What's wrong with percentage?

[BROseidon]

As for semi-random unreliability I do have a suggesting for a role I can think of off the top of my head. It would function much like a jailkeeper, but with more choice elements. So there is a 30% chance that this role can investigate the person of their choice, a 30% chance that they protect a player of their choice and a 40% chance that the ability fails. I think its is important to stay away from strictly 50% chance because of the psychological effect it has on people, but a three-way people might be able to deal with better. It is really all a matter of perspective on what is desired when it comes to these statistics, and whether mafia at its core should be a static game or a dynamic one with probability.

Okay, why.

What does this role add to the game. How does the rng make the role interesting other than "because it's rng"

Choice. It makes for a richer role that would otherwise not be utilized.

What are you choosing between?

[LicketyQuickety]

I mean I'd much prefer a role that either allows me to choose to Inspect/Protect each night

Or an odd-night Doc even-night Cop.

It allows for the interestingness of it without the bullshit of attempting to inspect scum both nights and instead protecting them due to mechanics entirely out of your control.

You err on the side of semantics while losing sight of the bigger picture. Nonetheless, in my example the player with the ability to choose 2 people as opposed to choosing 1. It is an example that literally took me 2 sec to come up with. Tell me what is the intrinsic reason for getting rid of chance? Why is odd/even night so readily accepted when percentage is not?

[LicketyQuickety]

As for semi-random unreliability I do have a suggesting for a role I can think of off the top of my head. It would function much like a jailkeeper, but with more choice elements. So there is a 30% chance that this role can investigate the person of their choice, a 30% chance that they protect a player of their choice and a 40% chance that the ability fails. I think its is important to stay away from strictly 50% chance because of the psychological effect it has on people, but a three-way people might be able to deal with better. It is really all a matter of perspective on what is desired when it comes to these statistics, and whether mafia at its core should be a static game or a dynamic one with probability.

Okay, why.

What does this role add to the game. How does the rng make the role interesting other than "because it's rng"

Choice. It makes for a richer role that would otherwise not be utilized.

What are you choosing between?

You are choosing Two people and the possibility to have a positive utility result for.

[AlwaysInnocent]

As for semi-random unreliability I do have a suggesting for a role I can think of off the top of my head. It would function much like a jailkeeper, but with more choice elements. So there is a 30% chance that this role can investigate the person of their choice, a 30% chance that they protect a player of their choice and a 40% chance that the ability fails. I think its is important to stay away from strictly 50% chance because of the psychological effect it has on people, but a three-way people might be able to deal with better.

That is already more interesting, but still random.

It is really all a matter of perspective on what is desired when it comes to these statistics, and whether mafia at its core should be a static game or a dynamic one with probability.

Yeah. Mafia is not a static game and it should not be either. However, this does not necessarily mean that randomness should be purposely added to the game to keep the game dynamic. The game Mafia is inherently chaotic and therefore dynamic, even without any wacky roles. So this is really not needed.

[AlwaysInnocent]

I mean I'd much prefer a role that either allows me to choose to Inspect/Protect each night

Or an odd-night Doc even-night Cop.

It allows for the interestingness of it without the bullshit of attempting to inspect scum both nights and instead protecting them due to mechanics entirely out of your control.

You err on the side of semantics while losing sight of the bigger picture. Nonetheless, in my example the player with the ability to choose 2 people as opposed to choosing 1. It is an example that literally took me 2 sec to come up with. Tell me what is the intrinsic reason for getting rid of chance?

Why is odd/even night so readily accepted when percentage is not?

I do not think that is a very good idea either. However, arguably it allows for more strategic play, since you can plan your actions and better predict the actions of other players.

[LicketyQuickety]

As for semi-random unreliability I do have a suggesting for a role I can think of off the top of my head. It would function much like a jailkeeper, but with more choice elements. So there is a 30% chance that this role can investigate the person of their choice, a 30% chance that they protect a player of their choice and a 40% chance that the ability fails. I think its is important to stay away from strictly 50% chance because of the psychological effect it has on people, but a three-way people might be able to deal with better.

That is already more interesting, but still random.

It is really all a matter of perspective on what is desired when it comes to these statistics, and whether mafia at its core should be a static game or a dynamic one with probability.

Yeah. Mafia is not a static game and it should not be either. However, this does not necessarily mean that randomness should be purposely added to the game to keep the game dynamic. The game Mafia is inherently chaotic and therefore dynamic, even without any wacky roles. So this is really not needed.

I think people are thinking about this too zoomed in. Take that larger picture that there will be statistics for these hypothetical new roles in their success fail rate in terms of hit/miss as well as their success in implementation will be measurable. I don't understand why people are shutting the door on this idea in totality. What people are saying is that players behavior should be the only dynamic aspect of the game. Why? What is the underlying principle that roles/mechanics have to be static? Is there a link that talks about why chance is to be eliminated when playing a game based on limited information? My problem with this is that chance is already built into the infrastructure of this game. Why are some things permissible and others not?

[LicketyQuickety]

I mean I'd much prefer a role that either allows me to choose to Inspect/Protect each night

Or an odd-night Doc even-night Cop.

It allows for the interestingness of it without the bullshit of attempting to inspect scum both nights and instead protecting them due to mechanics entirely out of your control.

You err on the side of semantics while losing sight of the bigger picture. Nonetheless, in my example the player with the ability to choose 2 people as opposed to choosing 1. It is an example that literally took me 2 sec to come up with. Tell me what is the intrinsic reason for getting rid of chance?

Why is odd/even night so readily accepted when percentage is not?

I do not think that is a very good idea either. However, arguably it allows for more strategic play, since you can plan your actions and better predict the actions of other players.

So the whole idea behind why chance is eliminated for predictability sake?

[AlwaysInnocent]

I think people are thinking about this too zoomed in. Take that larger picture that there will be statistics for these hypothetical new roles in their success fail rate in terms of hit/miss as well as their success in implementation will be measurable.

Sure, over a long period of time, the winning probabilities may even out. But I think it is natural to "zoom in" on single games rather than to "zoom out" on statistics. While statistics should not be ignored, they can be quite misleading. Especially over a long period of time, random fluctuations in game that end up highly favoring innocents 50% of the time and highly favoring scum 50% of the time may give the appearance of balance if you average it. However, from the perspective of single games (more natural for people), it can become quite frustrating / boring to let so much depend on chance.

I don't understand why people are shutting the door on this idea in totality.

Like I said, it also has a lot to do with my personal preferences. I do not want to give the impression that I am not listening, or dismissing everything you have to say right away. I think this is a very interesting discussion, although a difficult one, since "chance" has so many different forms and it not always obvious that they are different.

What people are saying is that players behavior should be the only dynamic aspect of the game. Why?

Because it allows for a chain of cause-and-effects, which allows players to reason about it.

What is the underlying principle that roles/mechanics have to be static?

Because they give rise to very complex game play without any randomness being involved.

Is there a link that talks about why chance is to be eliminated when playing a game based on limited information?

Limited information is not the same as chance.

My problem with this is that chance is already built into the infrastructure of this game. Why are some things permissible and others not?

You mean the role distribution itself? Assuming that players are equal (never mind that it is unrealistic), then the outcome of the game should not be affected by the role distribution, even though this is random. This is different from a role that allows me to eliminate a player with 50% chance. This definitely affects the outcome of the game, but probabilistically.

[Davsto]

Tell me what is the intrinsic reason for getting rid of chance? Why is odd/even night so readily accepted when percentage is not?

Even night means if you are a Cop, you consistently get a "result, no result, result, no result" pattern. This allows for balancing with a Cop getting less results.
Random could (if you're lucky) mean a "result, no result, result, no result" pattern, or you could get four results making the role super powerful, or you could get no results making the role super weak. It's swingy and can change the outcome of the game. Not because a Cop chose bad targets, but because a virtual dice rolled zero four times in a row.

[AlwaysInnocent]

So the whole idea behind why chance is eliminated for predictability sake?

In a way, yes. Mafia is unpredictable enough as it is. What is Mafia without the potential for analysis? Even when we try our hardest to make the game deterministic, it will always appear to be random (unpredictable). Analysis is difficult enough as it is without any special roles, due to phenomena such as reverse psychology, etc.

[AlwaysInnocent]

Tell me what is the intrinsic reason for getting rid of chance? Why is odd/even night so readily accepted when percentage is not?

Even night means if you are a Cop, you consistently get a "result, no result, result, no result" pattern. This allows for balancing with a Cop getting less results.
Random could (if you're lucky) mean a "result, no result, result, no result" pattern, or you could get four results making the role super powerful, or you could get no results making the role super weak. It's swingy and can change the outcome of the game. Not because a Cop chose bad targets, but because a virtual dice rolled zero four times in a row.

This is exactly what I meant when I said that statistics can be very misleading.

[LicketyQuickety]

Tell me what is the intrinsic reason for getting rid of chance? Why is odd/even night so readily accepted when percentage is not?

Even night means if you are a Cop, you consistently get a "result, no result, result, no result" pattern. This allows for balancing with a Cop getting less results.
Random could (if you're lucky) mean a "result, no result, result, no result" pattern, or you could get four results making the role super powerful, or you could get no results making the role super weak. It's swingy and can change the outcome of the game. Not because a Cop chose bad targets, but because a virtual dice rolled zero four times in a row.

You understand you are not saying a single new thing do you not?

[Davsto]

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.

[AlwaysInnocent]

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.

[zoraster]

If you feel strongly that percentage based roles makes games better, there's nothing stopping you from using it in a theme game. Particularly if you warn people ahead of time (or design a setup around using it), if it successfully shows that it's more entertaining, skillful, dynamic, or whatever metric you think it exceeds non-random roles, people will start to use it more.

[BROseidon]

As for semi-random unreliability I do have a suggesting for a role I can think of off the top of my head. It would function much like a jailkeeper, but with more choice elements. So there is a 30% chance that this role can investigate the person of their choice, a 30% chance that they protect a player of their choice and a 40% chance that the ability fails. I think its is important to stay away from strictly 50% chance because of the psychological effect it has on people, but a three-way people might be able to deal with better. It is really all a matter of perspective on what is desired when it comes to these statistics, and whether mafia at its core should be a static game or a dynamic one with probability.

Okay, why.

What does this role add to the game. How does the rng make the role interesting other than "because it's rng"

Choice. It makes for a richer role that would otherwise not be utilized.

What are you choosing between?

You are choosing Two people and the possibility to have a positive utility result for.

Okay, let me phrase this in a better way:

Does this choice actually mean anything relative to what a non-random version would.

[Davsto]

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".

[LicketyQuickety]

I think people are thinking about this too zoomed in. Take that larger picture that there will be statistics for these hypothetical new roles in their success fail rate in terms of hit/miss as well as their success in implementation will be measurable.

Sure, over a long period of time, the winning probabilities may even out. But I think it is natural to "zoom in" on single games rather than to "zoom out" on statistics. While statistics should not be ignored, they can be quite misleading. Especially over a long period of time, random fluctuations in game that end up highly favoring innocents 50% of the time and highly favoring scum 50% of the time may give the appearance of balance if you average it. However, from the perspective of single games (more natural for people), it can become quite frustrating / boring to let so much depend on chance.

And what about empirical rational?

I don't understand why people are shutting the door on this idea in totality.

Like I said, it also has a lot to do with my personal preferences. I do not want to give the impression that I am not listening, or dismissing everything you have to say right away. I think this is a very interesting discussion, although a difficult one, since "chance" has so many different forms and it not always obvious that they are different.

Ok, shoot. Why are they different?

What people are saying is that players behavior should be the only dynamic aspect of the game. Why?

Because it allows for a chain of cause-and-effects, which allows players to reason about it.

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

What is the underlying principle that roles/mechanics have to be static?

Because they give rise to very complex game play without any randomness being involved.

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

Is there a link that talks about why chance is to be eliminated when playing a game based on limited information?

Limited information is not the same as chance.

I didn't say it was.

My problem with this is that chance is already built into the infrastructure of this game. Why are some things permissible and others not?

You mean the role distribution itself? Assuming that players are equal (never mind that it is unrealistic), then the outcome of the game should not be affected by the role distribution, even though this is random. This is different from a role that allows me to eliminate a player with 50% chance. This definitely affects the outcome of the game, but probabilistically.

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?

[LicketyQuickety]

You are choosing Two people and the possibility to have a positive utility result for.

Okay, let me phrase this in a better way:

Does this choice actually mean anything relative to what a non-random version would.

What is your definition of non-random?

[LicketyQuickety]

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".

[LicketyQuickety]

If you feel strongly that percentage based roles makes games better, there's nothing stopping you from using it in a theme game. Particularly if you warn people ahead of time (or design a setup around using it), if it successfully shows that it's more entertaining, skillful, dynamic, or whatever metric you think it exceeds non-random roles, people will start to use it more.

Thank you for not completely crapping on me.

I'm actually going to bring a previous game I had as a setup when I was first starting to tinker with setups out of the woodwork because of this discussion topic.

[Davsto]

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.

[Ythan]

Mostly unavoidable.

[LicketyQuickety]

Mostly unavoidable.

I would touch on this, but I don't want to end up looking any more crazy than I already look.

I think I've said all I have to say about this for now.

[BROseidon]

You are choosing Two people and the possibility to have a positive utility result for.

Okay, let me phrase this in a better way:

Does this choice actually mean anything relative to what a non-random version would.

What is your definition of non-random?

Actions controllable by one or more players, and only controlled by said players.