I 100% agree. But people have demonstrated that they don’t want to cooperate even when probed multiple times. So, I’m done trying to argue for the benefit of everyone and my own detriment.
I just got lucky because chesskid and nanook told me they are masons
But I was dkdked?
It’s kind of like that scenario used in the jackbox murder trivia game.
There’s a bag of money.
If everyone takes the money, everyone dies.
If no one takes the money, no one dies.
If some people take the money, everyone who didn’t die.
But there is a fourth option, the people who take the money fuck themselves over.
You always take the money
That’s how the game plays out, yes because people prefer losing together rather than risk losing to someone else.
2 Likes
We will see about that prediction.
hey look, I only misvoted once!
I literally knived both Mafia D1 with 2 votes, I deserve top spot *w*
Jake had perfect reads D1 and winning read D2, he also has a way lower post count and lower votes on him than mine. I don’t know low post count equals to lower effort but I feel like he has beaten me at this.
1 Like
It was a close decision about whether we wanted to favor particular types of winning strategy but atm I think equality makes more sense unless I want to prescribe that a certain type of winning strategy is better (there’s an argument or this) but I wanted to retain some of the “playstyle” approach flexibility.
I think the formula should be:
- Is your PoE a winning strategy?
- How many town will die as a result of your atrategy?
Because it’s easy to say that eveyone except you contains all the mafia.
This would also reward people with smaller, correct PoEs as opposed to those who vote as many people as they can to maximize their odds of finding mafia.
The core debate is whether we want to make a value judgement that in normal mafia someone who finds n mafia is more effective than someone who finds m town when both suffice to win. The votes are capped at where they are because they represent the elimination before you would lose the game under a regular voting scheme. And there is inherent risk already to voting the maximum - the probability of having a losing strategy is sufficiently high that it’s generally not worth it from a risk/reward pov.
But yeah, the analogy here is say in chess, if there are two winning lines, should we reward the person who found the mate in 3 compared to the mate in 6 or is it just style points.
I understand the desire for granularity but we have to find the balance between that and dictating what is the better path to victory.
In particular if went for the suggested schemes there would be a lot more corner cases where the entire town would have a winning strategy in a regular game but would actually lose here since they’re motivated to artificially narrow the scope.
Under the current scheme it’s already rewarded in a small way in that if you submit 2 consistently vs. submitting 4 and you commit errors at the same rate the 2 person will come out ahead fairly quickly.
If after a few games the distinctions aren’t coming out as I would expect I’ll revisit.