Vigilante tactics

[Stewie]

@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.

It doesn't really decrease your chances of being hit until the whole group is killed, and that might take a while. As for limiting your number of vigi kills, what I meant is that by killing each night, you are giving the town less lynches, and therefore there will be less nights. You are limiting the number of

informed

kills. If you were to wait until some information is produced and then start killing every night, you'd get the same number of kills, but they would be informed kills rather than random ones.

[Mgm]

If the vig holds off the kill for one night, he can make a more informed decision the next night - meaning the chances he hits town power roles decreases. Besides, if he kills every night and he happens to get bad results, he may well be mistaken for a serial killer.

[Dasquian]

@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."

(1) isn't about "costing the town time", it's about getting useable information. If you kill off the cop, then what? He didn't say anything, he didn't get to share his results, he didn't put any scum on the spot. If you kill a townie, then what? He never made any enemies or put his stake in anywhere, you killed him before he could post. If you kill a scum, then great, but so what? You have no clue as to who his buddies are. Killing a player who is an as-yet-neutral part of the game gives you nothing to go on. It's just a random

role

elimination, while mafia is a game about what people say.

(2) OK, I see your point that removing a role == "easier to lynch scum", but that's a little clinical, as well as risky. My other point (that others have also made before me) to depriving yourself of a role here is that you have a substantial risk of hitting a power-role in your blind shooting spree. Man, it's not looking good for the town if N0 you kill the cop. Also, it means your X+1th vig-kill tips you over to "one less lynch", and if you'd not killed N0 you could've killed N(X+1) with more information.

For (3), yes - it's currently a presupposition that vigs don't kill N0, but it's a very real one in today's metagame. If you are a vig and kill N0, then later stand up and try to convince me you're pro-town, why should I believe you? Even if you knocked off scum after scum, there's nothing to suggest you're not a SK. Granted, this may change in the future, but right now, not only do you have to be satisfied in yourself that vig-killing N0 is good town play, you also have to have this argument in every game you use it.

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).

To elaborate on what I said re:(2), take the example that you are on N0 of a "large" game with a good few days ahead of it. Let's say that 2 people die each night. Let's take it as granted that you vig-kill N1, N2, N3 and N4. Here's my question:

What's better? A random N0 vig-kill or an informed N5 vig-kill? If you killed N0 then by N5, that informed (and possibly crucial) vig-kill will cost the town another lynch, it being your 6th kill. If you didn't kill N0 then you can freely kill N5 without affecting the number of lynches left.

So, killing N0 won't immediately cost the town a lynch, but it will make every "milestone kill" which reduces the game's length happen a night earlier, which isn't in the town's favour as they become more informed as the game goes on.

[mith]

I love Vigilante discussions. For some reason there's always so much more sketchy pseudo-math involved in the arguments.

I'll address some of them later if I remember. But to clarify:

Pie, I am

not

saying that in general a vig kill is slightly better than a lynch. I am saying that in the specific case of random vig kill vs. random lynches with no power roles it is better.

[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.

[Dasquian]

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

time

. As the game goes on, the town gets more information. A D3 lynch, mafia kill, vig kill, whatever, is worth more to the town than a D1 lynch, a N1 mafia kill, etc.

If you start killing earlier than the mod expects, you're screwing with the balance to the detriment of the town. As I've said in point (1) - you learn very very little from a N0 vig-kill. It's just a gamble and because you've pulled the "schedule of the game" forwards a bit, you've hurt the town's ability to gather information.

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.

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.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Well, not really.

Let's say the metagame changes so it's equally acceptable to either A. vig every night or B. vig only sometimes, so there's no inherent stigma on that. I would STILL be more likely to suspect a person who does A of being a SK then a person who does B, just because a person who does NOT kill for multiple nights is much less likely to be a SK unless they're running a (usually bad, IMHO) gambit.

[destructor]

If you start killing earlier than the mod expects, you're screwing with the balance to the detriment of the town. As I've said in point (1) - you learn very very little from a N0 vig-kill. It's just a gamble and because you've pulled the "schedule of the game" forwards a bit, you've hurt the town's ability to gather information.

I'm tending to agree with this point. The only thing I can see against this is that this assumes the vig or other poweroles will still be around by this time to have a significant effect.

I don't like the idea of it even being possible to kill 'earlier than the mod expects'. If they don't want the vig to kill in N0, they could easily add that the the vig's role. If it's not specified, the mod, at the least, shouldn't

not

expect it.

[Dasquian]

That's very true. It's also worth remembering that Mafia has a wide range of random outcomes

anyway

. Mafia could knock out the cop N0, or get foiled by the doc and have one of their own number killed off. So to some extent even a poor N0 vig kill would probably get soaked up by the overall balance of the game.

[Kelly Chen]

I don't like the idea of it even being possible to kill 'earlier than the mod expects'. If they don't want the vig to kill in N0, they could easily add that the the vig's role. If it's not specified, the mod, at the least, shouldn't not expect it.

It's not the mod's job to babyproof the game...

edit: This isn't about the mod not wanting a N0 vig, it's about the mod trusting the town not to do stuff considered dumb. Because if it's not good play you shouldn't want to do it anyway.

[destructor]

But I think a good case for N0 vig kills has been made. I don't think it's necessarily bad play. If a mod thinks it will unbalance the game, they should make sure it can't happen.

[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.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

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.

Only slightly under 1/2(most games end up with just one killing group) and the expected return of an informed lynch is a hell of a lot higher than the expected return of a random vig kill.

[Dasquian]

Again, it's all about expected returns.

OK, I get that. But I think even if it starts off around evens in a mountainous game, it sharply trails off in the mafia's favour when the town has a bunch of power-roles you might just as easily hit. And, again, the town loses the intangible "extra info" of a player being eliminated with some (any!) level of analytical thought. Even a random townie lynch has something you can take from it, because some amount of discussion led up to that lynch.

[Sarcastro]

I didn't bother to read this whole thread, but Pie is right and everybody else is wrong. The vig must kill every night. If he does not, he is a horrible person. Generally one of three things will happen:

1. You killed scum. Go, vig, go.
2. You kill a townie. Oh well, not really a loss.
3. You kill a power role. Builds character.

And that's not even taking into account the fact that N0 viggings can be used to eliminate players you don't like.

[Adel]

I love Vigilante discussions. For some reason there's always so much more sketchy pseudo-math involved in the arguments.

I'll address some of them later if I remember. But to clarify:

Pie, I am

not

saying that in general a vig kill is slightly better than a lynch. I am saying that in the specific case of random vig kill vs. random lynches with no power roles it is better.

I am still waiting with

real

anticipation and interest. I hope you find time to write out your analysis.

My read on vigs is- killing more is better, usually. Vigging at random with the game's start is gambling , so it mostly serves to make the game more "swingy" (a term I've grown to love) and each vig has to decide whether she is a gambler or not.
For game balance I mostly consider a Vig to serve as a randomness amplifier.

I suspect that a crunchy mathematically sound analysis that for a "typical" mini normal (day-start. 3 scum, 1 cop, 1 vig) the odds are

slightly

better for the vig if she kills each and every night. Do you my hunch is correct? Do you know how to approach the problem mathematically? I do not, but I would love to try to understand the correct proof.

Obviously I love pseudo-math, but I also really appreciate the accurate flavours of mathematics.

[Adel]

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.

Only slightly under 1/2(most games end up with just one killing group) and the expected return of an informed lynch is a hell of a lot higher than the expected return of a random vig kill.

Kindly provide a proof, please. I suspect your claim, sir.

(a sincere request, hidden in a dry joking tone)

[Tamuz]

Ok two things:

1. A vig kill will give you information
and
2. A vig kill will use the power before the vig can be killed. I think it would be equally a shame for the vig to die without using its power as it would for a cop to die without using its power.

[Adel]

I think it would be equally a shame for the vig to die without using its power as it would for a cop to die without using its power.

What is the opposite of "QFT"?

Regardless, I do not agree with Tamuz.

Put almost any player into a game with both vig and cop abilities and the number of times he uuses his cop power will almost always be greater than or equal to the number of times he will choose to use his vg ability. If he could choose one of the two powers at the beginning of the game, cop should be the correct choice.

[Tarhalindur]

My personal opinion is the the Vig's N0 kill should be used to eliminate the Village Idiot (or the player most likely to be the same).

If you kill the Most Likely to be Village Idiot (MLtbVI) and he's scum, that's 1 scum down. Oh joyous day,

If you kill the MLtbVI and he's pro-town, no great loss, you've removed a player who's likely to indirectly help the scum despite his alignment.

[Oman]

...You're a terrible person.

[Adel]

... but I know that he will do the right thing when he is a vig. Which makes him a good guy.

[destructor]

Yeah, that's kinda mean, but there is truth to it.

I also think their's weight in the point about a N0 kill providing 'some' info. Informed kills are always going to be better, and it's been pointed out that kills are more informed as the game goes on, but (given an appropriate set up) I still think the chance of hitting scum on N0 is worth killing for, so I guess I'm a gambler. lol

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Kindly provide a proof, please. I suspect your claim, sir. (a sincere request, hidden in a dry joking tone)

I can not, for my claim relies on the intricacies of the real world, rather than a simulation stripped of the most crucial element of the game: information. Fact is that the town needs information to win: random kills don't win games.

As far as killing lesser players N0, well, why stop there? Let's just lynch them every game, lynch every player who's not great as town, every newbie who doesn't rise up to the challenge straight away. I mean, sure, it completely ruins the game for a lot of people, but it helps win games.

Also, the N0 kill provides very little info. It gives you a negligible amount of info about the setup(oh hey, this game has townies!) but that's all it does. There are no interactions to analyze in the light of the target's alignment.

[Adel]

yeah, beginners dieing quickly in a game they just started playing would be a tragedy. That should not be allowed to happen.