Mini Normal 1983: Winter Wonderland [Endgame!]

[sheepsaysmeep]

pagetop

[Flubbernugget]

So, the Mafia Discussion forum here has a thread expressing a concern for the town win rates being in decline. I think there's a lot that the scum team was able to capitalize on that was in bad style on behalf of the town, and I'd like to talk about some of the things that happened in this game. I want to make sure nobody thinks I'm crossing the line between criticism and insult before doing so.

I don't want to mention players by name (though I do want to mention points that would identify players if someone else were to read this game), and I don't want to talk about post volume, or other issues that may be controversial/attributed to playstyle. I think that my being scum in this game has a testament in it that I am posting in good faith, and don't have any gripes with any players on a personal level.

Would anybody be offended or otherwise against me doing a bit of an autopsy this way?

[Firebringer]

I feel like I already know what ur going to post

[Flubbernugget]

I'm interested to see what you think that would be

[mozamis]

So, the Mafia Discussion forum here has a thread expressing a concern for the town win rates being in decline.

i've been playing for a while, and i'm fairly sure scum have always won more than town. It's hard to work out whos lying on the internet. No facial giveaways, no nervousness - or its harder to pick up on. Plus people are arguably just more...dickish on the internet, they use it as a way to let of steam, which is good for scum, they can let town tear each other apart.
Well played scum, dont think i got any of you lol

[mozamis]

sorry hopkirk

[mozamis]

once agin, its thing about "semi-lurkers".
"Moz, lurkers arent always scum!"
No - but how often are scum the BIG posters? Not often.

[mozamis]

funny how monkey is being quiet lol

[BuJaber]

I think people rely too much on meta and/or use meta incorrectly.
This game is an example of that.

For the record I was always against the day 1 lurker lynch in this game. There was so much content to analyse post lynch on other potential lynchees. Heck I was cop and even my lynch would have been better. (Though it would have been even more tilting than N1 vig kill - this was my first time getting cop ever as far as I can recall).

[Mulch]

1) Lurker lynches are fine and a way to victory

2) Meta is underused and undervalued on this site. People just suck at using it. And shoulden't use it unless they...actually know the person's meta

[sheepsaysmeep]

meh i misrepped ucv's meta

[Katyusha]

i still dont think a spammy D1 was responsible for this loss

[mozamis]

why was i nk'ed?

[BuJaber]

On mafia thread Flubber says because you were widely townread and difficult to get lynched.

[mozamis]

serg was scum! kinda...kinda...got one read right *CLUTCHES AT SMALL STRAW*

[mastina]

Holy townsided

>Calls the setup townsided.
>Scumteam had an absolute perfect win.
>

[sheepsaysmeep]

scum were good

[Not_Mafia]

I think it was pretty balanced
Aseticiser + Back-up + fewer nights due to Vigs mitigates a lot of the Cop and Watchers power

[mastina]

Like, yes. The town had the strongest roles you can give a town:
Two alternating vigs (which for the sake of balance, are considered loosely equivalent to a single full Vigilante), cop, and Watcher are in fact three of the five strongest town roles we have in Normals. (The other two being Doctor and Jailkeeper, natch.)

...But you

also

have to keep in mind the scum had an INCREDIBLY powerful role--the Mafia Asceticizer. What that role did is that it could be used defensively (force the cop to get a No Result) OR offensively (essentially make EVERY SINGLE NIGHTKILL A NINJA KILL via forcing the watcher to get No Result). The scumteam got a CHOICE in which way they could play their star power role, and this allowed them to choose whether to focus on protecting each other or eliminating threats to them. (They mostly chose the latter if I recall correctly.)

And FURTHERMORE.

Even

if

--be it through an early vig shot or through a cop result--their star role was taken out early, the mafia had a Universal Backup...which would inherit the dead mafiate's role. And if the backup died first, then it wouldn't tell you what role it was backing up. The asceticizer also opened the door for the scumteam to make no less than three potential claims. They could have a scumbuddy claim ascetic townie, or they could claim rolestopper and have anything but a vig shot back their claim up, or they could just truthfully claim their actual role because while it was a scum role with clear scum utility it is not a role which is INHERENTLY by its very nature required to be scum.

The town was strong...but so too was the mafia. They were ridiculously powerful.

The game was, undoubtedly, swingy. No two ways about it. ANY game with a vig will be. No ifs, ands, or buts. Vigs are one of the most swingy roles in existence, the most swingy role singleball has. Cops and watchers both are swingy roles as well, and so too was the scum role depending on how well or how poorly it was used. But the simple fact of the matter is, swingy setups can still be balanced, and this setup was about as balanced as it could get given the unpredictability of how many differing factors there were.

If the setup was anything, I'd have called it scumsided--the mafia Universal Backup almost didn't make it into the setup.
In no realm was this game even remotely townsided, and the results speak for that.

[mastina]

essentially make EVERY SINGLE NIGHTKILL A NINJA KILL

*Essentially make EVERY SINGLE NIGHTKILL A NINJA-STRONGMAN KILL, actually.

Not that this game featured any protective roles unless you count a Watcher as one, but

had

it, the asceticizer would have served as exactly this: it would make the nightkill GUARANTEED to succeed (strongman),

and

it would make the nightkill GUARANTEED to not trace back to scum (ninja).

If you had a role which was BOTH a ninja AND a strongman, you'd be likely to call that scumsided unless you had a shitload of town power to counter it.

Well, you had a role which was effectively exactly that, sooooooooooooooooooooooo......

[mastina]

(Also, I'd like to point out that while there are in fact instances where the scum get HARD fucked over by N1,

the actual results of this game demonstrate it's two-sided

. I don't even have to talk about a THEORETICAL "what if?" for the worst-case scenario. All I have to do is point to THE ACTUAL FLIPS YOU GOT as evidence for why it was swingy in both directions--sure, the scum could have gotten fucked over, but the TOWN got royally fucked by losing TWO OF THEIR STRONGEST TOWN ROLES, and the scum via going with the ninja-strongman interpretation of their role essentially nullified whatever utility Not_Mafia could have had, and with the odd-night vig outted D1, they were thus shot before they could get a second shot off...trapping the game in evens, which favor scum when you have no conftown. So this game WAS the worst-case scenario for the town. No 'what if' needed.)

[Mathdino]

Thoughts on people's actual play then mastina?

First time I've ever subbed into a LyLo.

[mastina]

(The tl;dr version: Just because there are ways scum can get royally fucked over by D2 does not mean a game is townsided if there is an equal and opposite chance of a way for the TOWN to get royally fucked over by D2 to occur. It just means the game is

swingy

. And while the NRG does try to keep swing down to reasonable levels, a game which features heavy swing which is still balanced won't get rejected thanks to the swing. The outcome of this game was HARD-swung to the exact extreme of the scum spectrum where

everything

which could have gone wrong for the town did. That it happened--not just a theoretical possibility, actually HAPPENED--shows that the game was not designed as townsided, not even remotely.)

[Mulch]

(The tl;dr version: Just because there are ways scum can get royally fucked over by D2 does not mean a game is townsided if there is an equal and opposite chance of a way for the TOWN to get royally fucked over by D2 to occur. It just means the game is

swingy

. And while the NRG does try to keep swing down to reasonable levels, a game which features heavy swing which is still balanced won't get rejected thanks to the swing. The outcome of this game was HARD-swung to the exact extreme of the scum spectrum where

everything

which could have gone wrong for the town did. That it happened--not just a theoretical possibility, actually HAPPENED--shows that the game was not designed as townsided, not even remotely.)

Bullshit and illogical

“Just because one example happened means that it’s not ____”

Is wrong in any circumstance.

What’s more, this wasn’t swingy.

Unless you consider giving town 2 conf towns, a cop, killpower, and a watcher is “swingy”

[mastina]

Thoughts on people's actual play then mastina?

Well to put it lightly, I hardcore agree with the sentiment that this was a town loss more than a scum win.

I can't say from an objective viewpoint how the scum played. I was biased the whole game, not to mention, while I read significant portions of this game I did not in fact read it all, so I don't even have the entire picture of the game to evaluate. So I cannot say they played to any skill level in particular. I can't say they played poorly, I can't say they played adequately, and I can't say they played well, since I cannot judge what level their scumplay was actually at. (I'll say I wouldn't rate them as EITHER above or below those three, but I can't say which of those three they were. So they were mediocre, the rating above mediocre, or the rating below mediocre; they were not MUCH HIGHER than mafiascum standard, or MUCH LOWER than mafiascum standard.)

However, from what I did read, the viewpoint of "town loss rather than scum win" does sound about right. Because it doesn't matter whether the scum were playing adequately or above. (Playing well, playing stunningly, playing don corelone team, playing god-tiered, etc.) I can see an argument being made for poorly/adequately/well (I wouldn't say they are below-poorly into dismally, or above well into stunningly), any of those three could be what they were, but it doesn't matter.

Because the town fucking sucked.

The town's level of play, by and large, was wrong in every way it could be wrong. You don't get "everything which can go wrong, does" in more competent towns. The town fucked up their nightplay, but also at every turn made fuckups on dayplay as well. (For instance, why did you lynch in mylo when you had no conftown? There

is

a school of thought where you either massclaim or you no-lynch and you don't do both, but in that case...why didn't you use the results of the massclaim to actually lynch the players indicated as scum from it?)

This is, not necessarily, the fault of any one player in particular. I wouldn't be able to name names even if I were inclined to do so, because again I didn't read ALL the thread and was biased in knowing the answers the whole time. Even if I could and even if I would, I don't think that it actually would be fair to blame any particular individual(s). Because sometimes, when certain players mesh together, the result is...

...Well. The result is this.

Towns need certain elements to succeed, and while every individual town player might have at least some of those elements within them, those elements need to be able to interact with one another; in this game, the environment was such that they were unable to, even remotely. If the scum contributed to this, I would call it a scum win regardless of whether it was a town loss or not. But from what I saw, I don't think the scum actually influenced things--the town literally did it to itself, no help needed. No subtle push. No nudge. No influence behind the scenes. No strongarm force necessary.

The scum did nothing to you to sabotage you.

You did it to yourselves.

Thus, town loss.