Mafia! Mafia! Mafia! Character Role Discussions

[Akonyl]

then it will be 4 vs 8. but then 3 townie go inactive, arresting them will only seal BO victories!!!
Then what do you propose we do? Any penalty we give to people who are inactive will only only harm them (and thus the town), so unless you want to give people bonuses for being inactive, I don't see any other way to go about it.

if we dont find out how to solve this, then i bet the earlier lynch will aimed to people who often in active. ( personally i am happy because i am off the hook but still it is not fair )
completely fair. If you don't care about the game enough to not be active in previous games, you shouldn't be surprised when you get knocked out of the game early because of it.

or... instead of arresting them, can the GM made them as target for night kill? ( it will upset the BO but... for fair game? )
sorry, but no. If we start controlling the other side's actions for them for the sake of balance, know what'd be completely fair? Is if I, as GM, controlled everybody's actions and put on a little play that resulted in it being one BO vs one town that end up stalemating.

Not to mention, this then has the side effect of the BO being physically unable to kill a town alliance because they're forced to kill other people, thus making the BO lose the game.

[Schillok]

we need to figure how to minimize the damage from in active people to Current round! let say we have 20 player.

6 bo and 14 town.

the bo kill 6 town and lose 2 bo

then it will be 4 vs 8. but then 3 townie go inactive, arresting them will only seal BO victories!!!

if we dont find out how to solve this, then i bet the earlier lynch will aimed to people who often in active. ( personally i am happy because i am off the hook but still it is not fair )

or... instead of arresting them, can the GM made them as target for night kill? ( it will upset the BO but... for fair game? )

There is no way for current games. In the scenario you described the solution I would prefer is still the same: Let the town lose that round. If half of their survivors turn inactive, they shouldn't win. Having the inactives not particpate in the next round(s) will slowly solve that problem. Actives will play every round, inactives less and less. After enough rounds your scenario will not happen anymore.


The BO should not be forced to kill an inactive. They kill to eliminate threats, so they should go for the active ones. Except of course if they are afraid of protection/healers, then going after an inactive might be the best plan anyway.

[Akonyl]

and @Schillok:

Town alliances have to deal with the staggered PMs as well, so I don't see it as a huge issue for the BO, not to mention that the BO never actually makes plans until the last 5 hours anyway :I

Yes, I'm aware that it cements her death, which I pointed out, I was just saying that it wasn't always on Day 1 like you said.

Regarding the deduction list: Yes, that's my point. You yourself point out that it would be "hurt the BO more with less members" if she received a list about her friend's killer, yet argued against the other version because keeping the ability would be more powerful, I'm just not sure I see the point in that. Basically, I think your version is much more powerful than the version of Sonoko I was mentioning (because as you said, killer info is supremely damaging to the BO now), so I don't see why you're advocating that one when you're acknowledging that sonoko borders on too powerful.

And you say they wouldn't observe her, but what's to stop them from observing her before they know about her deduction ability, and what's to say they immediately believe her about having deduction? It's not uncommon for the BO to say "oh, they claim they have this ability? Observe/steal from them to make sure we get something that coincides with that, they might be lying".

[xpon]

i feel sorry for people who want to play but can only active once every 2 phase or something like that.......

[Akonyl]

that's what minimafia's for

but in general, even the most inactive of people should have 10 minutes a day to look at the thread + their PMs and send in an action, even if they're not in an alliance or whatever.

[Vylash]

i feel sorry for people who want to play but can only active once every 2 phase or something like that.......

...what?

[xpon]

slow mafia or mini mafia?

[Akonyl]

minimafia, let's never speak of slow mafia again

I meant that if people really only have like one day they can play mafia out of the week, there'll probably be a MM game that's going on that day for them to play. If they really don't have time to play MM *or* normal mafia, then sorry, but can't cater to everyone :V

[Schillok]

Regarding the deduction list: Yes, that's my point. You yourself point out that it would be "hurt the BO more with less members" if she received a list about her friend's killer, yet argued against the other version because keeping the ability would be more powerful, I'm just not sure I see the point in that. Basically, I think your version is much more powerful than the version of Sonoko I was mentioning (because as you said, killer info is supremely damaging to the BO now), so I don't see why you're advocating that one when you're acknowledging that sonoko borders on too powerful.

You think that a one-time deduction when Sonokos ally dies and she loses all of her abilities is stronger than her keeping her friends abilities?
I would say the former is the weaker - and fairer - one. But otherwise the problem lies with the deduction ability itself, not Sonoko.

There are two roles (both which Sonoko could befriend and which would allow her to use it repeatably) that can deduce as well, both with other abilities. I guess setting the number of suspects could still need some help (5 suspects seems too low sometimes). Also, the BO has some abilities that go around Sonokos ability or deduction (Gin, Korn, Chianti) which would become less useful if she was changed the way you suggested.

And you say they wouldn't observe her, but what's to stop them from observing her before they know about her deduction ability, and what's to say they immediately believe her about having deduction? It's not uncommon for the BO to say "oh, they claim they have this ability? Observe/steal from them to make sure we get something that coincides with that, they might be lying".

Uhh, what are we discussing about here?
But sure, telling everyone your ability can kill you if the BO used some abilities on you. It is the same for all roles and I don't think Sonoko should be exempted from it. Also, giving a townie more reason to bluff about their ability because he/she might be Sonoko who got deduction from having her friend killed is not a bad thing I think.

[Akonyl]

You think that a one-time deduction when Sonokos ally dies and she loses all of her abilities is stronger than her keeping her friends abilities?
I would say the former is the weaker - and fairer - one. But otherwise the problem lies with the deduction ability itself, not Sonoko.

There are two roles (both which Sonoko could befriend and which would allow her to use it repeatably) that can deduce as well, both with other abilities. I guess setting the number of suspects could still need some help (5 suspects seems too low sometimes). Also, the BO has some abilities that go around Sonokos ability or deduction (Gin, Korn, Chianti) which would become less useful if she was changed the way you suggested.

I do think so

And that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the Deduction ability itself, just as there's no problem with the Special Investigate ability itself. The problem comes about when people take previously rare abilities and suddenly throw them around everywhere. Does anyone think Shinichi is overpowered? No, not really. Would a town with 15 of them be overpowered? Undoubtedly, because there wouldn't be a single phase that goes by where a BO wouldn't be caught. It's much the same with deduction: The ability itself is fine, but you can't give the ability to everyone or it becomes absurd.

There's a reason that deduction lists can't be used every phase (so no, she wouldn't be able to use it repeatedly anyway if she befriended someone), and there's a reason why Okiya's other ability is pretty mediocre. Yusaku, I sort of have an issue with him, so I don't really care much for the "other roles have abilities + deduction as well".

If you think those BO abilities are lessened by there not being a Sonoko, then why not argue that during my game, because it was known for a fact that Sonoko wasn't in that game either? The snipers' primary reason is to guarantee kills imo, the not-being-listed comes secondary. Gin, yes it lessens his to a point, but that was originally intended to prevent self-slander investigations.

Uhh, what are we discussing about here?
But sure, telling everyone your ability can kill you if the BO used some abilities on you. It is the same for all roles and I don't think Sonoko should be exempted from it. Also, giving a townie more reason to bluff about their ability because he/she might be Sonoko who got deduction from having her friend killed is not a bad thing I think.

I was commenting on the fact that you were saying that you were saying that Sonoko was safer from poisoning than her friend would be, while I was saying that she could be poisoned just as easily as her friend if abilities were used on her.

[PT]

I would much rather have Sonoko keep her friend's abilities after death than get a deduction list. Deduction is a pretty strong ability - a list of ~5 and one of them is definitely BO? As for keeping her friend's abilities: I don't see how it makes her stronger than her ally - they're the same. Just because she starts off with an ally every round doesn't mean she's stronger than her ally. Especially if she loses the ability to find out who killed her friend.

As for BO results: PMs are much simpler than making up fake stuff. But, hey, Schillok, if you feel like GMing a round and want to make up fake results for the lovers, then go for it.

Inactives: Arrested for inactivity + unable to play the next round seems like the best solution to me.

[Kleene Onigiri]

Yusaku, I sort of have an issue with him, so I don't really care much for the "other roles have abilities + deduction as well".

What's wrong with yusaku? :V
He especially has interrogate RO deduction OR reveal culprit.
Reveal culprit has a backdraw on him and the police. So it's rarely used.
And if he can't do deduction anymore, he's just a interrogator.
You could remove interrogation from him. But then you'd need to lessen the reveal culprit penalty (which would make him stronger in the end)
Or remove reveal culprit :V But I liked that idea :x


@lethargy:
Uhm, I thought that was supposed to be a motivation to vote. And not a explicit punishment for inactive people D:
Last round holmes was semi-inactive. So he didn't vote for 2x and was lethargic. I PMed him and wanted him to vote, which was important. But he couldn't even tho he wanted. :V
So the current lethargy rule actually punishes the active players more than the inactive ones. If someone is inactive, he doesn't care about the game as much as a active one anyway :V

Also, it could happen that you simply forget to vote, even tho you're active.
I was injured for example. And during the game I sometimes forgot which phase we have. I almost forgot to vote once because I thought it's night D: Because I couldn't do anything at night anyway XD (and afaik the thread title wasn't updated :x)

With the idea I had you kinda force people to vote. If they don't want to die, they'd need to send in a vote.
But it's not as forced as the lethargy, because you don't have a active punishment. So you could still say "I don't vote without leads" but you'd have to take the risk of getting lynched. If everyone votes for themselves it's as if everyone didn't vote too :p
And if someone is inactive, it's easier to vote him/her dead :x
And when a inactive one get's active again, he won't cause much trouble because he can still vote with the others then (while with lethargy, you're "punshed for coming back")


Edit: And we already planned a different punishment for inactivity (nor being able to play next round etc.)

[Akonyl]

Yusaku, I sort of have an issue with him, so I don't really care much for the "other roles have abilities + deduction as well".

What's wrong with yusaku? :V
He especially has interrogate RO deduction OR reveal culprit.
Reveal culprit has a backdraw on him and the police. So it's rarely used.
And if he can't do deduction anymore, he's just a interrogator.
You could remove interrogation from him. But then you'd need to lessen the reveal culprit penalty (which would make him stronger in the end)
Or remove reveal culprit :V But I liked that idea :x

Look at it this way:
Okiya: Deduction + Detect (not so great of an ability) + a scent (which is bad for him)
Yusaku: Deduction + Interrogate (a good ability) + no scent + reveal culprit

Okiya I think is balanced fine, but if you look at Yusaku vs Okiya, Yusaku's the clear winner imo. You're not supposed to be able to use deduction before you "solve" your current list specifically because Deduction would otherwise be too good, however that penalty isn't worth much when your "fall-back" ability is, of all things, interrogate.

@lethargy:
Uhm, I thought that was supposed to be a motivation to vote. And not a explicit punishment for inactive people D:
Last round holmes was semi-inactive. So he didn't vote for 2x and was lethargic. I PMed him and wanted him to vote, which was important. But he couldn't even tho he wanted. :V
So the current lethargy rule actually punishes the active players more than the inactive ones. If someone is inactive, he doesn't care about the game as much as a active one anyway :V

Yes, it's a motivation to vote (aka, not be inactive). It accomplishes that by penalizing you if you don't, aka inactive people.

If you don't punish inactive people, what would you do with them?

Maybe the lethargy rule affects people who aren't inactive, but so do people who are inactive anyway.

Also, it could happen that you simply forget to vote, even tho you're active.
I was injured for example. And during the game I sometimes forgot which phase we have. I almost forgot to vote once because I thought it's night D: Because I couldn't do anything at night anyway XD (and afaik the thread title wasn't updated :x)

With the idea I had you kinda force people to vote. If they don't want to die, they'd need to send in a vote.
But it's not as forced as the lethargy, because you don't have a active punishment. So you could still say "I don't vote without leads" but you'd have to take the risk of getting lynched. If everyone votes for themselves it's as if everyone didn't vote too :p
And if someone is inactive, it's easier to vote him/her dead :x
And when a inactive one get's active again, he won't cause much trouble because he can still vote with the others then (while with lethargy, you're "punshed for coming back")

you're not punished for coming back, you're punished for being inactive. However, if someone's inactive, how can you punish them while they're still inactive? You can't, thus you have to punish them when they become active again.

As for not voting when you're actually active: You have a free non-voting phase. Generally, people will at most forget to vote once, otherwise they're either intentionally not-voting or

It should be noted that during my game, the only people affected by lethargy never voted, on a single phase. The only exception to this was holmes, who tried to vote one phase, but was both lethargic and got poisoned anyway.

Edit: And we already planned a different punishment for inactivity (nor being able to play next round etc.)

That may be part of the solution but it's not the entire thing. Remember, yes we were saying that, but we were still saying to provide penalties for people during the round as well (Parkur arresting inactives basically immediately, cheesus continuing with lethargy, etc).

Also: By no means do I think lethargy is a rule that should stay in (I'm sorta surprised cheesus kept it in), however I do not agree at all that there shouldn't be an in-game punishment for people who aren't participating in the current round. Yes, punishing people who are inactive punishes the team they're on as well, but they themselves chose to inconvenience their team in the first place, by joining up and then doing nothing at all.

Let's say someone who is notoriously inactive plays a round, does absolutely nothing for that round, and is told that he can't play the next round. A few rounds later, he signs back up to play, because he hasn't played the last few rounds. What's he going to do? I can almost guarantee you that he cares just as little about mafia as he did before and will continue to send in actions once every two phases, hurting his side again, because he knows that at least for that one game that he's allowed to play, he can continue to play "at his own pace" (that is, handing in actions whenever he feels like it).

Imo, the only way to stop people from doing this is to boot them from the game entirely (via arrest) when they're inactive so that they don't get to do so. In the end, yes, there should be limitations on inactives joining new games, I agree, but a GM needs to keep the ability to remove inactives from their own round after it's started as well.

[Kleene Onigiri]

Yusaku, I sort of have an issue with him, so I don't really care much for the "other roles have abilities + deduction as well".

What's wrong with yusaku? :V
He especially has interrogate RO deduction OR reveal culprit.
Reveal culprit has a backdraw on him and the police. So it's rarely used.
And if he can't do deduction anymore, he's just a interrogator.
You could remove interrogation from him. But then you'd need to lessen the reveal culprit penalty (which would make him stronger in the end)
Or remove reveal culprit :V But I liked that idea :x

Look at it this way:
Okiya: Deduction + Detect (not so great of an ability) + a scent (which is bad for him)
Yusaku: Deduction + Interrogate (a good ability) + no scent + reveal culprit

Okiya I think is balanced fine, but if you look at Yusaku vs Okiya, Yusaku's the clear winner imo. You're not supposed to be able to use deduction before you "solve" your current list specifically because Deduction would otherwise be too good, however that penalty isn't worth much when your "fall-back" ability is, of all things, interrogate.

Make okiya stronger? :p

What else do you wanna give him then? Just deduction would be a bit meh, because you can't do anything else otherwise.
And I already said the other points :p

@lethargy:
Uhm, I thought that was supposed to be a motivation to vote. And not a explicit punishment for inactive people D:
Last round holmes was semi-inactive. So he didn't vote for 2x and was lethargic. I PMed him and wanted him to vote, which was important. But he couldn't even tho he wanted. :V
So the current lethargy rule actually punishes the active players more than the inactive ones. If someone is inactive, he doesn't care about the game as much as a active one anyway :V

Yes, it's a motivation to vote (aka, not be inactive). It accomplishes that by penalizing you if you don't, aka inactive people.

If you don't punish inactive people, what would you do with them?

Maybe the lethargy rule affects people who aren't inactive, but so do people who are inactive anyway.
[/quote]
But why punishing the active ones too then?
If inactive people can't play the next round, that that's enough of a punishment imo
Inactive people are already unbalancing the game. So if inactive people are being arrested and can't vote in case they get active before they get arrested, then it's too much punishment towards the active people.

Also, it could happen that you simply forget to vote, even tho you're active.
I was injured for example. And during the game I sometimes forgot which phase we have. I almost forgot to vote once because I thought it's night D: Because I couldn't do anything at night anyway XD (and afaik the thread title wasn't updated :x)

With the idea I had you kinda force people to vote. If they don't want to die, they'd need to send in a vote.
But it's not as forced as the lethargy, because you don't have a active punishment. So you could still say "I don't vote without leads" but you'd have to take the risk of getting lynched. If everyone votes for themselves it's as if everyone didn't vote too :p
And if someone is inactive, it's easier to vote him/her dead :x
And when a inactive one get's active again, he won't cause much trouble because he can still vote with the others then (while with lethargy, you're "punshed for coming back")

you're not punished for coming back, you're punished for being inactive. However, if someone's inactive, how can you punish them while they're still inactive? You can't, thus you have to punish them when they become active again.

But you punish them for becoming active again. Not for being inactive. For being inactive, you already punish them by not letting them join the next game.

If people see that they can't vote when they come back in a crucial time then they'll stay inactive instead of becoming active again D:
They shouldn't be punished for becoming active again :p They should be motivated for becoming active again instead of being demotivated.

As for not voting when you're actually active: You have a free non-voting phase. Generally, people will at most forget to vote once, otherwise they're either intentionally not-voting or

It should be noted that during my game, the only people affected by lethargy never voted, on a single phase. The only exception to this was holmes, who tried to vote one phase, but was both lethargic and got poisoned anyway.

So, your lethargy didn't encourage people to be active anyway :p so you could also replace it with my idea :x
that lethargy punishes active ones more than inactive ones :p

Edit: And we already planned a different punishment for inactivity (nor being able to play next round etc.)

That may be part of the solution but it's not the entire thing. Remember, yes we were saying that, but we were still saying to provide penalties for people during the round as well (Parkur arresting inactives basically immediately, cheesus continuing with lethargy, etc).

Also: By no means do I think lethargy is a rule that should stay in (I'm sorta surprised cheesus kept it in), however I do not agree at all that there shouldn't be an in-game punishment for people who aren't participating in the current round. Yes, punishing people who are inactive punishes the team they're on as well, but they themselves chose to inconvenience their team in the first place, by joining up and then doing nothing at all.

Let's say someone who is notoriously inactive plays a round, does absolutely nothing for that round, and is told that he can't play the next round. A few rounds later, he signs back up to play, because he hasn't played the last few rounds. What's he going to do? I can almost guarantee you that he cares just as little about mafia as he did before and will continue to send in actions once every two phases, hurting his side again, because he knows that at least for that one game that he's allowed to play, he can continue to play "at his own pace" (that is, handing in actions whenever he feels like it).

Imo, the only way to stop people from doing this is to boot them from the game entirely (via arrest) when they're inactive so that they don't get to do so. In the end, yes, there should be limitations on inactives joining new games, I agree, but a GM needs to keep the ability to remove inactives from their own round after it's started as well.

I never said not to punish inactive people. But that lethargy didn't change the inactive enough and had a draw back on active people or inactive people becoming active again.
And in your example, those people won#t care about in-game-punishments either imo :/

(make a "Hall of inactivity" IMO XD)

[Akonyl]

Make okiya stronger? :p

What else do you wanna give him then? Just deduction would be a bit meh, because you can't do anything else otherwise.
And I already said the other points :p

No! Bad Kleene! D:

the last thing we want is to start making townies stronger to match other ones, when possible you should make townies weaker to match their counterparts. That's why there's the power-creep problem in the game right now, such as every other character having multiple special investigates (an ability which was originally just given 1x to James and Kir, back in the day), and if we continue down that road, we'll have to start increasing the number of BO again

as for my idea for yusaku: Don't know atm exactly, however that doesn't mean I don't think something needs to be done about him.

But why punishing the active ones too then?
If inactive people can't play the next round, that that's enough of a punishment imo
Inactive people are already unbalancing the game. So if inactive people are being arrested and can't vote in case they get active before they get arrested, then it's too much punishment towards the active people.

I addressed this further down my post (so I'll probably see your response to it down there when I get to it :V), but I don't think it is enough to just exclude them from the next round.

But you punish them for becoming active again. Not for being inactive. For being inactive, you already punish them by not letting them join the next game.

If people see that they can't vote when they come back in a crucial time then they'll stay inactive instead of becoming active again D:
They shouldn't be punished for becoming active again :p They should be motivated for becoming active again instead of being demotivated.

To use an analogy:
A homeless and broke man steals from a store. The shopkeeper says "alright you jerk, but you have to pay me back for it!"
To this, the person who stole the item says "But I have no money!"
You seem to be saying that at this point, the shopkeeper should just say "oh, well then nevermind", while I'm saying that once the thief gets a job and gets money, he should be forced to pay back the shopkeeper.
From what you're saying, this would be considered the shopkeeper punishing the thief "for becoming successful", while I consider it punishing the thief for the crime he committed. It could not be done when he was penniless, because he had no money, so it had to be done once he got some. It's in no way punishing them for becoming successful.

Similarly, it's impossible to punish an inactive person while they're inactive, so you must punish them when they attempt to become active again. Yes, the punishment happens *while* they are becoming active, but it's not *because* they're becoming active. They are in no way worse-off because they decided to become active, and the timing of the punishment vs the reason for the punishment is a very important distinction.

Instead of coming back and not being able to vote at a crucial time, they should, you know, not leave the game for multiple days at a time.

The idea that they can just "come back and vote at a crucial time" is precisely the problem with inactives. They choose to not play the game when convenient to them (and inconvenient to others) and just sit there to be told what to do at presumably crucial moments. If you take this ability away from them, you take away their motivation to play the game, which is exactly what I think should happen. I don't know if it's just because it's a small game or if it's because I discouraged their behavior, but only one inactive is on that list of players, which I see as a good sign.

So, your lethargy didn't encourage people to be active anyway :p so you could also replace it with my idea :x
that lethargy punishes active ones more than inactive ones :p

what was your idea? To make them vote for themselves? I already mentioned why I don't think that would help the problem at all

I never said not to punish inactive people. But that lethargy didn't change the inactive enough and had a draw back on active people or inactive people becoming active again.
And in your example, those people won#t care about in-game-punishments either imo :/

(make a "Hall of inactivity" IMO XD)

when did lethargy penalize the active people, this game? The only time this could have really been the case was Day 1 when xpon was almost lynched, but on that day they all could have abstained from voting anyway (because of the free-vote), so I don't think that lethargy is really to blame for that.

If they don't care about in-game punishments, the only reason for that would be that they're not doing anything anyway. And if they're not doing anything anyway, what's wrong with arresting them? It just lets people know which players not to waste actions on.