Ret’s WAR is way too high

[ICECLIMBERS]

[SantanaTheSmall]

100 games is, assuming each game is 5 minutes, 500 minutes, or 8 hours 20 minutes of pure game time - and this doesn't count the data thrown out.

Shut the fuck up about the number of games. We don't even need this thread to prove Ret is unbalanced, it confirms all mediums which are one of the best fakeclaims for scum. This is proof of our point. You want a "proper" scientific survey go and make one yourself.

It’s good to have hard data to back up what we already know, moron. I also didn’t throw any data out, so you seem to be unable to read, too.

Why are you in this forum? To be a dick?

Also, what games are you playing where they only last 5 minutes? That’s only like 2 days and nights.

I’m defending this thread from the countless people who are attacking you for “faulty experiment”, asswipe. You threw out the faulty data where a player left midgame, so you seem to be incapable of basic recollection of facts. (As you should have, but since you didn’t leave you played through that game with no benefit to your research fucktard.)

At this point yes, I only exist on this forum to be an elitist dick. I don’t care about this game but I can clap back when I need to.

However long the games were, add 1h40m for every 1 minute. (8h20m for every 5) I’m defending you.

Well I apologize for my comment then. However, this is why context is important. You’ve already been told that earlier in this thread. Every time you commented immediately after me without quoting something or without explaining your quote, it looked and felt like an attack on me.

[SantanaTheSmall]

Gonta not smart boy but... he think this not many games...

It's not enough to make any definitive statements about Town's/Ret's winrate, but it is enough to get a glimpse at it. It's like if a near-sighted person tried to look at a painting without any visual aids. They wouldn't be able to see the details in the painting, but they would be able to see the large groups of colors that make up the composition. This is what we are looking at. There's a significant margin of error for how accurate OP's data is and what it means, but outside of a major fluke or lurking variable that OP didn't catch, it's enough to say that town's winrate increases substantially when a Retributionist pulls off their revive.

Gonta agree! Gonta not necessarily agree that OP sample data allude to Retributionist being absurdly overpowered though

It alludes to it. It just doesn’t confirm it. Of course it alludes to it. If you really think it doesn’t allude to it, I’d even make a one sided bet: if the numbers don’t change more than +- 5% when I reach the number of games with a MoE below 5%, I’d pay for your Coven and Premium if you don’t already have it. You don’t have to bet anything when you lose.

[Brilliand]

Gonta agree! Gonta not necessarily agree that OP sample data allude to Retributionist being absurdly overpowered though

Even a sample size of one would "allude" to (whatever that one game makes it look like). You can argue that his sample size isn't strong enough, but not that it does nothing.

[SantanaTheSmall]

Just seeing how these ret games have played out, I honestly don’t think the numbers will change that much. The difference between no ret and ret can be the difference between a perfect maf win (locking the vote 4 to 4 and picking off the rest one at a time) and losing all 4 maf in 2 days and nights after the revive because it’s 5 v 4 with a jailor revived.

When you say there will be a difference of +- 5%, do you mean 5% of both factions, giving a total of a 10% gap close or just 2.5% of each faction? I meant the former, not the latter. I’m not willing to bet that a faction will not change more than 2.5%

[OBeauPeep]

Nobody genuinely wants this.

You do not speak for everyone.

[MysticMismagius]

Nobody genuinely wants this.

You do not speak for everyone.

I can assure you that I do.

No you don't. Anyone who claims to speak for everyone is being dishonest.

[SantanaTheSmall]

I think maf’s winrate is just fine (if it’s not a ret game). It’s town’s winrate that’s too high and NK’s that’s too low. How do you fix that?

Well first, take away ret because 60% is already too high and it doesn’t need to be higher. Regardless of the number of games I have, you seriously cannot state that ret doesn’t at least moderately increase town’s winrate. Nobody will take you seriously if you do state that.

But then I suppose the answer is to buff NK instead of nerf town any further because the buffed NK will take away win rates from both factions, but I suspect it will take away winrates from Town more than maf, but maybe not?

[ICECLIMBERS]

BMG is unlikely to remove any role. Their last resort is an overhaul like with Disguiser. The community is also resistant to change. For example, the poll for removing spy’s ability to read night chat was overwhelmingly in favor of no. Ret is a strong role but some of the ways to nerf it would anger players (such as dying as a result). A temporary solution would be refraining from reviving unique roles, or possibly bodyguards who died defending their target. Or vanillaize the revived person, but some people would leave if revived if that were the case I fear.

It’s hardly the most powerful non-killing town role so long as Transporter exists.

I think 45/45/10 is a roughly good ideal.

[Brilliand]

I would like to point out that when I introduced the "proportional winrates" idea, I didn't actually know of anyone who genuinely wanted it. I just saw it as a sufficiently coherent idea that the "60% town winrate" deserved a certain amount of respect (that is, to be treated as a feature of the game that can be improved upon, rather than a bug). As far as I can recall, I came up with the idea myself.

On the other hand, this:

I think 45/45/10 is a roughly good ideal.

...is a bit harder to justify. Apparently you think the Neutral Killing isn't "real scum"? Or you think proportional winrates are good enough for the smallest faction but not for the two largest factions?

[MysticMismagius]

Would you rather have a million kids in cages or half a million kids in cages?

What does this have to do with anything?

[MysticMismagius]

I’d rather have 45/45/10 than 67/25/8

I think Brilliand is trying to say it should be 33/33/33.

[Brilliand]

Yeah, what MysticMismagius said. 60/32/8 is a Schelling point - not a particularly good one perhaps, but it has a clear logic to it. 33/33/33 is also a Schelling point, and is also the best way to design the game, so far as I can tell. 45/45/10 is not a Schelling point, or at least I don't see the logic behind it - it just seems like an arbitrary set of numbers that has the same problems as 60/32/8 to a lesser degree.

Also since ICECLIMBERS said this:

lol imagine saying that mafia wasn’t designed for equal village/scum winrates and expecting for people to take you seriously

...I'm inclined to hold him to a higher standard than the rest of us. If he's going to espouse something even slightly proportional, he can have his own insult back.

[SantanaTheSmall]

I don’t see how it can be 33/33/33 without seriously reworking the whole game.

It’s only something achievable on custom lists with serious players.

[MysticMismagius]

Yeah, what MysticMismagius said. 60/32/8 is a Schelling point - not a particularly good one perhaps, but it has a clear logic to it. 33/33/33 is also a Schelling point, and is also the best way to design the game, so far as I can tell. 45/45/10 is not a Schelling point, or at least I don't see the logic behind it - it just seems like an arbitrary set of numbers that has the same problems as 60/32/8 to a lesser degree.

Also since ICECLIMBERS said this:

lol imagine saying that mafia wasn’t designed for equal village/scum winrates and expecting for people to take you seriously

...I'm inclined to hold him to a higher standard than the rest of us. If he's going to espouse something even slightly proportional, he can have his own insult back.

His point is 45/45/10 is achievable, and 33/33/33 may not be. It's still a VAST improvement.

From NK's perspective, it really isn't. 45/45/10 only gives NK a 2% higher win rate over 60/32/8. Any improvement for NK is a blessing, but to call this a "vast" improvement is a bit of an overstatement. NKs would still get shafted, and we'd see the same leavers ruin our day every time they roll NK.

It is a significant improvement for Mafia though.

[MysticMismagius]

Didn't specify NK. I said significant improvement generally.

I'm just bringing it to light that the winrate suggested doesn't really change anything when looking from that point of view. NKs are important too, ya know.

[ICECLIMBERS]

In a longform, very vanilla game of mafia the setup should be balanced in a way that all factions have a chance of winning. This includes 3p kill-capable scum and even additional informed minorities. Town of Salem is rapidly paced and role madness. A great number of changes would be needed to achieve that balance in a game that appears to have been designed with the idea of NK being the underdog.

And, to be frank, people would complain if town won only 1/3 of the time.

[MysticMismagius]

In a longform, very vanilla game of mafia the setup should be balanced in a way that all factions have a chance of winning. This includes 3p kill-capable scum and even additional informed minorities. Town of Salem is rapidly paced and role madness. A great number of changes would be needed to achieve that balance in a game that appears to have been designed with the idea of NK being the underdog.

And, to be frank, people would complain if town won only 1/3 of the time.

That is true. I still think 10% winrate for NKs isn't ideal, but 33% isn't either.

[SantanaTheSmall]

This is why I said proportional win rates are utilitarian. It’s technically the biggest benefit or “good” given to the most number of people.

I personally don’t believe one person should have an equal winrate than a 9 person faction. The larger evil faction, however should have a better winrate.

Secret Hitler is a very fun game because the two factions have about a 50/50 chance of winning. This problem is really only introduced and likely unsolvable when a one person faction requires the death of everyone else. That’s why NE is fun. Jester and Exe don’t require the death of an entire faction. And witch can moderately improve mafia’s or NK’s chances if they find each other early,

[Razbae]

Ret has always been OP but the only way to really nerf it is to get rid of it. If BMG implements actual nerfs to the already one click warrior, it'll make the role even worse to play and have less impact in casual modes. BMG just needs to get it out of ranked, however, they won't. Why? idk but it's not rocket science like OP is trying to make this seem like so BMG obviously know it's op and have known for a long time. Good luck getting ret out of ranked.

[Brilliand]

Ret has always been OP but the only way to really nerf it is to get rid of it.

Look at the Retri re-work options thread over in Role Ideas. There are a bunch of ret nerf ideas there - some of them are even good.

The variations on "light side necromancer" seem the most promising.

[SantanaTheSmall]

Ret has always been OP but the only way to really nerf it is to get rid of it. If BMG implements actual nerfs to the already one click warrior, it'll make the role even worse to play and have less impact in casual modes. BMG just needs to get it out of ranked, however, they won't. Why? idk but it's not rocket science like OP is trying to make this seem like so BMG obviously know it's op and have known for a long time. Good luck getting ret out of ranked.

We all know that ret is OP but the whole point of this post is to help quantify exactly how much ret is OP.

[James2]

Note: the ret games only included games where the ret successfully pulled off a revive.

This is a systemic methodological flaw that invalidates your entire analysis.

[MysticMismagius]

How? He didn’t throw out games where Ret existed but didn’t get their revive off. He just made the independent variable a little bit different from the other guy who did a study about Ret. Sure it’ll change the results but his point isn’t invalid because of it. The conclusion one can draw from this data, “In games where Retributionist revived someone, Town’s win rate is way too high” is a perfectly valid point that is supported by the data OP collected.

[Brilliand]

Note: the ret games only included games where the ret successfully pulled off a revive.

This is a systemic methodological flaw that invalidates your entire analysis.

We had a whole conversation about this, that ended with him agreeing to make a change to his methodology. But (as MysticMismagius said) the problem isn't as severe as you say - while his original data failed to prove that the ret frequently pulls off their revive, it's easy to believe intuitively that that is the case.