The one thing I would caution with just being based on size is the changes in rules.
For instance, my normal will simply be a game with more roles than a basic with a larger number (that may or may not have 3rd party alignments). Often, I will avoid specialties simply because I don't like deviating from the standard set-up (FF being the exception as I was a replacement).
That said, I don't think grouping by size is an issue, but I would still like games that may deviate from the standard town v. scum/lynch mechanic/ anything else to be marked as specials.
Yeah, i'm not a fan of basing it just on size. This is something that needs to fall more on mods and reviewers, not something we need oversight on. Once again Drey, I'm not sure why you seem to think all the systems are broken here. Normal games are mid to large size games with only moderate complexity. The reviewer/mod should be able to tell if what they are creating is a normal or specialty.
Like TIK, I echo that size grouping isn't an issue, and the system we have now is working rather well. Lately we seem to be offering a lot of solutions for things that aren't even problems. Not sure why.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
I think what I like best about Guardman's idea is that it encourages people to design various spectrums of smaller games.
Encouraging that is something we can and should do as hosts, as reviewers, and as players. Breaking up the conception that specialties are supposed to be for twenty players, or that normals should have twenty players, is an area we should work on.
Like TIK, I echo that size grouping isn't an issue, and the system we have now is working rather well. Lately we seem to be offering a lot of solutions for things that aren't even problems. Not sure why.
I think the problem is this site doesn't really have games in the 13-16 player range. Unless it's an FTQ (which is almost always specialty-level complexity), it's pretty rare to see games that size. A mod could run a 13 player game as a normal, but more likely they would cut a role so they can get into the faster mini queue. Lately there have been some mods running smaller normals, but it's not the norm, because there isn't any incentive to run smaller normals (other than appreciation from the community).
I had an idea a while ago to modify the hosting queues so that smaller games get to be run slightly earlier. Basically, rather than having a pure First-In-First-Out queue, it would be a hybrid priority/First-In-First-Out queue, where smaller games are given higher priority. If a mod makes a 16-person normal, they would be able to skip ahead a few spots if most of the normals on the queue are 20-person games. There would still be separate mini/normal/specialty queues though, as we don't have a bunch of small games or a bunch of big games going off right after another.
I ran the idea by DM before, and he seemed to think it was too complicated and not really necessary. He might be right, but I figured I'd bring it up. It would make some <12 person and 13-16 player games pop up more often, which IMO would be a good thing, but it would be more of a hassle to keep track of for the mafia council/scribe, not to mention more confusing for new hosts.
~
Also, I think that the normal/specialty distinction should be kept. As TIK said, some people don't want to play in specialties, and some people like specialties and don't really want to play in normals. There's been complexity creep in the normals, but that doesn't mean we need to get rid of the barrier completely. I'm not sure how to get the complexity back to a more normal level on the normals, other than encouraging reviewers be more strict about letting complex normals through.
And I don't think more size categories are a good idea. What would happen to the current queues if that were implemented?
I think my one problem with the current system is there is nothing that has clear cut guidelines on what should be a normal or specialty and it is mostly based on the mods judgment, not that that's a bad thing. But given the way games a made nowadays I doubt that there would be that much of a difference in the complexity level of games.
Plus while I do enjoy the larger games every once in a while, I really would like to see more mid-level games (i.e. the 16 player range). With the current system we rarely see them. Where this system would encourage games of all size range.
As for people worried about not knowing complexity I think it would be a good idea if a size system is implemented that we come up with a complexity system where each mod and reviewer gives a complexity rating for their game so people have a general idea how complex it is.
1. Basic - All standard roles, no unique mechanics.
2. Normal - Some unique roles or some easy to understand/use unique mechanic.
3. Complex - Complex roles or complex unique mechanic.
4. Azrael - Complexity so out there the mod not even know what's going...
5. Bastard - Your ****ed.
Have we ever given any thought to shifting away from a Mini, Specialty, Normal game format and instead base them solely on size? I mean I agree that it can be hard to differentiate between Normals and Specialties nowadays. And I personally base more on game size then game complexity.
So instead of having a Mini, Normal, Specialty lists we would have:
Mini: Any game with 13 or less players.
Normal: Any game with 14 to 19 players.
Venti: Any game with 20 or more players.
Or
Mini: Any game with 13 or less players.
Normal: Any game with 14 to 17 players.
Grande: Any game with 18 or more players.
Not sure what the exact size requirements would be.
If this were implimented, I'm of the opinion there would need to be an agreed upon grading system for complexity.
The drawback that complexity labels potentially create is that in the simpler games it gives a benchmark with which to game the set-up. "The range of power roles in this complexity is.... blah blah." Vague language and suggestions as to the definition of each level makes this better for the players (this is a game where the fun is the uncertainty), but worse for the game creators/reviewers.
I ran into this problem when defining games when writing the vocabulary for the subforum. Maybe this is a good time to address it?
It is whatever Starbucks is trying to use instead of actual sizes.
I got 'nathed before I got to tell the fella's you were speaking Coffee.
=====================================
So, size and complexity labels?:
Basic (12 players, sticks to the relative expectations)
------------------------------------------------
Mini - level 1 (Basic plus a few changes -- Max 15 players)
Mini - level 2 (All power roles to some degree)
Mini - level 3 (Complex unorthodox -- usually flavor related -- mechanics)
------------------------------------------------
Medium - level 1 (Basic in complexity, plus a few additions -- Max 19 players)
Medium - level 2 (large number of PR's, possibly two Mafia groups)
Medium - level 3 (See level 3 above)
------------------------------------------------
Large - level 1 (Normal as defined currently, simple neutrals -- Max 25 players)
Large - level 2 (large number of PR's, possibly two Mafia groups, complex neutrals, bastardly advanced roles occasionally)
Large - level 3 (Specialty level game as defined currently)
These descriptors seem sufficiently vague such that gaming the set-up remains an undesirable line to take.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Clan Is Dead.... Long Live The Izzet! Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I see nothing wrong with the system the way that it is.
This, more or less.
I agree that we should be encouraging mid-sized Normals (16-18 players), but there is no elegant way of doing this without creating a separate queue, which doesn't even seem worth it for games in which the only effective difference is the number of players.
I am basically of the opinion that while there isn't really anything wrong with the current system, I think a size based system would be better overall.
Basically I am not suggesting a new queue, but basically scrapping the Normal and Specialty queues and replacing them with a Mid-Size and Large-Size queue.
Basic (12 players, sticks to the relative expectations)
------------------------------------------------
Mini - level 1 (Basic plus a few changes -- Max 15 players)
Mini - level 2 (All power roles to some degree)
Mini - level 3 (Complex unorthodox -- usually flavor related -- mechanics)
------------------------------------------------
Medium - level 1 (Basic in complexity, plus a few additions -- Max 19 players)
Medium - level 2 (large number of PR's, possibly two Mafia groups)
Medium - level 3 (See level 3 above)
------------------------------------------------
Large - level 1 (Normal as defined currently, simple neutrals -- Max 25 players)
Large - level 2 (large number of PR's, possibly two Mafia groups, complex neutrals, bastardly advanced roles occasionally)
Large - level 3 (Specialty level game as defined currently)
These descriptors seem sufficiently vague such that gaming the set-up remains an undesirable line to take.
I don't think there's an issue with the way things are, but I don't think that implementing this would hurt anything. It's vague enough, as Art has said, to allow some leniency in where you'd categorize your game, but still giving some more strict guidelines for what you can expect coming into a game.
A normal like Ged's recent one and Dagger's Conflux, as examples, are essentially polar opposites that players may want more information about before signing up to play than is currently provided by most hosts.
I am basically of the opinion that while there isn't really anything wrong with the current system, I think a size based system would be better overall.
Basically I am not suggesting a new queue, but basically scrapping the Normal and Specialty queues and replacing them with a Mid-Size and Large-Size queue.
Language tell?
In all seriousness, while your proposed system works great when everyone is as experienced as you and I, the current system is better for newer players and for players who have a specific preference for how complex they want their games to be (such as The Ice King). We should keep things as they are.
A normal like Ged's recent one and Dagger's Conflux, as examples, are essentially polar opposites that players may want more information about before signing up to play than is currently provided by most hosts.
The hosts of both of the games you mention specifically stated how complex their games would be. It is the responsibility of the host to tell his or her players what to expect; there is no need to restructure the queues for this task.
The hosts of both of the games you mention specifically stated how complex their games would be. It is the responsibility of the host to tell his or her players what to expect; there is no need to restructure the queues for this task.
I don't disagree, and I didn't mean to imply that they didn't say that. They were just a good demonstration of what would fit into opposite sides of Art's given example. But adding information doesn't seem like it would hurt anything, considering all it takes is a simple chart like Art has presented that people would categorize themselves into.
Very little effort, low risk, moderate reward, in my eyes.
In all seriousness, while your proposed system works great when everyone is as experienced as you and I, the current system is better for newer players and for players who have a specific preference for how complex they want their games to be (such as The Ice King). We should keep things as they are.
The problem currently is that half the normals being run nowadays probably should be specialties, so while the system is good in that it works, I don't think it is doing it's job in that their are a lot of normals that are as complex as specialties.
My system wouldn't fix that per say as it would change the system from complexity based to size based. But it would include a complexity system that would allow for easy identification of complexity.
Currently the problems with the current system are this:
1. There are little to no complexity differences between many normals and specialties.
2. There is nothing for people who want mid-sized games.
3. The fact that we are even talking about implementing a complexity system for normals and specialties means that there is a fundamental problem with the current queues. Plus no normal would want to say that it is actually complex as then the question would come up why it was in the normal queue.
4. The way to fix this would be to have some sort of arbiter decide if a normal is too complex and then veto it. Plus I think this might lead to riots that not even Tim Thomas could stop.
While the system I propose has some problems it solves most of the problems of the current system.
Pros:
1. It would allow accurate judge of game complexity as their is no pressure to say something is less complex than it is.
2. Opens up more opportunities for mid-sized games.
Cons:
1. Won't always have a game of the complexity that a player wants to play in available (but as I see it this is currently a problem with the current system).
The hosts of both of the games you mention specifically stated how complex their games would be. It is the responsibility of the host to tell his or her players what to expect; there is no need to restructure the queues for this task.
See above, but I doubt some normal hosts would want their game to be seen as less complex so that questions don't come up as to why they are running it as a normal instead of a specialty.
I personally feel that if a mod wishes to categorize their game to the best of their ability based on the guidlines set by the OP in the sign-up thread, that they should be able to do that. My larger game I have queued up, I consider a Specialty because it has a specific theme to the roles and flavor. Whereas my Normal is probably slightly more complicated, but has fewer roles, I simply find it to be more suited as a Normal.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I'm thinking "Don't fix what ain't broke"
The current queue system works fine for what it's designed to do.
Maybe if more information on complexity and such is required, hosts could put up some sort of grading in either their sign-ups or suggest a complexity level when they sign up for the current queues
Also, was thinking of changing my normal from 22 players to 16.
Any notes on how the dynamics would change?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
1. Won't always have a game of the complexity that a player wants to play in available (but as I see it this is currently a problem with the current system)
As you point out, this is the problem with your system, Guardman. While the current system isn't perfect, I have a feeling "complexity creep" would be worse under your system, and even if it isn't, your system pretty much leaves it to chance whether or not the games end up being similar in complexity.
Honestly, I think the solution here is that we need clearer guidelines for normals. The description in the hosting sign-ups page is really vague and pretty much only gives a list of things that are obviously out-of-bounds. As a result, the only thing people have to use as a guideline for the complexity of their game is other Normals. People have been mostly running games at 20-22 players because that's what's been done in the past. People make a set-up and think it's fine because it's not quite as complicated as, say, Conflux. Once people start making simpler, smaller games in the Normal queue, people will begin to accept that as the new norm (pun totally intended).
My suggestion: In the hosting sign-ups thread, provide some examples of past Normal games that went well and have the about right level of complexity that we want as a guideline. I didn't follow along with it, but I hear Ged's Normal went well and should probably be included in this list. Also provide a blurb about how while most normals to this point have been 20-24 players, 16-19 player games are allowed and in fact encouraged. If the game you are designing is significantly more complex than these example games, then you should man-up and either simplify your set-up, or save that particular idea for a specialty and make a new one from scratch.
Horribly overcomplicated and heavily flavour based.
In short, probably terrible, as firsts tend to be.
Gode geass based mafia, thought about it a ton while I was overseas on holidays
Was hoping I'd be able to rope someone experienced in to bounce ideas off *cough*AI*cough*
[EDIT]
This should probably be saved for a specialty, like DM said, but I just don't want to wait for whenever the wheel turns around to run this.
I think we've made the point by now that normal games can include 16 player games, and that they need to be clearly not specialties. They shouldn't feature any extra mechanics or super crazy roles. As for actually changing our system, I'm going to echo AI and Iso and say no. Our current system is working great, and once again, I'm not sure why lately we are trying to fix things that aren't problems. Making normals also encompass 16 players doesn't mean we need to overhaul our complete system.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
Based on context and my first-semester knowledge of Japanese, I'm going to guess that this means "I don't speak English."
As for the meat of your post, I think Dancing Mad's solution is the best one we've come up with so far. The system is not responsible for mistakes hosts and reviewers make. What's to say that people won't misfile games even with your system in place? I probably mis-advertised [CCMV] as a Normal, when I should have said that it's between a Normal and a Specialty in complexity, or that it's more like a "Dagger Normal." It's better to give new hosts guidelines to work with than boxes they have to fit their setups into.
Was hoping I'd be able to rope someone experienced in to bounce ideas off *cough*AI*cough*
Sure, send me a QT link with the setup. Also, pretty unfortunate that your international adventures resulted in your forced replacement in [CCMV] (in case anyone was wondering).
I feel that we're trying to change a system that works fine already. A 13th player for a mini, sure. A complete queue overhaul? Completely unnecessary. I feel the same as a few other players in that the size of normals is too big, but the change should come from community pressure on persons modding those games, which I feel is already in place. Especially about 6 months from now, I'm betting we'll see a lot more 16-20 person normals.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I feel that we're trying to change a system that works fine already. A 13th player for a mini, sure. A complete queue overhaul? Completely unnecessary. I feel the same as a few other players in that the size of normals is too big, but the change should come from community pressure on persons modding those games, which I feel is already in place. Especially about 6 months from now, I'm betting we'll see a lot more 16-20 person normals.
Basically, this.
I understand the design reasons behind wanting a 13th person for the mini queue - it allows for a standard SK to be added (if desired), or a neutral, or even another townie with a higher-powered mafia, perhaps. I would support changing the mini restriction to 13 players or less.
As for changing the queue based on game size, meh, I'm not convinced either way at this point. I've not played in enough games lately to know if the power level of Normals has become similar to that of Specialties, and if so, that's a different matter to address, I'd think.
Requesting discussion by the mods regarding possible actions to take against me due to the circumstances of Toastboy's canceled game, "History And All That".
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Requesting discussion by the mods regarding possible actions to take against me due to the circumstances of Toastboy's canceled game, "History And All That".
I don't think any type of disciplinary action is necessary, especially since there's no rule against what you did.
The problem is there should be a rule against it. It definitely goes against the spirit of the game.
For any who do not know, in the OP of that game, Toastboy accidentally had a win con different than what the town had in their role PMs. Iso recommended that the town use this to find out who is town and who is scum using a series of questions only someone with the role PM could know, such as "How many words are in the town win condition".
This, to me, is worse than crypto-claiming. Actually, it might be a variant of crypto-claiming. If it's deemed it is, that might change everything I just said. :/
IIRC, we also had this issue in Amnesia Mafia, where we cleared 2 or 3 players based solely on the fact that they knew the town win condition, as it wasn't in the OP. But should this be considered a variation of cryptoclaiming? Or would it be considered more along the lines of using PM structure (which I think should be fair game) to determine who is lying in a game?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I think in the case of a completely missing win con in the OP, the claiming of a role PM should be fair game, as I have seen some mods use that as part of their game design (Usually along with varying wincons within the town). As much as it sucks, it is more towards your latter example, Iso. If the opening wincon is not a match to your role PM though, things may get a bit sticker.
IIRC, we also had this issue in Amnesia Mafia, where we cleared 2 or 3 players based solely on the fact that they knew the town win condition, as it wasn't in the OP. But should this be considered a variation of cryptoclaiming? Or would it be considered more along the lines of using PM structure (which I think should be fair game) to determine who is lying in a game?
This, specifically, was using a moderator mistake to screw the scum team, and that would not be fair to the scum team or the moderator. That is why I am against this.
I'm coming to being against using PM structure as well, though, because it ruins the spirit of the game and makes it unfun for some players. It takes the hunt out of the game for a few players. Better without it.
And, confirming townies just makes targets for the scum. Ruins the game for those targets, too.
IIRC, we also had this issue in Amnesia Mafia, where we cleared 2 or 3 players based solely on the fact that they knew the town win condition, as it wasn't in the OP. But should this be considered a variation of cryptoclaiming? Or would it be considered more along the lines of using PM structure (which I think should be fair game) to determine who is lying in a game?
That's terrible, I remember one player trying to do it once and the mod prohibiting because it was against the spirit of the game (if i remember well it was Zaj on Touhou).
That's the worse kind of "scumhunt". AI should have take a harsher instance back there because that gave the wrong impression to the players. "hey discussion the words of the town win-con is fair game, let's do it again!".
Anyway, lesson learned, there's no reason for doing anything... I just feel bad for toasty, his game was promissing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
I do think it should be added to the rules. In my Mini, I'm planning on adding a rule to that effect.
Also, Amnesia wasn't a mod mistake. It was a player noticing that the claimed wincon was verbatim to their own. It's subtly different.
I think of Mafia like a book. To get the most fun out of it, you read it from beginning to end.
However, if you see a website labeled "Spoilers" scawled on the back of the front cover, then visit that website and get the end that way, it's a lot less fun.
I tried to think of a better analogy, but that's the best I came up with.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
Requesting discussion by the mods regarding possible actions to take against me due to the circumstances of Toastboy's canceled game, "History And All That".
Although I can't speak directly for TB, I've been on hand helping sort this out, and we feel that the PM you sent TB shows sufficient remorse for no further action to be taken. Just take it as a lesson to PM the mod (and wait for him to respond) before you do something that can break a game.
IIRC, we also had this issue in Amnesia Mafia, where we cleared 2 or 3 players based solely on the fact that they knew the town win condition, as it wasn't in the OP. But should this be considered a variation of cryptoclaiming? Or would it be considered more along the lines of using PM structure (which I think should be fair game) to determine who is lying in a game?
Using PM structure is absolutely not an OK thing to do. The reason the town win condition is usually in the first post is to stop win-condition claiming being useful, or the win cons usually differ in wording slightly. Similarly, sample PMs are used to try and remove the dangers of claiming things like "the number of paragraphs you have".
Frankly, things like how many words you have in your win-con falls well within the realm of PM quoting, and is at the least very unsporting.
This sort of thing is totally non-behavioural, and is a really crappy way to play the game, because it's not playing Mafia, it's playing "was the mod careful enough?", which sounds like a pretty lame game to me.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
To prevent this from happening again, however, I think a hardline stance should be taken on how to handle wincon's, or at least guidelines on what to/not to do. Perhaps a list of possible options be presented in one of the stickies?
I don't think we need a rule against this, this was clearly the mods fault. It's not like Iso could prove he was town either.
He didn't "prove" only himself, he also "proved" macius was town. If town were to lynch on D1 excluding both of them, the chances of catching scum would be immensely greater. Also when one of them flipped the other would be confirmed town.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
He didn't "prove" only himself, he also "proved" macius was town. If town were to lynch on D1 excluding both of them, the chances of catching scum would be immensely greater. Also when one of them flipped the other would be confirmed town.
And whose fault was that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
He didn't "prove" only himself, he also "proved" macius was town. If town were to lynch on D1 excluding both of them, the chances of catching scum would be immensely greater. Also when one of them flipped the other would be confirmed town.
No, what he did was turn a Mod oversite into a way to win in a way that doesn't use behavior of the scum/skill. And he's said he's sorry.
Moving on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Clan Is Dead.... Long Live The Izzet! Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
What about when the scum are given a clearly scum role flavor wise without a backup role claim? Like, playing a harry potter themed mafia game and the 3 scum players are voldermort, snape and Malfoy senior. I feel that its unfair for the scum to not be given names of other characters from the harry potter universe that haven't been used yet.
What about when the scum are given a clearly scum role flavor wise without a backup role claim? Like, playing a harry potter themed mafia game and the 3 scum players are voldermort, snape and Malfoy senior. I feel that its unfair for the scum to not be given names of other characters from the harry potter universe that haven't been used yet.
Lol that's fair game. Learn to false claim IMO
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
Really? I was given a backup in Minecraft mafia because the 3 scum were crawlers and, there aren't many blocks to choose from. Like, if I had claimed gravel block, I would have been lynched.
Oh, man, creating a false claim is my favorite part of being Mafia. I can pull some crap out of my arse, lemme tell ya.
@pf: false claims are given when there's a limited amount of characters to choose from and if the scum's names would give them away.
For instance: In [Basic #25] Angel Mafia, scum had false claims due to the extremely limited amount of relevant characters.
However, in [Basic #52], there were no false claims provided because the roles were randomized. I mean, hell, Sam and Dean were mafia! No way would I have done that on purpose.
I think the closest analog to what happened is PM quotation - requesting another player to verify the exact wording of information in a PM from the mod for in-game purposes. For the same reasons, cases like these should be considered equally abusive and dangerous, if not more so.
Really? I was given a backup in Minecraft mafia because the 3 scum were crawlers and, there aren't many blocks to choose from. Like, if I had claimed gravel block, I would have been lynched.
A few weeks back, I mentioned this. Having built in false claims helps scum, but doesn't break the game. I still feel as though it should be considered when building a game.
It is also flavor dependent. Some games you should just claim your role name (Sir Mu's Magic School Bus, Emo_Pinata's Power 9) and others you have to be more creative.
In my Basic, the scum were provided with false claims, but that's because there was a One of these Things is Not like the Others factor that didn't effect the game unless the players were really looking for it. I gave them false names, but none of the other role PM details. Seemed fair.
I recall this being an issue in my first game: Newb 12, the Town lost that game, despite people being confirmed by faren's gambit (the offender was modkilled)
while it does ruin the intregrety of the game, It doesn't necessarily ruin a game imo.
I think the closest analog to what happened is PM quotation - requesting another player to verify the exact wording of information in a PM from the mod for in-game purposes. For the same reasons, cases like these should be considered equally abusive and dangerous, if not more so.
This.
It is a rule stated in most games - no PM quoting - in the sense where quoting the specifics from the PM is not literal, but rather technical. Crypto-claiming (also banned) is a fair comparison - using patterns, etc. to determine alignment rather than actually playing the game.
Clearly not having the moderator error would have been ideal, but this is a case of "ask forgiveness rather than permission", when in the case of any doubt in Mafia, it should most certainly be the other way around. Players, by default, are always encouraged to PM the mod with any questions.
I find it very difficult to believe that whomever did the asking thought this was at all within the spirit of the rules. There's a reason we eliminated Crypto-claiming and the like.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
For instance, my normal will simply be a game with more roles than a basic with a larger number (that may or may not have 3rd party alignments). Often, I will avoid specialties simply because I don't like deviating from the standard set-up (FF being the exception as I was a replacement).
That said, I don't think grouping by size is an issue, but I would still like games that may deviate from the standard town v. scum/lynch mechanic/ anything else to be marked as specials.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Like TIK, I echo that size grouping isn't an issue, and the system we have now is working rather well. Lately we seem to be offering a lot of solutions for things that aren't even problems. Not sure why.
Encouraging that is something we can and should do as hosts, as reviewers, and as players. Breaking up the conception that specialties are supposed to be for twenty players, or that normals should have twenty players, is an area we should work on.
I think the problem is this site doesn't really have games in the 13-16 player range. Unless it's an FTQ (which is almost always specialty-level complexity), it's pretty rare to see games that size. A mod could run a 13 player game as a normal, but more likely they would cut a role so they can get into the faster mini queue. Lately there have been some mods running smaller normals, but it's not the norm, because there isn't any incentive to run smaller normals (other than appreciation from the community).
I had an idea a while ago to modify the hosting queues so that smaller games get to be run slightly earlier. Basically, rather than having a pure First-In-First-Out queue, it would be a hybrid priority/First-In-First-Out queue, where smaller games are given higher priority. If a mod makes a 16-person normal, they would be able to skip ahead a few spots if most of the normals on the queue are 20-person games. There would still be separate mini/normal/specialty queues though, as we don't have a bunch of small games or a bunch of big games going off right after another.
I ran the idea by DM before, and he seemed to think it was too complicated and not really necessary. He might be right, but I figured I'd bring it up. It would make some <12 person and 13-16 player games pop up more often, which IMO would be a good thing, but it would be more of a hassle to keep track of for the mafia council/scribe, not to mention more confusing for new hosts.
~
Also, I think that the normal/specialty distinction should be kept. As TIK said, some people don't want to play in specialties, and some people like specialties and don't really want to play in normals. There's been complexity creep in the normals, but that doesn't mean we need to get rid of the barrier completely. I'm not sure how to get the complexity back to a more normal level on the normals, other than encouraging reviewers be more strict about letting complex normals through.
And I don't think more size categories are a good idea. What would happen to the current queues if that were implemented?
(just $0.02 from a lurker)
Plus while I do enjoy the larger games every once in a while, I really would like to see more mid-level games (i.e. the 16 player range). With the current system we rarely see them. Where this system would encourage games of all size range.
As for people worried about not knowing complexity I think it would be a good idea if a size system is implemented that we come up with a complexity system where each mod and reviewer gives a complexity rating for their game so people have a general idea how complex it is.
1. Basic - All standard roles, no unique mechanics.
2. Normal - Some unique roles or some easy to understand/use unique mechanic.
3. Complex - Complex roles or complex unique mechanic.
4. Azrael - Complexity so out there the mod not even know what's going...
5. Bastard - Your ****ed.
The drawback that complexity labels potentially create is that in the simpler games it gives a benchmark with which to game the set-up. "The range of power roles in this complexity is.... blah blah." Vague language and suggestions as to the definition of each level makes this better for the players (this is a game where the fun is the uncertainty), but worse for the game creators/reviewers.
I ran into this problem when defining games when writing the vocabulary for the subforum. Maybe this is a good time to address it?
====================================
I got 'nathed before I got to tell the fella's you were speaking Coffee.
=====================================
So, size and complexity labels?:
Basic (12 players, sticks to the relative expectations)
------------------------------------------------
Mini - level 1 (Basic plus a few changes -- Max 15 players)
Mini - level 2 (All power roles to some degree)
Mini - level 3 (Complex unorthodox -- usually flavor related -- mechanics)
------------------------------------------------
Medium - level 1 (Basic in complexity, plus a few additions -- Max 19 players)
Medium - level 2 (large number of PR's, possibly two Mafia groups)
Medium - level 3 (See level 3 above)
------------------------------------------------
Large - level 1 (Normal as defined currently, simple neutrals -- Max 25 players)
Large - level 2 (large number of PR's, possibly two Mafia groups, complex neutrals, bastardly advanced roles occasionally)
Large - level 3 (Specialty level game as defined currently)
These descriptors seem sufficiently vague such that gaming the set-up remains an undesirable line to take.
Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
Mafia Results, Links, and Stats
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
This, more or less.
I agree that we should be encouraging mid-sized Normals (16-18 players), but there is no elegant way of doing this without creating a separate queue, which doesn't even seem worth it for games in which the only effective difference is the number of players.
Basically I am not suggesting a new queue, but basically scrapping the Normal and Specialty queues and replacing them with a Mid-Size and Large-Size queue.
I don't think there's an issue with the way things are, but I don't think that implementing this would hurt anything. It's vague enough, as Art has said, to allow some leniency in where you'd categorize your game, but still giving some more strict guidelines for what you can expect coming into a game.
A normal like Ged's recent one and Dagger's Conflux, as examples, are essentially polar opposites that players may want more information about before signing up to play than is currently provided by most hosts.
Language tell?
In all seriousness, while your proposed system works great when everyone is as experienced as you and I, the current system is better for newer players and for players who have a specific preference for how complex they want their games to be (such as The Ice King). We should keep things as they are.
The hosts of both of the games you mention specifically stated how complex their games would be. It is the responsibility of the host to tell his or her players what to expect; there is no need to restructure the queues for this task.
I don't disagree, and I didn't mean to imply that they didn't say that. They were just a good demonstration of what would fit into opposite sides of Art's given example. But adding information doesn't seem like it would hurt anything, considering all it takes is a simple chart like Art has presented that people would categorize themselves into.
Very little effort, low risk, moderate reward, in my eyes.
英語が話せません。
The problem currently is that half the normals being run nowadays probably should be specialties, so while the system is good in that it works, I don't think it is doing it's job in that their are a lot of normals that are as complex as specialties.
My system wouldn't fix that per say as it would change the system from complexity based to size based. But it would include a complexity system that would allow for easy identification of complexity.
Currently the problems with the current system are this:
1. There are little to no complexity differences between many normals and specialties.
2. There is nothing for people who want mid-sized games.
3. The fact that we are even talking about implementing a complexity system for normals and specialties means that there is a fundamental problem with the current queues. Plus no normal would want to say that it is actually complex as then the question would come up why it was in the normal queue.
4. The way to fix this would be to have some sort of arbiter decide if a normal is too complex and then veto it. Plus I think this might lead to riots that not even Tim Thomas could stop.
While the system I propose has some problems it solves most of the problems of the current system.
Pros:
1. It would allow accurate judge of game complexity as their is no pressure to say something is less complex than it is.
2. Opens up more opportunities for mid-sized games.
Cons:
1. Won't always have a game of the complexity that a player wants to play in available (but as I see it this is currently a problem with the current system).
2. Probably a hassle to transfer system.
See above, but I doubt some normal hosts would want their game to be seen as less complex so that questions don't come up as to why they are running it as a normal instead of a specialty.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
The current queue system works fine for what it's designed to do.
Maybe if more information on complexity and such is required, hosts could put up some sort of grading in either their sign-ups or suggest a complexity level when they sign up for the current queues
Also, was thinking of changing my normal from 22 players to 16.
Any notes on how the dynamics would change?
But honestly, depends on the setup and theme. Care to elaborate a bit?
I almost made a horrible typo in that first line, I'll let you guys figure out what it was.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
As you point out, this is the problem with your system, Guardman. While the current system isn't perfect, I have a feeling "complexity creep" would be worse under your system, and even if it isn't, your system pretty much leaves it to chance whether or not the games end up being similar in complexity.
Honestly, I think the solution here is that we need clearer guidelines for normals. The description in the hosting sign-ups page is really vague and pretty much only gives a list of things that are obviously out-of-bounds. As a result, the only thing people have to use as a guideline for the complexity of their game is other Normals. People have been mostly running games at 20-22 players because that's what's been done in the past. People make a set-up and think it's fine because it's not quite as complicated as, say, Conflux. Once people start making simpler, smaller games in the Normal queue, people will begin to accept that as the new norm (pun totally intended).
My suggestion: In the hosting sign-ups thread, provide some examples of past Normal games that went well and have the about right level of complexity that we want as a guideline. I didn't follow along with it, but I hear Ged's Normal went well and should probably be included in this list. Also provide a blurb about how while most normals to this point have been 20-24 players, 16-19 player games are allowed and in fact encouraged. If the game you are designing is significantly more complex than these example games, then you should man-up and either simplify your set-up, or save that particular idea for a specialty and make a new one from scratch.
I'm gonna guess it deals with scum and the "s" therein. Or rather, everything other than the "s" therein.
In short, probably terrible, as firsts tend to be.
Gode geass based mafia, thought about it a ton while I was overseas on holidays
Was hoping I'd be able to rope someone experienced in to bounce ideas off *cough*AI*cough*
[EDIT]
This should probably be saved for a specialty, like DM said, but I just don't want to wait for whenever the wheel turns around to run this.
Also, what are 8 player games?
@Deathjoey: 8 player games are Minis ATM.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
Based on context and my first-semester knowledge of Japanese, I'm going to guess that this means "I don't speak English."
As for the meat of your post, I think Dancing Mad's solution is the best one we've come up with so far. The system is not responsible for mistakes hosts and reviewers make. What's to say that people won't misfile games even with your system in place? I probably mis-advertised [CCMV] as a Normal, when I should have said that it's between a Normal and a Specialty in complexity, or that it's more like a "Dagger Normal." It's better to give new hosts guidelines to work with than boxes they have to fit their setups into.
Sure, send me a QT link with the setup. Also, pretty unfortunate that your international adventures resulted in your forced replacement in [CCMV] (in case anyone was wondering).
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Basically, this.
I understand the design reasons behind wanting a 13th person for the mini queue - it allows for a standard SK to be added (if desired), or a neutral, or even another townie with a higher-powered mafia, perhaps. I would support changing the mini restriction to 13 players or less.
As for changing the queue based on game size, meh, I'm not convinced either way at this point. I've not played in enough games lately to know if the power level of Normals has become similar to that of Specialties, and if so, that's a different matter to address, I'd think.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I don't think any type of disciplinary action is necessary, especially since there's no rule against what you did.
The problem is there should be a rule against it. It definitely goes against the spirit of the game.
For any who do not know, in the OP of that game, Toastboy accidentally had a win con different than what the town had in their role PMs. Iso recommended that the town use this to find out who is town and who is scum using a series of questions only someone with the role PM could know, such as "How many words are in the town win condition".
This, to me, is worse than crypto-claiming. Actually, it might be a variant of crypto-claiming. If it's deemed it is, that might change everything I just said. :/
This is all up to the Council, of course.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
This, specifically, was using a moderator mistake to screw the scum team, and that would not be fair to the scum team or the moderator. That is why I am against this.
I'm coming to being against using PM structure as well, though, because it ruins the spirit of the game and makes it unfun for some players. It takes the hunt out of the game for a few players. Better without it.
And, confirming townies just makes targets for the scum. Ruins the game for those targets, too.
I'm just going to leave this here:
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
That's the worse kind of "scumhunt". AI should have take a harsher instance back there because that gave the wrong impression to the players. "hey discussion the words of the town win-con is fair game, let's do it again!".
Anyway, lesson learned, there's no reason for doing anything... I just feel bad for toasty, his game was promissing.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Also, Amnesia wasn't a mod mistake. It was a player noticing that the claimed wincon was verbatim to their own. It's subtly different.
I think of Mafia like a book. To get the most fun out of it, you read it from beginning to end.
However, if you see a website labeled "Spoilers" scawled on the back of the front cover, then visit that website and get the end that way, it's a lot less fun.
I tried to think of a better analogy, but that's the best I came up with.
Although I can't speak directly for TB, I've been on hand helping sort this out, and we feel that the PM you sent TB shows sufficient remorse for no further action to be taken. Just take it as a lesson to PM the mod (and wait for him to respond) before you do something that can break a game.
Using PM structure is absolutely not an OK thing to do. The reason the town win condition is usually in the first post is to stop win-condition claiming being useful, or the win cons usually differ in wording slightly. Similarly, sample PMs are used to try and remove the dangers of claiming things like "the number of paragraphs you have".
Frankly, things like how many words you have in your win-con falls well within the realm of PM quoting, and is at the least very unsporting.
This sort of thing is totally non-behavioural, and is a really crappy way to play the game, because it's not playing Mafia, it's playing "was the mod careful enough?", which sounds like a pretty lame game to me.
I'll try to avoid things like this in the future.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
And whose fault was that?
Moving on.
Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
Mafia Results, Links, and Stats
What about when the scum are given a clearly scum role flavor wise without a backup role claim? Like, playing a harry potter themed mafia game and the 3 scum players are voldermort, snape and Malfoy senior. I feel that its unfair for the scum to not be given names of other characters from the harry potter universe that haven't been used yet.
LOL
Lol that's fair game. Learn to false claim IMO
LOL
This.
If TB hadn't stepped in before I got there, I was torn between two actions:
1) Replace out because **** that, it ain't Mafia.
2) Point out how it's totally possible that the mod did that on purpose to prevent just that from happening.
I probably would have started out with action 2.
Oh, man, creating a false claim is my favorite part of being Mafia. I can pull some crap out of my arse, lemme tell ya.
@pf: false claims are given when there's a limited amount of characters to choose from and if the scum's names would give them away.
For instance: In [Basic #25] Angel Mafia, scum had false claims due to the extremely limited amount of relevant characters.
However, in [Basic #52], there were no false claims provided because the roles were randomized. I mean, hell, Sam and Dean were mafia! No way would I have done that on purpose.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
A few weeks back, I mentioned this. Having built in false claims helps scum, but doesn't break the game. I still feel as though it should be considered when building a game.
It is also flavor dependent. Some games you should just claim your role name (Sir Mu's Magic School Bus, Emo_Pinata's Power 9) and others you have to be more creative.
In my Basic, the scum were provided with false claims, but that's because there was a One of these Things is Not like the Others factor that didn't effect the game unless the players were really looking for it. I gave them false names, but none of the other role PM details. Seemed fair.
On a side note, I didn't send the town win-con' to anyone in that game. The scum were informed of this, and it was only printed in the OP with the notification that it hadn't been included in the role PM's.
Johnny, born and raised. Always lookin' for the Next Level Combo. Thanks to Bornover of FHLS for the banner!
Mafia Results, Links, and Stats
while it does ruin the intregrety of the game, It doesn't necessarily ruin a game imo.
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
This.
It is a rule stated in most games - no PM quoting - in the sense where quoting the specifics from the PM is not literal, but rather technical. Crypto-claiming (also banned) is a fair comparison - using patterns, etc. to determine alignment rather than actually playing the game.
Clearly not having the moderator error would have been ideal, but this is a case of "ask forgiveness rather than permission", when in the case of any doubt in Mafia, it should most certainly be the other way around. Players, by default, are always encouraged to PM the mod with any questions.
I find it very difficult to believe that whomever did the asking thought this was at all within the spirit of the rules. There's a reason we eliminated Crypto-claiming and the like.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Just so you all know.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!