Vigilante tactics

[Pie_is_good]

I believe I've written a rant about this before.

Yes, with the exception of an endgame where specific tactics call for the vig to hold off, the vig should kill EVERY night - even when it's completely random. The most basic way to get this conclusion:

It is rational to assume the game is balanced. Therefore, the random elimination of a player will have an expected return of 0 for both scum and town. When a vig makes a Night 0 kill, he is simulating the random elimination of a player,

plus a Given that one protown power role (the vig himself) will not be the target of the kill.

The expected return is therefore positive for the town when the vig makes a completely random kill.

QED

[Pie_is_good]

Sarnath'd destructor

This poor, poor thread had to go a full 2 hours without guidance from Pie.

Poor thread.

[Pie_is_good]

But most Mods, including me, would balance the game on the assumption that the Vig won't make random kills on Night 1 or any night.

If you're making this assumption, you'd be unbalancing games in favor of the town. But assuming you're not...

So making a random kill unbalances the game.

Right, but we're dealing with expected return here. The point I'm making is, when the vig hits town, it hurts the town fairly nominally, and when vig hits scum, it helps the town a ton.

Expected return

is in town's favor.

Maybe a better way to phrase my claim would be, "When the Vig makes a decision to randomkill, the odds of the town winning the game go up."

You are better off waiting a Night. The chance of hitting a power role is large enough that it offsets the chance of hitting scum.

If this is the case, by definition, the game is unbalanced in favor of the town.

Even in a setup with no power roles, I wouldn't vig Night 0. Why? Because it's rather mean. We're all here to play the game, and I don't like killing people before they even get to post.

This I can buy, and this would be the main reason to consider not vigging on night zero. But it's more fun to argue the logic nazi role, so I'll just keep arguing numbers

[Pie_is_good]

Whoa, I just sarnath'd like 7 people.

That's another reason why Pie's argument is flawed.

I'm not getting the connection here. How does this contradict my logic?

even if this were true, it can't be true (huh?). You assume a balanced set-up and assume that your action can tilt the balance to your favour. In that case, it is by definition not a balanced set-up.

Okay, assume the setup is otherwise balanced in favor of scum to offset the strength of a Night 0 Vig.

I'm arguing here that a Night 0 Vig improves the town's odds.

The vig might be marginally more likely to hit scum than a random kill, but that in no way makes up for the possibility of the town having to forgo an

informed

lynch near the end of the game as a result of having an even number of people.

Legitimate, except that you're forgetting that in a minigame, 2-3 vig kills = 1 lynch. Plus, if scum are offed early by the vig, the vig's shots have actually saved lynches. In an normal game, it's more like 3-5 vig kills = 1 lynch.

Pretty sure that's worth it.

[Pie_is_good]

I think you're looking too much at the value of roles, and not taking into account the value of players.

Okay, so instead of random.orging your vig kill, you shoot whoever you judge to be the worst scumhunter. Problem solved.

Also, I agree with your "No Fun" argument.

Edit: Actually, question for Zindaras: Would you have a problem with N0 vigging a chronic lurker?

[Pie_is_good]

I think it's a bad decision to Vig Night 0 because of that: the town can do a lot better than a random kill.

I would agree with this, but is it better than 3, maybe more, better-than-random kills?

[Pie_is_good]

Zindaras--

You equated one random vigkill with one lynch. Truth is, the odds of one vigkill equalling one lynch will almost always be less than 1/3. Therefore, your argument that "the town can do a lot better than a random kill" does not hold unless the town can do better than

three

(or more) of the vig's random kills.

Oman--

Your analysis doesn't take into account the possibility of multiple antitown killers, or an even number of vig kills.

Vig kills will indeed hurt town the majority of the time, but they help the town significantly more in the minority that they hit scum.

[Pie_is_good]

The 1/3 thing refers to the following idea:

Take a game where 2 people are dying each night (not an unreasonable assumption). In this game, every 3 vig kills deprives the town of exactly one lynch (In any game where X people die each night, X+1 vig kills deprives the town of exactly one lynch).

It's therefore unreasonable to say "...but even though your vig kill is in favor of the town, it deprives the town of a lynch." In fact,

assuming 2 kills a night (the most common, imho), there's only a 1/3 chance that the N0 kill will wind up depriving the town of a lynch.

What about NON-random vigging? Eliminating a player who always looks scummy, plays badly and just generally inserts noise into the signal-hunt that is a game of mafia. That'd probably be my choice if there were a player on the list I felt unequivocal about.

Yeah, I agree with this. A metagame-vig would be better than a random vig.

Mith pretty much nailed down the crux of my argument - vig kills are a little better than lynches, and they cost scum and town an equal amount of game time (even if game time is more valuable to town). It certainly depends on unknowns, but those unkowns will usually line up in your favor (especially in a bigger game, but I'd argue in a mini, too).

@MSH - Trying to predict the setup ahead of time is a little too specific to play as a generic, catch-all argument.

@Dasquain - Your point 2 is glaringly wrong - the elimination of a role is exactly what's good about this whole schtick. I've explained why. Your point 3 is also invalid, because it presupposes that it's bad to kill N0. Point 1 is effectively the "costs the town time" argument, which I'd still respond to with "only rarely."

@Stewie - Not neccesarily; if you hit scum, it greatly lowers your odds of getting hit (when the scumgroup is eliminated). It shoudl balance out to 0. Also, I would plan on killing

every

night as a vig, meaning the concept of "3 later kills" doesn't really apply (you'll be taking those as well). Unless you mean a limited-number-of-kills vig, in which case I totally agree with you.

@muse - Yes, there are scenarios when it's bad, but I'm arguing in generalities here. Your "It's mean" point I agree with.

[Pie_is_good]

Right then, mith, I phrased my post a little ambiguously. We were saying the same thing.

Dasquain, I really don't think you understand my "removing roles" argument at all. It's not about making it "easier to lynch scum at all."

The random death helps the town, because normally, a truly random death is neutral to the town, and a N0 vig kill is a random death with the added benefit of "this won't hit one of the town's power roles (the vig himself)."

Yes, a power role

might

be hit. But if the game is balanced, the benefits of hitting scum outweigh the risks of hitting a power role.

Your point (1) falls into the same category - A role is as powerful as the contributions it makes plus the actual abilities the role has. And if

that

is balanced between scum and town (which you can rationally assume it is), the vig kill helps town.

Point (3) - I'm very aware that my opinions go against the metagame, but you seem to be arguing

playing the metagame for the sake of playing the metagame

. Which I would disagree with in a normal game, and even more so in a theory discussion.

[Pie_is_good]

You're missing a key point - a game which is balanced is also balanced against

time

.

Yes, but

the vigilante kill only screws with the element of time negligibly

. It's not like every vigilante kill deprives the town of a lynch; in fact, the odds under 1/2 that any given kill will.

If you start killing earlier than the mod expects, you're screwing with the balance to the detriment of the town.

You're certainly screwing with the balance, yes. What does the mod's expectations have to do with anything?

Apart from anything else, about 75% of the time you're just going to flop out with a N0 town kill, which is

not

neutral to the town.

Yes, but expected return is in your favor.

Your neutrality argument reminds me of the adage of the mathematician (or physicist, or somesuch), who put his head in the oven and feet in the refrigerator and declared himself, on average, to be comfortably warm.

Heh heh.

I think we're misunderstanding each other here - I'm not saying

a N0 vig kill will always wind up slightly in the town's favor

- in fact, that will pretty much never be the case. Again, it's all about expected returns.