Hybrid Hammer and Deadlines

[Eldrick4221]

I have noticed people commenting that they don't like hybrid hammer. I think the reason is deadlines aren't treated properly.

 

In my opinion, deadlines are put in place so the mod has a way to move the game along if people take to long to decide on who to vote. The problem is, this isn't how they are treated. It seems to be common practice to wait until the last day before the deadline, and then quickly decide who is voting where, because they are "running out of time".

 

Hammer games force people to consolidate on one person, or bad stuff happens. This results in two things. It could be a randomly kill, which isn't beneficial to any side because it could just as easily be your side as it could be theirs, not taking into account people's input because of the randomness. It could be no lynch, which is almost always not beneficial to town. Being forced to vote on someone you don't necessarily agree is the right choice to prevent one of these things occurring can be really annoying to deal with.

 

Which is why Hybrid Hammer is the better choice of the two. You don't have to have majority. You SHOULD be able to come up with a consensus vote before deadline, but if you can't, you probably have choices on where to vote that wouldn't be wasted for not being majority vote. Trains can be smaller, and still be effective.

 

This being said, I don't like the idea of a day ending with multiple small trains (e.g. about 2 votes each). I've been mulling over the idea on how to make this work better. The concept I came up with is the train needs to have a percentage of total votes to qualify. Like over 25% for possible lynch. 51% for hammer. Any train with less than 25% of total votes won't be lynched. If all trains are too small at deadline, no lynch. This could make for 3 competing trains, but not 4.

[Eldrick4221]

I also don't like that people wait until deadline to decide on where to vote. What is so wrong with getting a lynch going faster than the posted deadline. There is no reason the game has to be as slow as the deadline.

[Cory Caboose]

I love hybrid hammer because I think it promotes players to actually vote for their top wolf reads instead of being forced to consolidate over some fear of a random no-coroner flip.

 

I think one of the major reasons DragonMount in general was so attached to the "majority" + "coroner no flip" for a long period of time was because inactivity was a major issue and it was a way to force the hands of players to vote under the threat of being killed at random.

 

As for this:

 

This being said, I don't like the idea of a day ending with multiple small trains (e.g. about 2 votes each). I've been mulling over the idea on how to make this work better. The concept I came up with is the train needs to have a percentage of total votes to qualify. Like over 25% for possible lynch. 51% for hammer. Any train with less than 25% of total votes won't be lynched. If all trains are too small at deadline, no lynch. This could make for 3 competing trains, but not 4.

 

I have actually played a game with this exact ruleset and it went pretty okay:

 

http://forum.walterfootball.com/showthread.php?30593-Game-of-Thrones-Mafia-Game-Thread

 

-Day phases will end when a majority decision has been reached. Otherwise, Day phases will last a maximum of 72 hours and Night phases will last a maximum of 24 hours. The player with the most votes at the end of a day phase will be lynched if he/she meets half the majority, rounded up (i.e. 6+ votes on an “11 to lynch” phase will result in a lynch; 5 will not). 

 

But I think for the most part it's a really a "player decision" type thing. The above seems more of a compromise to me between majority and hybrid hammer than just the latter outright, so really that's a decision for a moderator to make. If the players in a game don't have the confidence to make large wagons and there are a bunch of smaller wagons, there is already a practical solution to this in game: it gives the Mafia more control of the wagons, which should "spurn" players to consolidate on two/three wagons.

 

As for you "not liking that people wait until deadline" or want the game to go faster - that shouldn't really be a moderator decision. Players will play at the speed at which they are comfortable and at the time they are comfortable.

 

And in general I think the "wait until last day to consolidate" that happens in hybrid hammer is much more because people believe that taking the most time possible so players can reread / be caught up / make their best arguments is ultimately pro-town, which is something that is probably quite correct. I do think that the counterbalance to this is that day phases being too long is ultimately pro-wolf, which is why if there was a next big "sea change" in DM Mafia I would love to see quick games being run (specifically 48 hour day as opposed to a more standard 72 hour day).

[Clovdyx]

The reason that I am opposed to pure hammer lynches are because it gives people the ability to not be held accountable for their actions and/or forcing players to make a bad decision.  Let's say it's 7 to lynch in a pure hammer game.  Player A (town) is at 6 votes, and Player B (also town) is online near deadline, not voting.  However, Player B has a strong town read on Player A.  B should never feel obligated to lynch one of their strong town reads (unless it's out of self-preservation).  You should not be voting someone you think is town just to get a lynch through.

 

From what I understand, the typical method before I arrived was the random kill method.  That is absolutely garbage.  Using the previous example, Player B runs the risk of being - for all intents and purposes - modkilled for not only demonstrating skill (i.e., the ability to correctly read someone) but playing to their win condition.  No.  That should NEVER be acceptable, and I'll be perfectly blunt here: if any of you do that as a mod, you are wrong.  If I sign up for a game with that lynch resolution and it WASN'T announced in the sign up, I am using my first post to say "replace me".  I encourage others to do the same - why should you be potentially penalized because you are playing better than others (by others, I mean every townie trying to mislynch Player A).  

 

The other one would be a no lynch.  This is a considerable improvement over "Random kill", but I'm still not a big fan of it.  My only real knock against it is that it lets people sit in the corner to fight a lynch they don't want to go through.  That's a huge advantage for mafia.  In a hybrid, or even a pure deadline system, if I see my teammate being strung up and want to keep them alive, I have to argue WHY they are town in the thread; this obviously draws attention to me if I'm unsuccessful, so it requires a lot of effort and skill - I can't just come in and say "Nah he's probably town, you guys are wrong, but I'm going to laugh when he flips town" and expect it to work.  In contrast, in a pure deadline system, I don't have to say anything.  Literally.  I can just log out of DM/lurk as invisible, and once DL hits, my buddy gets a reprieve.  Sorry about your luck, 5 townies that correctly identified him as mafia...me and my other teammate didn't feel like bussing for no reason.

 

Based on that, a deadline lynch (whether hybrid or pure time-based) is the fairest.  If there are 21 alive, it takes 11 to lynch.  My scumteam might not get 7 townies to follow the 4 of us, but we can probably get 3 or 4.  As town, I don't know that I can convince 10 people of why Leelou is mafia (other than because she's always mafia), but I can probably get 6 and a bus vote.  8 votes out of 21 is probably enough to get a lynch through, so my efforts are rewarded.  Yay me.

 

 

In terms of waiting - that's a player thing.  I'm comfortable using votes to explore wagons and test where people are willing to lynch.  Okay, Player A said Player B is his third strongest mafia read.  Is that distancing, or is he actually willing to go there?  Let me put an early vote on him and see how Player A responds.  Let's see how everybody else reacts to the pressure - who wants it, who fights it, and who helps out without a reason?  I realize I'm just one person, and I'm not going to argue "my method is better" - it's better for me because I can get some kick ass results with it.  I just don't like to see people having time and refusing to do anything because they're going to do it later or make sure they're correct.  There's nothing wrong with voting somebody and moving it.  

 

TL;DR -Player A pretty okay at mafia playing thing; Clovdyx is above average cute; Leelou always scum.

[Darthe]

Yeahh I don't think I agree. actually not at all, since each has merit.

 

Hybrid is convenient because people don't have to set restrictions and punish people etc and nobody has really settled on an optimal way to do that so hammer often looked sloppy. Basically hybrid is a good way to get around forcing the game to play. It's reliable. It also is really easy to game. Take a look at the Metafile of site that use it, they've placed incredible amounts of reliance on analysis of CFDs and EoD in general, to the point that the other times are relatively inconsequential.

 

That's also true of pure deadline games, moreso even, and I like that but it's not necessarily a better system.

 

For some games hammer is optimal.

 

I think my upcoming game is a good example. I specifically do not want Eod to be all important. I want steady, consistent activity to inform choices and keep play evenlynch weighted through the game because the powers in it could really screw the pooch if someone drew, say 4 kills or if four people derped at an Eod or just weren't there when it happened and suddenly half the game is dead one night.

 

What I'm trying to get to is that hammer is a perfectly functional system on a site where people dedicate themselves to games when they sign up for them and mods think things through. People who have cool ideas but no experience modding (myself included at one point) really screwed the pooch with idiotic restrictions attached to their hammer game. Things like modkills ending day, no coroner's, punishing mechanics or random kills that were weighted to favor the wolves really don't make sense.

 

I think I have found three ways that effectively solve this issue. No kill isn't bad in a setup like mind with a lot of vigs but my general advice is either rand it between the top two to three trains or give everyone a 1/n chance of living that night where n is the number of living players. That way as one team dies more the other team is more likely to lose a member and only 1 kill is likely but it could be substantially more. That last one is really balanced.

[Darthe]

An amended version of the above would require that a player have a vote on them to qualify but I think that leads to bias and could be abused.

[Cory Caboose]

Yeah I prefer Hybrid Hammer since it's really the best of both worlds but I agree each has their place

I'm just glad we have moved away from Hammer + No Coroner Random Flip games or other "if people aren't going to vote/play we need to punish them in some way" type mod rulings.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

rand the kill among those not voting

[Darthe]

rand the kill among those not voting

I remember a game like that. Wolves knew to place a vote so it basically said "townies gonna die". We should have abused that by all the town holding off votes or something.

[Clovdyx]

rand the kill among those not voting

 

I like where your head's at, but like Darthe alluded to - this would become INCREDIBLY breakable.  

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

every lynch gets abused by mafia. it's their job.

 

how about a randomly changing hammer system that doesn't allow the Borg to adapt to the new system before it changes? that always worked for Picard until it didn't.

 

this issue is going to get decided by players anyway, whatever the theoretical arguments. people won't sign up for what they don't like. or they will and then they'll have a nice blow up post game. you starting your game today?

[Cory Caboose]

Cindy when are you going to start playing again? 

[Nynaeve]

I like hybrid hammer games.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

Cindy when are you going to start playing again?

when my psychiatrist thinks it's a good idea.

[Clovdyx]

every lynch gets abused by mafia. it's their job.

 

I actually disagree with this.  I don't feel it's mafia's job to abuse a broken system any more than it's town's job to clear themselves through "unethical" means or use cheap methods for killing mafia (Xthrax-esque situations do not fall into these categories and warrant IRL death IMO).  Do I fault the individual for doing it?  Not really - I'm a firm believer it's the moderator's job to ensure that they prohibit anything they don't want to happen.

 

And in this example, it's not like town can't prevent it - just place a damn vote.  But it's a lot easier for 3 mafia than 10 townies to get a vote on the board.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

yes it is. it's even easier if townies don't bother voting so mafia doesn't have to get their hands dirty.

 

maybe some kind of reward punishment system with mild electric shocks and fun size snickers might work...

[Nolder]

Lotta tl;dr in this thread.

 

I'm just going to say that when town misses a deadline if it's a hammer game I don't randomly kill or even punish anyone.

I just let the game go to night with no lynch. When you think about it that should be punishment enough for a town that can't get it's act together and make a lynch happen. It's on townies not the mafia to push a lynch. Mafia win the game by killing at night, yes directing lynches helps but they don't NEED to. Townies are the ones who need to make lynches happen. It's the only way they are guaranteed to win. So if my towns don't care enough then they just get steamrolled and I'm ok with that.

 

That said I'm starting to like hybrid hammer more just because you see less of the deadline rush to consolidate. People vote who they actually want to vote and it turns the game back into a talking a negation game than just a guessing game which is what it used to often devolve into.

[BFG]

Sidetrack: Mafia shouldn't be able to win without mislynches though, just as town shouldn't be able to win without lynching mafia.

 

 

 

Biggest problem with hammer deadline, is that depending on whose playing, deadline may fall when people can't get on. Trying to achieve deadline 12 hours before deadline means that 1/4 of the day can be lost... hybrid hammer mitigates a lot of that.

[Clovdyx]

Sidetrack: Mafia shouldn't be able to win without mislynches though, just as town shouldn't be able to win without lynched.

 

 

I don't 100% agree with this, but those are very rare circumstances - if a vig can shoot all the mafia, that person deserves a win.  Or with a combination of vig/SK. typically this is a great policy. 

[BFG]

I was recently in a game where mafia managed 5/6? mislynches in a 15 player game, and almost lost because RTE ( ) shot correctly 2 nights running, and I was luckier the last night :/ I can agree that the vig was great, but I think town should need to lynch at least ONE mafia to win, given team nature of game

 

 

But you're right it's rare :)

[Nolder]

Sidetrack: Mafia shouldn't be able to win without mislynches though, just as town shouldn't be able to win without lynching mafia.

I don't agree.

The mafia is the driving force behind the game.

They are the reason the game is happening.

Otherwise the town would be peaceful and business as usual.

There would be no story, no conflict.

[BFG]

I don't understand what you disagree with?

[Clovdyx]

But how would you make that?  Put any vigs as the number of mafia - 1, at most (i.e., in a game with 4 mafia, make a vig limited to 3 shots)?  What about a SK?  

[Cory Caboose]

moar vanilla games

 

i'm good at those sometimes

 

roles just make my head hurt

[WWWwombat]

Lotta tl;dr in this thread.

 

I'm just going to say that when town misses a deadline if it's a hammer game I don't randomly kill or even punish anyone.

I just let the game go to night with no lynch. When you think about it that should be punishment enough for a town that can't get it's act together and make a lynch happen. It's on townies not the mafia to push a lynch. Mafia win the game by killing at night, yes directing lynches helps but they don't NEED to. Townies are the ones who need to make lynches happen. It's the only way they are guaranteed to win. So if my towns don't care enough then they just get steamrolled and I'm ok with that.

 

That said I'm starting to like hybrid hammer more just because you see less of the deadline rush to consolidate. People vote who they actually want to vote and it turns the game back into a talking a negation game than just a guessing game which is what it used to often devolve into.

 

This is how I usually handle hammer games as well.  No lynch is usually pretty anti-town, so it's a sufficient penalty for not consolidating, but it's better than killing an obvious townie, so you can feel ok not consolidating if you think it's the lesser of two evils.

 

My main problem with hybrid hammer games is that people tend to treat them like deadline games and just not vote until really close to EoD.  That basically makes much of the day phase useless posturing because no one is actually under any pressure.  Maybe hybrid hammer would work better with daykills or ITA type stuff to add some urgency, but given the current DM meta, I think it leaves a lot to be desired when compared to hammer games with no majority = no lynch.