Posts from Percentages Auto-translated

Personally, the percentages in the Necropolis dungeons completely kill any desire to delve into the details of the setup and plan anything. It's already difficult to account for everything, and with percentages, it becomes completely impossible. It's easier to just choose Necropolis dungeons by flipping a coin and not worry about it. But what's the point of such a game?

I would also remove the immunities for the first night, by the way.

Removing immunities would be a good idea for those who haven't played in a while. But I don't think it should be removed for newcomers and the Game Master. Otherwise, newcomers will be eliminated on the first night because they don't want to harm their own units.

The essence of the game is lost when a third of the players have one-time protection, and the Mafia are still immune to execution. The point of the game is to kill and execute, but here players have to spend two days trying to eliminate someone.

And with percentage-based defenses, it lasts for all five days.

I can’t recall any game like that.

I'm starting to feel like a complete idiot when I read these arguments, so I'll refrain from further discussion.

I can't recall any game like that.

I'm too lazy to look for examples right now. My point is that it's hypothetically quite possible for a defender to have their defense triggered several times in a row.

I'm starting to feel like a complete fool reading these arguments, so I will refrain from further discussion.

Arandor's arguments don't hold up to any criticism :smile51: The longest game with one-time protections was 89 with 9 turns. Is that much longer than the last one with 8? And even then, it was only long because the city didn't follow the troll's orders was stalling and didn't hang the mafia players. :( I have no idea what "stretching out games due to one-time protections" is even referring to here... :confused:

Overall, I don't have much to add about Revan. Percentage-based defenses: you encounter them, and you get annoyed. They don't work, and you get annoyed (and you're such a cool guy with 99% defense, and then you get killed on the first night randomly, yeah...). It's often impossible to fix the situation, and it's also impossible to account for all the risks due to their sheer number. One-time defenses: unfavorable randomness is still possible. But practically any failure can be corrected, and that's the key point. And in general, the fewer random numbers there are, the less likely it is that randomness will become decisive in a game. So, on this issue, if there's anything I agree with Arandor on, it's that these defenses shouldn't be overused, so that their number is reasonable. Although in most games on HW, it was quite reasonable. Without defenses: yes, please, you can play without defenses. And you can also create mafia setups based on the principle of "9 villagers without night defense, 4 mafia with kills, 1 serial killer with a kill." Then you can establish a practically perfect balance, and nothing will drag on. Only no one will want to play it. Here, it's obvious that you need to find a golden mean between the presence of certain defenses and the interestingness of the setting. And this golden mean does not lie in the complete absence of any defenses, believe me. Although in some individual games, you can do this if there are other interesting features as compensation, but in general, it's unlikely to work.

Percentage-based defenses = you encounter them, and you get annoyed. They don't work – you get annoyed.

That's essentially all the arguments against randomness, summarized.

here, players have to spend two days relentlessly attacking a single opponent

:o

These are essentially all the arguments against randomness, summarized.

In my opinion, these are very strong arguments. There's a clear case of pure, helpless frustration when randomness leaves you with absolutely no chance, no matter how well and skillfully you play... Isn't this a reason to minimize such moments, even if they can't be completely eliminated? Agree, Heroist, if in chess your opponent could randomly move a pawn from a2 to eat the king on e8, just like that, bad luck... No one in their right mind would play such chess.

Come on, Heroes fan, if in chess your opponent could accidentally take your king on e8 with a pawn on a2, just like that, just bad luck... No one in their right mind would play such chess.

Comparing Mafia and chess, in my opinion, is not entirely accurate, Mент. I only quoted you because in one message you briefly explained most of the complaints about the percentages.

a pawn on a2 eats the king on e8

terrible example
I would have written that if one figure tries to eat another, percentages would apply, although this would be the case with any other defense, so both options are bad for chess
if players enjoy spending the night trying to kill each other, and during the day they enjoy playing roles with immunity from the first execution, then that's fine. The problem isn't the randomness, but the fact that the GM gave a lot of defenses, and that's not so bad.

Heroes player.
It's fair to compare them. Both are games. They are characterized by the fact that the main goal is victory. Hence, another task is tactics and control. Without tactics and control, playing is pointless; it's better to just chat and tell jokes, or in Mafia, just roll a die and let random determine the winner.
Regarding "in one message" – well, yes.