Mafiascum.net

For playing against win condtion.
Except in extreme cases, so voting for yes doesn't mean it's automatic. It would still be up to the mod of course.

Some players say no: a player should never be killed for using their role.
So, what if a vig shoot an innocent child?

Vig is already the most anti-town town role (I consider it strictly worse than PGO). Some players say that vig should never shoot at all (I tend to agree in most cases).

That is completely ridiculous.

Modkilled? No

Viewed as anti-town? Yes.

Vigs are one of those roles that will basically lose or win a game for town every time. I just see it being lose the game far more than win the game, and given how inaccurate vigs are (using an RNG is more accurate than vigs on the site) the case for them not shooting is actually there.

Worst is a player who thinks shooting as a one shot vig in a setup that has an odd amount of players is a remotely good thing, THAT is almost playing against your win condition to shoot. I would think if you had three opens

Setup A: 1x One shot Vig, 8xVT, 2x Goon
Setup B: 9x VT, 2x Goon
Setup C: 1x Named Townie, 8x VT, 2x Goon

Setup C would have the highest town win rate. A and B would be neglegably close in win rates.

Put vig in game, modkill vig for shooting.

Its never the player's fault.

Of course not.

It's a stupid move? Yes. Is it most likely anti-Town? Yes. Are the odds of hitting scum pretty damn low? Yes. (I was a suicide vig on MMMM:HR, and I would have won if I had vigged scum. Didn't shoot N1 because the odds were terrible. Then scum shot me. /sob story)

Is it a modkillable offense? No. The player may be really convinced he's hitting scum, or someone who claimed vig, or someone who is a huge distraction and is hindering the game at large.

And Of all the ridiculous hypothesis... What if the Town lynches the Innocent Child, what then?
The point is, you're proposing something that no sensible player would ever do. Shooting/Lynching a known Innocent Child playing against win condition, but .

(Yes, yes, caveat for stupidity and trolling. Why are you letting those into your game?)

Unless it's a one shot vig that is told they have to use it on a certain night, there is nothing wrong with using it night one, having the vig shoot night 1 may actually be a balancing option

When the OP says "N1" does he really mean "N0"?

As in, a night start game?

what no that's dumb

even if the vig shot on night 0 in a night start game that's bad play but it still has a chance to hit mafia so it's not intentionally trying to lose though it is dickish

also if you don't shoot as a vig you are a wimp who can't trust your own reads and if you can't bring yourself to believe in your own reads then lmao what are you doing

In post 9, petapan wrote:also if you don't shoot as a vig you are a wimp who can't trust your own reads and if you can't bring yourself to believe in your own reads then lmao what are you doing

Because vigs are anti-town... if it brings and leaves the game at odd players then its an okay shot. In any other situation you are probably costing the town a lynch unless you will 100% get two shots off, and even then you are removing a lynch for two vigs which strips town of quite a bit of information.

I think last time it was looked at vigs and no EV for town in balanced 13P setups, so they are not pro-town in any way. It basically is going to increase the chance of scum crushing win by a lot, and town crushing win by a little. A shot with no claim, no further interactions and no discussion is not going to be too accurate, and stats back that one up big time. The only way you can argue that a vig is good is that it decreases the lynch pool, but even then half the time the lynch pool shifts so continuously during the game that its even hard to really say thats a good thing.

Best thing a vig can do is get the game to odd numbers, anything else has huge chances of damaging town for low reward. Even if you want to say scum make up 2/3 of the game at that point, chances are twice as good you hurt town than help town... so how is that a smart move to ever make?

I guess look at my three setups:

With a vig, if they hit town they get confirmed but are at an even number of players, so if the shot was early chances are endgame looks something like 3:1 with no clears (best case 3:1 with a clear). If they hit scum, same boat.

With just claiming vig though, especially if they keep quiet about it long enough to make it late, 2:1 has a confirmed town in it. So town chances to win increase in the endgame by 17% because the vig didnt shoot.

So if the vig doesnt shoot, +17% for town in endgame. They also go up from five lynches to six.

Its an extreme case, but you are sacraficing 17% endgame odds and one lynch by shooting in that setup.

In post 0, DoomYoshi wrote:For playing against win condtion.
Except in extreme cases, so voting for yes doesn't mean it's automatic. It would still be up to the mod of course.

Some players say no: a player should never be killed for using their role.
So, what if a vig shoot an innocent child?

Vig is already the most anti-town town role (I consider it strictly worse than PGO). Some players say that vig should never shoot at all (I tend to agree in most cases).

No. The vig is using their role in a stupid way, but unless it's actually clear that they are trying to sabotage the town, they shouldn't be modkilled.

That said, assuming by N1 you mean N0, one option is just for the mod to not allow the vig to shoot until after D1

In post 10, LlamaFluff wrote:Because vigs are anti-town... if it brings and leaves the game at odd players then its an okay shot. In any other situation you are probably costing the town a lynch unless you will 100% get two shots off, and even then you are removing a lynch for two vigs which strips town of quite a bit of information.

I think last time it was looked at vigs and no EV for town in balanced 13P setups, so they are not pro-town in any way. It basically is going to increase the chance of scum crushing win by a lot, and town crushing win by a little. A shot with no claim, no further interactions and no discussion is not going to be too accurate, and stats back that one up big time. The only way you can argue that a vig is good is that it decreases the lynch pool, but even then half the time the lynch pool shifts so continuously during the game that its even hard to really say thats a good thing.

Best thing a vig can do is get the game to odd numbers, anything else has huge chances of damaging town for low reward. Even if you want to say scum make up 2/3 of the game at that point, chances are twice as good you hurt town than help town... so how is that a smart move to ever make?

Vigs aren't inherently anti-town, but they can be anti-town if used poorly. In general, I think full Vigilantes should always shoot N1 if the game starts in evens, and the majority of the time in 13P+ games. There's enough chance you'll get a second shot off, or that other killings roles/protection roles succeed to render the evens/odds dynamic less important. Once the game is smaller, evens/odds becomes more important, but I think trading two vig shots for one lynch is a positive move most of the time. Towns really aren't that accurate with lynches, so I'd rather five shots at scum than four even if they're slightly less informed.

Odd/Even Night and 1-Shot Vigs should almost always adhere to the evens/odd rule though, unless the game is large, because their chances of getting two shots off are either 0% or slim.

I think overall your vig-strategy is a little bit too conservative.

With the Vig stats in 13P normals, a fair proportion of vigs in these games have been 1-Shot or Odd/Even Night, so it's likely a decent chunk of vig shots were used in an anti-town way. The fact that 13P Vig/No Vig setups had the same winrate probably means that full Vigs/2-Shot Vigs have a decent amount of upside to them if they can offset the games where players use the other Vigs poorly.

Well I'm glad no-one was stupid enough to vote Yes.

I have something I want to say on this end but that will have to wait a little bit. Will come back then.

Of course, also you should modkill every town player involved in a mislynch

In post 5, Tierce wrote:The point is, you're proposing something that no sensible player would ever do.

Exactly. No sensible player would ever shoot N1 OR shoot an innocent child, so they are equal.

Your definition of sensible does not necessarily follow the definition of playing to a wincon, which can vary widely among players. If you are worried about a particular aspect of design, you need to address it before the game is implemented, not during or after.

In post 16, DoomYoshi wrote:

In post 5, Tierce wrote:The point is, you're proposing something that no sensible player would ever do.

Exactly. No sensible player would ever shoot N1 OR shoot an innocent child, so they are equal.

Do you mean a night before any days, or do you mean a night after day 1? Because if the latter, it's definitely sensible to shoot. If the former, it could still be sensible if there is a well-known anti-town player in the game.

In post 16, DoomYoshi wrote:Exactly. No sensible player would ever shoot N1 OR shoot an innocent child, so they are equal.

Odds of hitting scum when shooting an IC: 0%
Odds of hitting scum when shooting randomly N1: _______

yeah no

Even shooting an IC isn't necessarily anti-town, if the IC is somebody who is widely regarded as being useless and awful.

I would shoot this thread N1.

Well they would have to be incredibly awful and useless to make shooting Mod confirmed (and far and away more confirmed than a Cop Innocent) Town. Well beyond the normal "lynch this on policy" level of bad.

So, lie about having mod-confirmed information as town, be caught in the lie and refuse to admit you were pulling off a stupid gambit even when people gave you a chance to admit it without being lynched bad?

Also: The fact that this thread exists makes my head hurt. You are effectively making the argument that including a vig is a mod error, and are thusly encouraging the mod to make up for his or her error by killing the innocent player. There is no logical sense to this.