SwampRabbit wrote:saixos wrote:I would suggest that when arso douses a target, he also douses everyone who visits his target that night. Arso is still the weakest of the NK roles and generally seen as the least fun to play. While this sounds OP at first, I think once players adapt to it it would be just around the right power level, and allow for some very interesting dynamics with arso thinking about which targets to douse in greater detail. I think if you want to target TP/LO meta, do it through NE/NK.
Interesting idea. Jailor meta is not really an issue in the games I play because ranked jailors do not often reveal on d1. 90% of the time a d1 Jailor claim is fake--sometimes mafia claiming it when they know they have a consort who can stop real jailor from executing the fake one; sometimes SK who wants to be jailed n1 to kill the real jailor (that is why real jailor should NEVER jail fake one on n1), sometimes mayor or retri who want protection without revealing true role, and sometimes it is the NE. (And sometimes it is just a crayon with a huge ego that thinks that regardless of his town role, that he matters more than every other player in the game). Classic is probably the only game mode that rarely has fake jailor claims.
But I think the idea is interesting from the viewpoint of arso being the most boring NK role, and it would placate those who think jailor meta is a huge thing. It might turn arso into an OP role, but I think it is worth testing out. Have everyone who visits same target as arso get doused and have the arso shown everyone who is doused (in the same way that pb sees who is infected)(or keep it secret to help make new arso not OP).
And to the people who think that balancing an online game to match your little hobby of forum mafia, they are two completely different games and one has nothing to do with the other beyond having roles called "mafia".
Flake wrote:alvac2012 wrote:Ok, but unfortunately, that's not how ToS works. I understand your point. I really do. Yes, when town plays perfectly, evils stand no chance. Rt's get confirmed day 2 and evils lose claim space. Jailor in this situation is highly oppressive yes because even if town mislynches, jailor exe's the evil anyways. However, ToS has never been a game where town functions perfectly. People in the game fear being dead and unable to influence the game more than they care about finding and lynching evils. ToS has always been a psychological game and while I agree that in a perfect town, town is too OP, it is made to be too OP to balance out the fact that most townies vote like sheep.
You're misinterpreting what I'm saying
very good play =/= perfect play
a very good jailor will probably not have as good of an accuracy rate as you think when you consider that we are also assuming that the evil players are also very good
assuming perfect play from both sides is paradoxical because you can argue either side will always win
Achilles wrote:azapf2277 wrote:In my opinion, the roles are fine. The setup is fine. Whats isn't fine is the elo system.
Think about how unbalanced the game is when the majority of NK's refuse to even try because "oh well -1". Oh, the reward for getting the hardest win in ranked (at top level)? +1. Its easy to see why they dont try. When you have a NK who doesn't care, its basically a handed town win.
Same goes for a lot of roles and their Elo that comes or goes with it. NE roles will lose you 4 or 5 elo, but if you win its usually a +1?
Now listen, i get it, elo doesnt matter is what everybody says. But the fact is elo is motivating people to play differently. Imagine if a NK win was +9 (like exe turned jester). How many more people would be motivated to try at that point?
Fix the elo system, you will fix how players operate and the game will become more balanced on its own.
Do you want to also lose 9 ELO when you lose as a NK? I constantly see complaints about -/+1 ELO swings for roles with low win rates. We could remove faction based weighting on ELO and just let the ELO system balance things out in the long term. My expectation is that people will smash their keyboard everytime they get a low winrate role because they know it means a high chance of losing significant ELO. In that system if you are lucky enough to get Town 10 games in a row you will climb ELO quickly since they have the highest winrate.
Also a big factor in the ELO gain/loss is the rating of your opponents. Maybe if we displayed your opponents ELO it would make the gain/loss more transparent.
Achilles wrote:Also a big factor in the ELO gain/loss is the rating of your opponents. Maybe if we displayed your opponents ELO it would make the gain/loss more transparent.
Joacgroso wrote:I feel like I went from Light Yagami to Keiichi Maebara.
MysticMismagius wrote:Why exactly do gains and losses need to be the same for NK? It's the quintessential challenge role in this game, and the ELO you gain/lose for it should be mapped accordingly. You should be losing less ELO for losing and gain more for winning, in order to balance out the average expected value of NK with respect to its winrate.
Not necessarily. There are many possible payouts that one can apply to a game with a given winrate and have the expected value be 0. For example, if you have a 33% winrate, then all that is necessary for the expected value of the game to be 0 is that the payout be twice as high as the loss for losing: it doesn't matter if you gain 2 ELO for winning and lose 1 for losing, or gain 20 for a win and lose 10 for a loss.Brilliand wrote:This is a good idea. It would help us to understand exactly what is wrong with the ELO system. Right now, it's hard to be certain.Achilles wrote:Also a big factor in the ELO gain/loss is the rating of your opponents. Maybe if we displayed your opponents ELO it would make the gain/loss more transparent.
MysticMismagius is right in theory. In my own words: the game should be predicting a % chance that you will win, and choosing an amount of ELO gain/loss such that "on average" you're expected to exactly break even (the gains and losses cancel out if you win exactly as much as predicted).
Come to think of it, the rule I just stated implies that every player in the same faction should gain/lose the same amount of ELO, regardless of how much ELO they have individually.
BasicFourLife wrote:Flake wrote:the amount of people thinking that "i play ranked town of salem a lot and i am high elo" automatically gives them a good understanding of mafia balance is funny
if your knowledge of the game of mafia is limited to playing town of salem then your understanding of mafia balance is probably shit, the source for that being me before like 2 years ago
^5^%^%^%^%^%%%^^^^^^
agree very much sowoahah wrote:Flake wrote:the amount of people thinking that "i play ranked town of salem a lot and i am high elo" automatically gives them a good understanding of mafia balance is funny
if your knowledge of the game of mafia is limited to playing town of salem then your understanding of mafia balance is probably shit, the source for that being me before like 2 years ago
^this
like, sure you might be knowledgeable, but you aren't helping your case at all
just talk
like a normal human being
and give your opinion
Also as a 100% winrate player, mafioso change is mean and should not be done
100% winrate in a game of rng is not possible, cut the shit and stop pretending
Flake wrote:it is a desirable change to put jailor at around mayor's utility level if it were to be the case that both jailor and mayor were put in the same sub alignment (Town Power) since less power disparity between roles within a sub alignment means the influence of luck in whether jailor or mayor is rolled is less apparent in affecting the game's outcome, and mitigating the amount of luck influencing the game's outcome is desirable in a competitive game
and as for why jailor and mayor should be put in the same subalignment (Town Power):
so no the nerf isn't unnecessary when there's a clear reason for it other than "lol nerf town"; it mitigates the impact of luck on the outcome of a given game which indirectly increases the impact of skill on the outcome of a given game which is very desirable in the context of a competitive environment
The reason is because when you have a game with Jailor, Mayor, and Ret in it, Mafia generally gets fucked. Even two out of three makes it significantly harder for evils to win, as they all have powerful abilities that can single-handedly turn around games.alvac2012 wrote:But what I'm saying is, ToS isn't just about the jailor. Yes, jailor CAN be OP, but more often than not, Jailor doesn't swing the balance of the game in town's favor. EXCEPT when he can perma-jail maf killing and stalemate the game, which Fine. Yeah, that sucks. I don't see a reason to nerf town, AND you increase the RNG factor by making jailor and mayor mutually exclusive. I don't see too many mayors anyways in my games. I don't think it's necessary. Yeah, my experience isn't all inclusive, but still. There's no reason to have mayor and jailor be mutually exclusive
MysticMismagius wrote:The reason is because when you have a game with Jailor, Mayor, and Ret in it, Mafia generally gets fucked. Even two out of three makes it significantly harder for evils to win, as they all have powerful abilities that can single-handedly turn around games.alvac2012 wrote:But what I'm saying is, ToS isn't just about the jailor. Yes, jailor CAN be OP, but more often than not, Jailor doesn't swing the balance of the game in town's favor. EXCEPT when he can perma-jail maf killing and stalemate the game, which Fine. Yeah, that sucks. I don't see a reason to nerf town, AND you increase the RNG factor by making jailor and mayor mutually exclusive. I don't see too many mayors anyways in my games. I don't think it's necessary. Yeah, my experience isn't all inclusive, but still. There's no reason to have mayor and jailor be mutually exclusive
Flake wrote:alvac2012 wrote:Flake wrote:it is a desirable change to put jailor at around mayor's utility level if it were to be the case that both jailor and mayor were put in the same sub alignment (Town Power) since less power disparity between roles within a sub alignment means the influence of luck in whether jailor or mayor is rolled is less apparent in affecting the game's outcome, and mitigating the amount of luck influencing the game's outcome is desirable in a competitive game
and as for why jailor and mayor should be put in the same subalignment (Town Power):
so no the nerf isn't unnecessary when there's a clear reason for it other than "lol nerf town"; it mitigates the impact of luck on the outcome of a given game which indirectly increases the impact of skill on the outcome of a given game which is very desirable in the context of a competitive environment
But what I'm saying is, ToS isn't just about the jailor. Yes, jailor CAN be OP, but more often than not, Jailor doesn't swing the balance of the game in town's favor. EXCEPT when he can perma-jail maf killing and stalemate the game, which Fine. Yeah, that sucks. I don't see a reason to nerf town, AND you increase the RNG factor by making jailor and mayor mutually exclusive. I don't see too many mayors anyways in my games. I don't think it's necessary. Yeah, my experience isn't all inclusive, but still. There's no reason to have mayor and jailor be mutually exclusive
no one is saying that ToS is just about the jailor, and again you're misconstruing my reason for nerfing jailor as being solely for the sake of nerfing town when it isn't, as i have already explained
the impact of luck in affecting the outcome of a given game does not increase by making jailor and mayor mutually exclusive, it is the opposite as i have already explained
they absolutely should be mutually exclusive for the reasons i have explained
like i'm not saying this shit again, it really isn't this hard to understand
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests