Setup .
2 Likes
I would argue that itâs not a way to play modposter orginally.
You want rather to lead the town attention somewhere.
Share finds and opinions without making yourself a target.
Still not most impactful role.
But then whole âA message appearsâ wouldnât be a problem.
What you think about is bastard modposter, which fakes the mod messages.
That role happens rarely to begin with.
2 Likes
Spicey Dungeons FM
1 Like
I might suggest that this is decent but must be adjusted for the general town PR strength.
the general consensus is that 12v3 mountainous is okay but bland as a setup, while 10v5 mountainous is flat-out awful to play.
On the other hand, a 12v3 with a town cop, vig, and jailkeeper is similarly flat-out awful to play in the other direction, while a 10v5 with those roles might perhaps be acceptable.
I donât think that 10v4s are bad at all. But with only a vengeful and a bulletproof (in a closed setup where they cant be considered ICs either) in townâs arsenal of mechanical roles, I believe that itâs undeniably wolfsided compared to a the majority of setups considred to be âstandardâ in mafia.
thatâs what i believe osie was describing (or at least its intended use).
I agree with your way of playing modposter and I like the inclusion of it as a role, I just donât really think itâs enough utility to the town to counteract the general lack of mechanical utility town had to counteract the wolf numbers
1 Like
As I said, depends on the host in addition to the content of the announcement.
Iâm down to agree to disagree on this one.
Maybe. That said, thereâs a lot to be said about what site, what players, and so on. Would it be wolfsided every time on FoL? Maybe. Maybe not, tbh; thereâs a lot of room for variance. Assuming that a 15p mostly vanilla setup will always go the way is⌠quite the assumption. Not to mention that if anything, the modposter being less impactful on town helps to balance due to reducing swing.
And outside of the doublevoter, Mafia had a ton of utility that affected the game behaviourally? No. I think youâre firmly in the territory of forgetting that mafia is, fundamentally at its core, a game of behavioural analysis. Itâs easy to slip into blaming the roles, but like, do you want to see 12/3 mountainous? Because thatâs way less balanced than this was. I think thereâs an argument that town could have used one more relatively low-powered PR, and I vaguely recall that Eli and I discussed that possibility back on the old site. But, like, thereâs plenty of balanced 12/4, 11/4, and even 10/4 setups. Saying 11/4 is aggressively wolf-sided is just hyperbole.
Yes, and thatâs why itâs a range and not a set number, like the T=3M+1 which is commonly declared to be ideal for Mountainous.
Fundamentally, thereâs an argument that nobody has made of wolves having a higher role density, but the idea that the setup was intrinsically broken since town wasnât terrifying is ludicrous. Iâd agree if weâd actually hit 10/5, but thereâs just too much variance at this density.
I sorta want to handwave this as âyâall just not used to behavioural analysis, git gudâ but I recognize thatâs reductive and unfair. At the same time, I think that resorting to hyperbole about the setup and minimizing the actual play of the players in a game is all too common and mostly just keeps people from reflecting on their play and growing as players.
it would be d3 lylo with mafia doublevoter
so two days to get mafia
this is what it was at end of review as far as Iâm aware
âwolves played better and deserved to winâ and âthe setup was wolfsidedâ are things that can simultaneously be true
I donât think anyone is disputing the first point 
4 Likes
yeah i agree the setup was totally playable
but its also probably not what the players are used to and/or expecting in terms of balance
10v3 mountainous, wolves must get 4 townies out of 10 eliminated to win (40%)
11v4 with a town vengeful / bulletproof, wolves must get 4-5 townies out of 11 eliminated to win (~40%)
12v3 joat^2, wolves must get 5 townies out of 10 (joat is approx equal to ic in utility) eliminated to win (50%)
is this a perfect metric? obviously not
you can argue all day about what the ideal number should be, and none of the three are outlandishly high or low
i just think that 40% number is outside the bounds of what people usually expect when they sign up for a closed game on this site
you can also look at these number of required mlâs in reference to the sizes of the wolfteams, for the purposes of evaluating items like thread control and quickhammer blitzingâs factors in snowball wins
10v3 mountainous: 4 required MLs (133%)
11v4 dicey dungeons: 4-5 required MLs (113%)
12v3 joat^2, 5 required MLs (167%)
again, these statistics donât suggest anything overwhelming about the setupâs balance: just that it consistently scores somewhat wolfsided against other setups people consider traditionally balanced.
This depends on what happens and how many wolves died
Minimum was 2, max is like 6
Wolves needed 4-5 villagers to be killed by the town (executions or the vengeful) in order to win the game
the max is technically 7 if wolves attack the bulletproof every night from night 1 through night 5 but im assuming that they⌠dont?
Anyways, MLs refers specifically to villagers: the variability comes from 1. whether vengeful endgames and 2. whether wolves ever hit bulletproof. Besides those two factors, wolf kp is matched perfectly in number to village kp so the number of MLs that wolves need to win is fixed, regardless of how many wolves die.
in this case, starting 11v4, 3 MLs gets you to a 5v4 LyLo (assuming ofc that doublevoter is disabled in xylo like osie did)
both a vengeful and buletproof proc turns one of those wolf kills into a village-controlled kill, giving you potentially a 5v4 LyLo with 4 MLs
In either case, wolves still need a single ML to clinch the game, and thatâs how I get 4-5 MLs
eevee had to disable it but whatever
3 is possible for evils to win game d3, with no Bulletproof or vengeful being used
Letâs remove the randomness (something which mostly townsides in this setup, but w/e) and strengthen all of the roles, bringing the game back to full swing of a normal mafia game.
1x Town Doctor
1x Town 1S-Vigilante
1x Town Messenger
1x Town Fruit Vendor
7x Town Vanilla
vs
1x Mafia Type Guesser â Neighbouriser
1x Mafia 1S-2T-Gladiator
1x Mafia Twilight-Extra-Vote
1x Mafia Vanilla
That setup is roughly balanced, tbh. It might not be everyoneâs favourite style, but the worst offenders are kept from being overly swingy. Adding the randomness back in is a pretty big nerf on both sides, but if anything it hurts Mafia SO MUCH more than Town. Think back to âGeydeâs core rules of mafia designâ:
Tangent
Again, not a comment anyone brought up about this setup, but the synergy on the mafia roles is, well, odd. Gladiator assists Doublevoter in having weight. The Coppy-Cat assists Gladiator and Doublevoter in choosing targets. While those can be significant, in this setup that was the core of Mafia synergy. Fundamentally, the only mafia role which could arguably be considered to be very strong is the doublevoter. The town not having such synergy is a relevant distinction, but that actually encourages behavioural analysis, which is good design. Thereâs an argument that there is less agency on the town roles than ideal, but thatâs not âthese roles are weakâ so much as âthese roles are restricted.â
Players tend to undervalue the difference that claims make in a game. Iâve done it, you seem to be doing it, and itâll continue to happen.
Itâs really actually relatively difficult to make a setup that is less than half PRs within the 20-33% range of anti-scum that is fundamentally flat out broken. -EV for town? Sure. But the game is a pile of randomization, has very light mafia synergy and much lowered mafia control over the game, and has 2 low-floor, 2 medium-floor, 4 high-ceiling town roles versus 2 low-floor, 1 medium-floor, 1 medium-ceiling, 2 high-ceiling mafia roles in terms of potential effect on the game. And killing townâs PRs is generally not hugely impactful to mafia here.
Itâs telling that a bunch of people with a wide-angle view agreed on the game being better controlled by scum, particularly litten, than by town. I could tell that from first glance at the comments about the game before Iâd even read anything of the actual analysis and back-and-forth.
It speaks volumes to the fact that fundamentally, this game was decided on behaviour, and saying âThe setup is brokenâ might as well be saying âFuck Litten, their play is meaningless.â Itâs extremely short-sighted.
2 Likes
And? Thatâs within bounds of what the designer was looking to make. One thing that Iâve regularly asked designers is how early theyâre comfortable with the game ending. I have yet to see a game designer who felt uncomfortable with the game ending during R3 for any game of a size less than 18 players.
this is an absurd strawman, I and basically everyone saying the setup is unbalanced are saying that the wolves (litten included) played well.
NOBODY is saying âFuck Littenâ. gtfo with putting these words in peoples mouths cuz u cant take criticism
1 Like