Blitz Queue Trial (Closed)

[zoraster]

Right, that'd be interesting, but not really the point that's being made. The point is that we design setups (or should design setups) for the site as it exists, not as we think it should exist.

So if town is winning only 35% of games (or whatever) that's a sign that setups are SCUM sided. Sure, that may also mean that town are self-destructive and that's driving down win rates, but from a design perspective, our job isn't to expect town to suddenly start playing way better unless we have a compelling reason to think they'll do so.

[Soren]

The funny thing is, on a whole bunch of other sites, the size of these games is considered standard.

LUCIAAAAAAAAAN
We need to play mafia some time, where you been mam you dissappered for months ;-;

Got caught up in life, and got carried away by it too.
I need to take some time before diving headfirst into a game.
I'd be delighted to play a game with you once I find the time.

Sounds like life took you in for a ride.
Sweeet, message me when you're free to play a game

[Katsuki]

Right, that'd be interesting, but not really the point that's being made. The point is that we design setups (or should design setups) for the site as it exists, not as we think it should exist.

So if town is winning only 35% of games (or whatever) that's a sign that setups are SCUM sided. Sure, that may also mean that town are self-destructive and that's driving down win rates, but from a design perspective, our job isn't to expect town to suddenly start playing way better unless we have a compelling reason to think they'll do so.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that line of thinking. If you are catering setup designs to compensate for the poor play of a specific party then there is something wrong there. The mods job is to craft a balanced setup. If they want to control for player quality, they can do so during signups through vigorous screening, not in the setup.

[Ythan]

I don't think this site would benefit from widespread vigorous screening.

[zoraster]

Right, that'd be interesting, but not really the point that's being made. The point is that we design setups (or should design setups) for the site as it exists, not as we think it should exist.

So if town is winning only 35% of games (or whatever) that's a sign that setups are SCUM sided. Sure, that may also mean that town are self-destructive and that's driving down win rates, but from a design perspective, our job isn't to expect town to suddenly start playing way better unless we have a compelling reason to think they'll do so.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that line of thinking. If you are catering setup designs to compensate for the poor play of a specific party then there is something wrong there. The mods job is to craft a balanced setup. If they want to control for player quality, they can do so during signups through vigorous screening, not in the setup.

what is "poor play"? I mean you have opinions, but they're opinions. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe scum are just better now. It doesn't matter what you think is optimal play in the end, it matters what the play can reasonably be expected.

It's not like we have two even teams that got together and played each other and I penalized one of them. Everyone has the same chance of being town and scum (individually, obviously you're more likely to be town).

You said a mod's job is to create a balanced setup. Yes it is. Which is what you're doing if you design a setup in the context of mafiascum. And you HAVE to. Because obviously you can't cater toward perfect play or else (a) town would always win because they're always able to find scum or (b) scum would always win because they always are perfectly good at avoiding the lynch.

Rigorous screening?? We have a site to run. Players will get better or worse over time. "Balancing a setup" by a method of only picking strong town players is absurd.

[Ythan]

Kats I'm still not sure what you think is a better option than literal actual winrates. You don't seem to like EVs, and with good reason I think.

[Katsuki]

If quality were a common commodity, then you would not have "HIGH QUALITY" as a unique marketable value.

p-edit: Balancing a setup around a game full of VIs is just as absurd. Balancing for random play as oppose to balancing based on skewing for poor town play is what I'm arguing for as the role of the mod.

[Katsuki]

Kats I'm still not sure what you think is a better option than literal actual winrates. You don't seem to like EVs, and with good reason I think.

There are many factors that play into actual WRs. Wasn't the goal of your original statement to me to examine if there was any truth to my argument?

[zoraster]

If quality were a common commodity, then you would not have "HIGH QUALITY" as a unique marketable value.

p-edit: Balancing a setup around a game full of VIs is just as absurd. Balancing for random play as oppose to balancing based on skewing for poor town play is what I'm arguing for as the role of the mod.

I'm

NOT

balancing around a game full of VIs unless you truly believe the site is all VIs now. I'm at least in theory trying to balance a game around the average player I can reasonably expect. Which is far superior to balancing around some sort of nonexistent megastar game list that always plays to their full potential at town (and not as scum).

[Ythan]

No, it was to prompt you to notice that there isn't a better alternative.

[Katsuki]

Kats I'm still not sure what you think is a better option than literal actual winrates. You don't seem to like EVs, and with good reason I think.

There are many factors that play into actual WRs. Wasn't the goal of your original statement to me to examine if there was any truth to my argument?

To expand: factors can include

- Is the winrate being affected by setup balance?
- Is the winrate an outcome of play?

A simple experiment would be to see if there are discrepancies between expected winrates of setups, and actual winrates. If there isn't, then my statement about play is less likely to be correct in the context of affecting games over a larger sample size. If there is, then it'd be interesting to dive further into the factors of causation.

[Katsuki]

No, it was to prompt you to notice that there isn't a better alternative.

Oic.

There probably isn't, which is what I find unfortunate.

[Ythan]

If you're just saying that using a flat average win rate derived from games with all manner of setups is not helpful then you're right.

[Katsuki]

If quality were a common commodity, then you would not have "HIGH QUALITY" as a unique marketable value.

p-edit: Balancing a setup around a game full of VIs is just as absurd. Balancing for random play as oppose to balancing based on skewing for poor town play is what I'm arguing for as the role of the mod.

I'm

NOT

balancing around a game full of VIs unless you truly believe the site is all VIs now. I'm at least in theory trying to balance a game around the average player I can reasonably expect. Which is far superior to balancing around some sort of nonexistent megastar game list that always plays to their full potential at town (and not as scum).

Isn't balancing around "average competency" something that makes more sense than "average player you can reasonably expect"?

[zoraster]

But we're talking holistically here. The general goal is that 50% of all games, give or take a bit, will be won by town/scum (in two sided games). Now obviously you could achieve that by doing something absurd like mandating that 50% of games be given all sane cops and 50% of games be given 6 scum, but the basic idea is that with a 50% win rate, in any individual instance of a game, that play by both sides will determine the outcome.

In scenarios where the win rate overall is 30% town win rate, that means that town play has to be far above the norm for town to win.

[zoraster]

If quality were a common commodity, then you would not have "HIGH QUALITY" as a unique marketable value.

p-edit: Balancing a setup around a game full of VIs is just as absurd. Balancing for random play as oppose to balancing based on skewing for poor town play is what I'm arguing for as the role of the mod.

I'm

NOT

balancing around a game full of VIs unless you truly believe the site is all VIs now. I'm at least in theory trying to balance a game around the average player I can reasonably expect. Which is far superior to balancing around some sort of nonexistent megastar game list that always plays to their full potential at town (and not as scum).

Isn't balancing around "average competency" something that makes more sense than "average player you can reasonably expect"?

I do not understand the distinction.

[Katsuki]

Say average competency on a sliding scale of 1-100 is 50.

Say average player you can reasonably expect has a competency of 35.

Do you balance for the 50 or the 35?

[Klazam]

Uh, in that case, doesnt the average player's 35 become the new 50? Thats the nature of averages dontcha think?

[Ythan]

That's all seems like a lot of effort for no benefit I can see over plain WRs.

[zoraster]

Say average competency on a sliding scale of 1-100 is 50.

Say average player you can reasonably expect has a competency of 35.

Do you balance for the 50 or the 35?

35. Why pick an arbitrary number of 50 just because my scale goes 1-100?

It's like typical US grading, right? 90 is an A, 80 is a B, 70 is a C, 60 is a D, 59 and below is an F. To be "average" success you need (just bear with me, grade inflationheads) a C, which at its lowest is a 70. Just because the scale goes 1-100, it doesn't mean 50 is suddenly the barometer for average.

Anyway, a scale is just a way of looking at things relatively. You could turn that 35 into a 50 just by recalibrating your scale. Perhaps you squish some people at the far end of competency, but unless you think competency is really multimodal, you're talking about a minute number of players and you have little actual effect on design.

[PokerFace]

What about running open games?

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... fia_Setups
AITP, RITP, CITP (Each of these has been run before and or would be very appropriate for the blitz game forum)

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... ternatives
Any of the ones here (Mr. Flay collaborated and reviewed each of these with me)

Can I run these games here?

[Rob14]

A setup should be "balanced" for the average level of play across all players.

[PokerFace]

Subject: Blitz Queue Trial Announced (Nov. 1 to Dec 15+)

What about running open games?

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... fia_Setups
AITP, RITP, CITP (Each of these has been run before and or would be very appropriate for the blitz game forum)

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... ternatives
Any of the ones here (Mr. Flay collaborated and reviewed each of these with me)

Can I run these games here?

Probably, but I'd check with Equinox first. She'll make the calls on individual open setups.

[Faraday]

The mods job is to craft a balanced setup

I think, in general, you might just have a skewed view of what is balanced. Town's don't win enough games here, really. I mean, forum mafia is just hard for town -- and we tend to underestimate that, lots. What is balanced does kind of depend on how good the average player is, or how we think towns should do, I think.

[EspeciallyTheLies]

ok