What's wrong with percentage?

[BROseidon]

That's because the point I am repeating should make it clear enough that randomness is often undesirable. If you include randomness in a game, I guarantee that 99% of the time, after the game has finished, be at least one player will be going "ugh, and we could have won if X had happened/didn't happen", with X being a random element.

I agree. Some people think this has to do with the obsession with winning. Not at all. If I lose, I just want to make sure I fucked up (or one of my teammates), rather than the imaginary dice.

This. Do I play for fun? Sure. You know what's not fun? Losing, not because you didn't play well enough, but because the Random Number Gods decided to say "fuck you".

Damn, you mean I got VT again! If I was cop I would totally have a better chance at "winning".

Role distribution is an entirely unavoidable element of randomness. This is a really bad argument, seriously.

Also individual win rates don't necessarily vary that much by PR.

[AlwaysInnocent]

...

Thanks for your extensive reply. Even though we disagree on some matters, I really enjoy these kind of discussions. I always learn a lot from them. So I hope we can keep this positive. Sometimes we tend to push our own preferences in a way that annoys other people. I know I can get really passionate about my convictions/beliefs, so I hope you do not get the idea that I am not listening because I am so busy "defending" my thoughts. I really do listen and I appreciate the way you explain yourself.

Here is my response to your remarks:

And what about empirical rational?

What do you mean by empirically rational?

Ok, shoot. Why are they different?

Depends on what forms we are talking about, but in my previous post I explained the difference between the randomness of role distribution and the randomness of individual roles. Assuming that players are equal, the former should not affect the outcome of the game, while the latter does (despite the assumption of equality!).

What about ineffective readability of roles? There should be a situation that calls for this would you not agree?

What do you mean by ineffective readability of roles? Could you be more specific?

There is still randomness involved. It just happens before the game starts.

Yes. And this is a

very important

distinction! See above.

1. Players are not equal and it is the only thing that matters in this game that should sway the outcome of the game.
2.) When was the last time you played an experimental game that you knew for certain 100% that the game was perfectly balanced?
3.) Role distribution, even excluding RNG is still random in that different people are going to play different roles differently
4.) The only thing that changes between an X-shot and XX%-Shot is volatility
5.) How so?

1.) Right. Players are not equal. But when comparing the randomness of roles, we can make the distinction obvious by assuming that players are equal. Because even if players are equal, then the 50% failure rate of a role has a probabilistic influence on the game, which can randomly favor one team over the other, despite them being equal.
2.) Truthfully, I have played Mafia for years (not on this site), and have only been getting back into it recently, and in a lot of cases I considered the game

unbalanced

. But most of the time, I could clearly say

why

the games were unbalanced.
3.) Yes, but that is inevitable.
4.) The increase in volatility is due to the randomness of XX%-shots. (I had to look up what X-shots were. )
5.) What do you want me to explain specifically?

[LicketyQuickety]

...

Thanks for your extensive reply. Even though we disagree on some matters, I really enjoy these kind of discussions. I always learn a lot from them. So I hope we can keep this positive. Sometimes we tend to push our own preferences in a way that annoys other people. I know I can get really passionate about my convictions/beliefs, so I hope you do not get the idea that I am not listening because I am so busy "defending" my thoughts. I really do listen and I appreciate the way you explain yourself.

Here is my response to your remarks:

And what about empirical rational?

What do you mean by empirically rational?

Ok, shoot. Why are they different?

Depends on what forms we are talking about, but in my previous post I explained the difference between the randomness of role distribution and the randomness of individual roles. Assuming that players are equal, the former should not affect the outcome of the game, while the latter does (despite the assumption of equality!).

What about ineffective readability of roles? There should be a situation that calls for this would you not agree?

What do you mean by ineffective readability of roles? Could you be more specific?

There is still randomness involved. It just happens before the game starts.

Yes. And this is a

very important

distinction! See above.

1. Players are not equal and it is the only thing that matters in this game that should sway the outcome of the game.
2.) When was the last time you played an experimental game that you knew for certain 100% that the game was perfectly balanced?
3.) Role distribution, even excluding RNG is still random in that different people are going to play different roles differently
4.) The only thing that changes between an X-shot and XX%-Shot is volatility
5.) How so?

1.) Right. Players are not equal. But when comparing the randomness of roles, we can make the distinction obvious by assuming that players are equal. Because even if players are equal, then the 50% failure rate of a role has a probabilistic influence on the game, which can randomly favor one team over the other, despite them being equal.
2.) Truthfully, I have played Mafia for years (not on this site), and have only been getting back into it recently, and in a lot of cases I considered the game

unbalanced

. But most of the time, I could clearly say

why

the games were unbalanced.
3.) Yes, but that is inevitable.
4.) The increase in volatility is due to the randomness of XX%-shots. (I had to look up what X-shots were. )
5.) What do you want me to explain specifically?

I am trying to hold myself back from making this discussion turning into a philosophical, analytical debate with hints of empiricism/non-empiricism and how it relates to Theory Reductionism. I might have something to add tomorrow when I can pull my head out of my ass and get some much needed sleep.

[AlwaysInnocent]

I am trying to hold myself back from making this discussion turning into a philosophical, analytical debate with hints of empiricism/non-empiricism and how it relates to Theory Reductionism. I might have something to add tomorrow when I can pull my head out of my ass and get some much needed sleep.

Oh, no. I would like that, actually. I am very interested to hear about your ideas. In a way, this is a very general discussion (i.e., broader than just Mafia), which could be considered philosophical, or at least part of general game theory.

I am currently trying to apply my (limited) understanding of game theory to design an ideal well-balanced Mafia game, so I know it is relevant.

[DiamondSentinel]

Let me just say something. A percentage role can cause a player to play an extremely poor game. If you have a percentage vigilante, for example, he is extremely unlikely to rely upon his role, and cause him to not trust himself. A percentage bulletproof or ascetic is less likely to cause this, but still will cause people to play overly cautiously. This will quickly cause people to dislike the game. People don't generally like games where they have to play super reserved.

[LicketyQuickety]

...

Thanks for your extensive reply. Even though we disagree on some matters, I really enjoy these kind of discussions. I always learn a lot from them. So I hope we can keep this positive. Sometimes we tend to push our own preferences in a way that annoys other people. I know I can get really passionate about my convictions/beliefs, so I hope you do not get the idea that I am not listening because I am so busy "defending" my thoughts. I really do listen and I appreciate the way you explain yourself.

The good news is that you're not an idiot.

And what about empirical rational?

What do you mean by empirically rational?

That is poor wording on my part. What I mean is looking at things on a grander scale as opposed to a zoomed in view where the only concern is the immediate present and therefore lack of delayed gratification.

Ok, shoot. Why are they different?

Depends on what forms we are talking about, but in my previous post I explained the difference between the randomness of role distribution and the randomness of individual roles. Assuming that players are equal, the former should not affect the outcome of the game, while the latter does (despite the assumption of equality!).

You would have to convince me that everyone plays the same roles the same way which would necessitate a "correct" way to play every role. While that looks appealing [to have a set strategy for any given role] such a thing is unattainable and I'd argue having roles that are dynamic rather than static can greatly increase a favorable means to an end of players actions to be done diversely as opposed to rehearsely.

What about ineffective readability of roles? There should be a situation that calls for this would you not agree?

What do you mean by ineffective readability of roles? Could you be more specific?

Yes, absolutely. I'm actually really glad you asked because I didn't get my point across well enough the first time and I think it has potential to make for one of my stronger points for chance based roles. Lets say as a mod's game is laughably breakable with a mass claim. What could be the solution to this? There are plenty of games where roles are so obscure because making a mass claim makes the game oodles easier with mass claim. I understand the need/want for unique roles and this stems from wanting unpredictability in the setup. So then what happens if you take a game with completely unorthodox roles and make them normal roles with an element of chance involved? Suddenly the would be breakable game is completely unbreakable because of the volatility of the chances of the known roles and it still has potential for the mod to have complete freedom to have a completely unique game. If your asking yourself how chance makes the game harder to break through mass claim it is this: X roles in the game have chance involved with a chance of success, failure or a different effect altogether. Since there is an element of chance and the player cannot predict 100% that their role will have the result they want other players also cannot predict what other players results are so easily. So when the hypothetical time for mass claim comes, players have to resort to their reading of the other player and not what the results of that player are. It would actually add a layer to reading other players. Plus, if done right, you could have complete balance in a game from a mathematical standpoint of probability and statistics. I'd also argue that it makes choosing which players to use your ability on much more straight forward instead of having to be tricky with how you use your abilities all the time.

There is still randomness involved. It just happens before the game starts.

Yes. And this is a

very important

distinction! See above.

I think the real and only difference is that one is premeditated and one is fluctuating.

1. Players are not equal and it is the only thing that matters in this game that should sway the outcome of the game.
2.) When was the last time you played an experimental game that you knew for certain 100% that the game was perfectly balanced?
3.) Role distribution, even excluding RNG is still random in that different people are going to play different roles differently
4.) The only thing that changes between an X-shot and XX%-Shot is volatility
5.) How so?

1.) Right. Players are not equal. But when comparing the randomness of roles, we can make the distinction obvious by assuming that players are equal. Because even if players are equal, then the 50% failure rate of a role has a probabilistic influence on the game, which can randomly favor one team over the other, despite them being equal.
2.) Truthfully, I have played Mafia for years (not on this site), and have only been getting back into it recently, and in a lot of cases I considered the game

unbalanced

. But most of the time, I could clearly say

why

the games were unbalanced.
3.) Yes, but that is inevitable.
4.) The increase in volatility is due to the randomness of XX%-shots. (I had to look up what X-shots were. )
5.) What do you want me to explain specifically?

1.) I stand by my statement
2.) And yet the cycle where games are laughably unbalanced perpetuates.
3.) Like I said previously, with chance in roles, it makes NA more strait forward.
4.) Obviously, but why exactly is volatility a bad thing? Think of it in terms of risk reward.
5.) I'd like you to explain the word 'probabalistically'.

[zMuffinMan]

randomising roles pregame is necessary randomness

equating them to random actions is just dumb

to use chess as an analogy, it's necessary to randomise who plays black/white and while playing white is an advantage, skill plays a much larger factor in who wins or loses. when you say the randomness of pregame role distribution is the same as random actions you're basically saying that the randomness of who plays what colour in chess is the same as having a random piece taken off the board after 5 moves

[LicketyQuickety]

If you think all I have done is equate player randomization with ability randomization, you are missing an awful lot of the discussion.

[zMuffinMan]

what else have you done

[LicketyQuickety]

what else have you done

You hold on to the idea of "random" too strongly. Think of it in terms probability. There is a chance one of several things can happen in some scenarios I have given. If you think I have no novel idea's I wont be looking at you as the cause of when changes are made within the system.

[zMuffinMan]

You hold on to the idea of "random" too strongly. Think of it in terms probability.

...

[LicketyQuickety]

You hold on to the idea of "random" too strongly. Think of it in terms probability.

...

Right, so random is where practically anything can happen and probability is where given enough times, you can predict the outcome.

[Davsto]

given enough times, you can predict the outcome.

And you don't see how this is bad considering the setup will likely only be played once?

[Davsto]

Also probability is the chance of a random thing happening

You cannot predict the outcome of a random thing happening because it is random, even by observing what happens over a long period of time

This has been a Gambler's Fallacy PSA

[LicketyQuickety]

given enough times, you can predict the outcome.

And you don't see how this is bad considering the setup will likely only be played once?

Does it really matter? The probability is what speaks for itself. The probability does not need to justify itself. It is justified through the chance that it has to occur.

Also probability is the chance of a random thing happening

You cannot predict the outcome of a random thing happening because it is random, even by observing what happens over a long period of time

This has been a Gambler's Fallacy PSA

Except when you are talking about a very limited number of possibilities occurring. Truly random is where the sky could turn pink for 4 strait weeks and then randomly the sky goes back to what it was. That is random. Having a finite set of possible outcomes is not random. And not only that but when there is a weight placed on the chance of a particular thing happening it no longer becomes random and enters into probability.

[zMuffinMan]

Does it really matter?

yes

[Davsto]

I'm done arguing with you. You've shown enough that you're not going to change your opinion, so bye.

[LicketyQuickety]

Does it really matter?

yes

I guess its a question of whether you care more for the immediate future or distant future.

[zMuffinMan]

there is no "distant future" because, in general, setups aren't played enough times for probabilities to average out but even if they were, it still wouldn't be a good thing for balance. you *would* eventually average out over enough iterations but so what? that just means that any game that goes below or above the expected outcome over time was unbalanced

ps: balance is probably a bad thing to talk about when talking about randomness anyway. one thing i've been thinking about is how to code a program that would calculate win rates based on any role you put into the game, but in the end, what's more important than balance is swing factor and games with randomness are bound to have a higher swing factor (as opposed to, say, low power distributed among many members of each faction giving a game low swing factor, with mountainous setups having the lowest swing)

imo high swing factor is worse than an unbalanced game when looking at an individual game - i'd rather be on the 40 side of a 40-60 game than on any side in a 50-50 game that can potentially end N1

[pirate mollie]

wait

are swing factor and unbalanced not synonymous?

[zMuffinMan]

you can have something that is theoretically balanced (ie 50% win rate between two factions) but have a really large amount of swing (if x and y happens, one faction most likely snowballs to a win)

eg a scum vs town game where a majority of players are 1-shot vig could be balanced in the sense that both sides have equal chances, but it would probably be very swingy

[LicketyQuickety]

there is no "distant future" because, in general, setups aren't played enough times for probabilities to average out but even if they were, it still wouldn't be a good thing for balance. you *would* eventually average out over enough iterations but so what? that just means that any game that goes below or above the expected outcome over time was unbalanced

ps: balance is probably a bad thing to talk about when talking about randomness anyway. one thing i've been thinking about is how to code a program that would calculate win rates based on any role you put into the game, but in the end, what's more important than balance is swing factor and games with randomness are bound to have a higher swing factor (as opposed to, say, low power distributed among many members of each faction giving a game low swing factor, with mountainous setups having the lowest swing)

imo high swing factor is worse than an unbalanced game when looking at an individual game - i'd rather be on the 40 side of a 40-60 game than on any side in a 50-50 game that can potentially end N1

You're still thinking small picture. Regardless of the individual games that are played, there will be a certain trend for a given percentage. And even then, the exact statistics for a role that is 20% track, 20% watch, 20% neapolitan and 40% miss doesn't matter. My whole push is that roles should be a fluid thing.

[zMuffinMan]

My whole push is that roles should be a fluid thing

yes i am aware that you are making assertions with no basis in reality

[LicketyQuickety]

My whole push is that roles should be a fluid thing

yes i am aware that you are making assertions with no basis in reality

Heh... reality is subjective.

[DiamondSentinel]

My whole push is that roles should be a fluid thing

yes i am aware that you are making assertions with no basis in reality

Heh... reality is subjective.

No

It's fucking not. If you can't make intelligible conversation, then just stop talking. Reality is not subjective, by very definition. This pisses me off that people think that "Nothing is real" is something deep that will make them seems smart. Anyone who has taken any epistemology or philosophy course knows that this is a ridiculous statement that does not hold up to any scrutiny.