), they would be relying on the scum not betraying them and night killing them to get the solo win.

You are trying to let mafia operate at already won conditions in order just to fuck the survivor out of a win. The game is already over at the point you are still processing actions. And survivor has already won.
---

Yes because there's a difference between a solo win and a shared win.

If the Survivor wants to side with the Mafia to win then I've got no problem with that but there should always be that inherent risk in doing so. Maybe the mafia upholds their side of the deal, maybe they don't. The survivor can opt not to reveal they are survivor and side with town if they don't want to take that risk

ShatteredElysium posted...

Yes because there's a difference between a solo win and a shared win.

If the Survivor wants to side with the Mafia to win then I've got no problem with that but there should always be that inherent risk in doing so. Maybe the mafia upholds their side of the deal, maybe they don't.

You shouldn't host until you understand win conditions.

What you are basically saying is that if there are 74 scum left, 70 town left, and 1 survivor left that town should have to play out an already lost game on the account that scum that already has won could at some point shoot the survivor who has already won to fuck him over.

It is crazy what you are asserting.
---

The real debate has always been and always shall be. If the numbers are 3 town 3 scum and town has a doublevoter is the game over or not. I have always said no.
---

Your scenario is not remotely the same as what I said.

If the Mafia has 74, Town has 70 and there's one survivor then Mafia are the majority and control the vote and have already won.

If the Mafia has 2, Town has 2 and there's one survivor then Mafia are not the majority and do not control the vote. They still have to perform the kill in order to get the majority.

So actually my first post is slightly wrong. If they mislynch at 2/2/1 then the game is over and survivor wins. If they no lynch, the night kill needs to happen and survivor possibly does not win if mafia night kill them to win the game.

Which is why at 2/2/1 the day phase has to happen instead of being auto-mafia/survivor win. If the survivor comes in and vote no lynch, there's a chance Mafia NK them. If survivor comes in and votes someone allowing Mafia to hammer, there's a chance their vote is on a mafia member so the mafia can't hammer to win. The mafia can't out themselves as they get lynched and don't know there's a survivor.

Both the mafia and survivor need to out themselves in order to ensure the Mafia/Independent win but as soon as the either outs themselves they run the risk of getting lynched.

Mafia doesnt control the vote at 2 2 1
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

Your scenario is not remotely the same as what I said.

If the Mafia has 74, Town has 70 and there's one survivor then Mafia are the majority and control the vote and have already won.

If the Mafia has 2, Town has 2 and there's one survivor then Mafia are not the majority and do not control the vote. They still have to perform the kill in order to get the majority.

So actually my first post is slightly wrong. If they mislynch at 2/2/1 then the game is over and survivor wins. If they no lynch, the night kill needs to happen and survivor possibly does not win if mafia night kill them to win the game.

Which is why at 2/2/1 the day phase has to happen instead of being auto-mafia/survivor win. If the survivor comes in and vote no lynch, there's a chance Mafia NK them. If survivor comes in and votes someone allowing Mafia to hammer, there's a chance their vote is on a mafia member so the mafia can't hammer to win. The mafia can't out themselves as they get lynched and don't know there's a survivor.

Both the mafia and survivor need to out themselves in order to ensure the Mafia/Independent win but as soon as the either outs themselves they run the risk of getting lynched.

Listen. Survivor is survivor. It has to vote with the faction it has to as part of its win condition. What you are basically saying is. If survivor wants to play as town why can't he. The answer is because he is not town and has his own win condition. Otherwise he would just be town. The game is balanced around the role the way it is.

Survivor choosing to play as town or not counting towards scum votes and etc is basically like you saying well if it is 3 mafia 3 town the game is over because what if a mafia afks and town can achieve a majority lynch then block the nightkill.

It doesn't matter. The game is over. This is win conditions. They work automatically. There is no gray area. At the scenario, survivor automatically votes with scum and the game is automatically over. Games are balanced to account for this. It is why in certain scenarios you can ascertain if a survivor exists based on numbers.
---

neonreaper posted...

Mafia doesnt control the vote at 2 2 1

Yes. They do. At 3 2 1 mafia controls the vote and the game is over. Really annoying so many people don't even understand the rules.

Assuming 1 is survivor above.
---

So basically the crux of this comes down to that you see Independent as aligned with the mafia whereas I see Independent as its own alignment.

Also

The answer is because he is not town and has his own win condition. Otherwise he would just be town.

No he wouldn't just be town because if town wins but the survivor died, then he does not win like all other town. Having to be alive at the end of the game completely changes how you play the game.

ShatteredElysium posted...

So basically the crux of this comes down to that you see Independent as aligned with the mafia whereas I see Independent as its own alignment.

No. The Crux of this is that you don't understand how the role "survivor" works and you are instead trying to equate it to a regular independent that is not survivor.

Survivor works the way it works and the game is balanced along these lines.

For example if scum could be 25% or 40% based on adding a number or not. 25% is a relatively weak scum team. 40% is too high on the upper limit. You could put a survivor in which is essentially half a scum for balancing purposes with the 25% scum team.

Or you could give scum an extra kill.

The point is. Survivor works the way it does and it is done for a balancing reason and everything I am saying is balancing taken in by a host beforehand before including the role.

A third party nonsurvivor would work the way you are saying, yes.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

Also

The answer is because he is not town and has his own win condition. Otherwise he would just be town.

No he wouldn't just be town because if town wins but the survivor died, then he does not win like all other town. Having to be alive at the end of the game completely changes how you play the game.

For the last time, you are trying to ignore the "survivor" role and just treating it as independent. Survivor means something.

Erghhhhh.

Learn the rules, guys!!!
---

A survivor wins once another faction reaches their win condition. At 2:2:1 the Mafia have not achieved their win condition.

You don't subtract the survivor vote from the numbers for win condition purposes. Nor do you give it to the mafia either as it's possible for the survivor to win with town.

survivor can vote however he wants. Survivor is a truly independent role.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

A survivor wins once another faction reaches their win condition. At 2:2:1 the Mafia have not achieved their win condition.

You don't subtract the survivor vote from the numbers for win condition purposes. Nor do you give it to the mafia either as it's possible for the survivor to win with town.

Thank you.
---

Mafia wins if it's 2:2:1 entering night and nothing can stop them from winning. Obviously they don't win with that ratio doing the day. The survivor still has to turn on town first.

And it will. The game at that point is effectively over, you just can't call it yet.

I'd go as far as to say any survivor that doesn't turn on town at first opportunity deserves to lose.
---

Corrik posted...

If you subscribe to a different philosophy as a host you need to say that in the rules prior to a game.

Well I've never used a survivor. Nor have I heard of this philosophy you have so I wouldn't even know to give that disclaimer!

But anyway, my Mafia win condition has always been defined as: You win when half the living players or more are Mafia, during a day phase. Which is not met at 2-2-1.

Like even if you think the reason it ends is the survivor must play to win and that somehow logically equates to survivor must reveal themselves and vote with scum.

Your philosophy then forces town's "play to win" strategy in that case to become "bluff being scum in order to get the survivor to vote with you instead of actual scum", which is clearly something that is theoretically possible. Maybe town just outwits scum and survivor and trick him into voting with them. In which case town earned that endgame win. But you just auto-process it and hand scum the game. Completely illogical imo.

Edit: I guess you can argue that the strategy for scum is to vote no lynch not a town, in which case there is no real way for town to get the survivor to side with them. However, you take away any chance of a good and clever town faking survivor to out scum in an actual 3 town, 2 scum scenario. By your rules that can never happen, because the game would have ended if they were actually 2-2-1. I think that's what gets to the root of my issue with it, and with what blade was saying of "you only process the night action if town can save themselves, you don't process it if they can't". It creates an inconsistency where there are scenarios which CAN happen but CAN'T be faked.

Im still claiming victory as survivor in the Christmas mafia game that was called off halfway through

I was alive at end of game

Ergo

Victory

*lights the 3rd candle of Hanukkah*
---

DoubleTangicide posted...

Im still claiming victory as survivor in the Christmas mafia game that was called off halfway through

I was alive at end of game

Ergo

Victory

*lights the 3rd candle of Hanukkah*

I feel the same about Dangonronpa mafia. 43 person game, I was Indy BP survivor and was poisoned N1. However, host whiffed a night action and killed some random instead of Scare, so the entire game was canceled. technically I was alive when it ended.
---

neonreaper posted...

survivor can vote however he wants. Survivor is a truly independent role.

Then mafia can vote however they want and are not obligated to vote with mafia at the end since your win condition doesn't matter according to you. This is pointless. You are arguing against the literal rules.
---

No
---

I mean, if there was one universal set of "literal rules" then we wouldn't be having the conversation. That's the beauty of disagreement. :D

Corrik posted...

neonreaper posted...

survivor can vote however he wants. Survivor is a truly independent role.

Then mafia can vote however they want and are not obligated to vote with mafia at the end since your win condition doesn't matter according to you. This is pointless. You are arguing against the literal rules.

Survivor's win condition is to survive until the end of the game, and whether he tries to do it with town or scum is his own choice.

Still, a 2.2.1 scenario should end up with survivor voting with scum.
---

Realistically, yes in most cases that 2-2-1 day ends with survivor voting with scum.

But optimal scum play is not to immediately out themselves, because they do not have confirmed knowledge that a survivor exists. So if they out themselves and there is no survivor, they've thrown the game.

Survivor optimal play is not to out themselves, because they do not have confirmed knowledge that there are in fact 2 mafia left. If survivor outs themselves but then it's actually 3-1-1, he risks throwing away his game. Even if it is 99.99% likely there are 2 mafia and not 1, when you are creating a set of iron clad rules, the rules have to account for every situation. Not just "most of the time" situations.

Therefore, in theory, it is not a 100% winning play for either anti-town faction to just reveal. Therefore, it should not just be auto-processed as a win for them. There is room for error and unknowns.

I think at 1-1-1 you can make an argument that the survivor can side whichever they way they want and it isn't an auto scum win?

But at 2-2-1 then the survivor, if playing to win, should vote with the scum, because if they choose to side with town, they are drawing out the game for no reason and there is an above 0% chance they get nightkilled, so going to another night is definitely against wincon.

I was closer to siding with Corrik here, but turbo makes good points. If there was a guaranteed way for the survivor to 100% know the scumteam and know the game can end - then the game will advance to a scum win by default. But it sounds like technically there are still things under player control, or that the players don't know, that could (in rare cases) affect it?

All these 2-2-1 scenarios assume the survivor knows who the 2 scum players are, which isn't necessarily true.

Hell, all these 2-2-1 scenarios are assuming Town and survivor are aware it is LYlO, which also isn't necessarily true.
---

Basically if every single case of 2-2-1 means the survivor will always win with scum (assuming they play to wincon) then it's not unreasonable to say that the host can speed things up by ending the game, so I see where Corrik is coming from.

But if there are any weird edge cases or scenarios like the survivor not knowing for sure who the scum are or how many, or if there's any night roles that could screw them over, or etc, which I think there are, then it's probably right to not end the game.

Dels posted...

But if there are any weird edge cases or scenarios like the survivor not knowing for sure who the scum are or how many, or if there's any night roles that could screw them over, or etc, which I think there are, then it's probably right to not end the game.

This same thought is basically why I think if you have 3 town, 1 scum, and town is lynched, the game is not over until scum finalizes their action of shooting a town. Even if town are all vanilla. While it's like a 0.01% chance, it is possible for scum to get psyched out and not kill. In terms of the rules, it shouldn't matter if that never actually happens once in ten thousand games. The rules should be set up to handle it. This is my programmer brain talking.