I am on my mobile phone so i will go to a computer to elaborate and or respond if the thread gets interest.

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about the game mechanics of mafia returns. I have played on and off since 04-05 and he played for about 6 months in 11. After a few different interesting discussions which i will go further into if people are interested we began to talk about the motivation for a user to ever kill any other human user. We came up with no motivation beyond paranoia and to kill before being killed. We argued that killing a user does give stat modifications but with the availability and diversity of non player accounts the risks far outweighed the rewards.

After a few moments pondering why large scale wars even happeb we both began to laugh. Since resources are infinite there can be no competition. So litterally the best decision for any player is no never interact with anyone outside of their city.

The game has tons of incentive to live on an ongoing state of peace and the only motivation to kill another user is fear of them killing you first. But if each player was attempting to play at the optimal win strategy then they would never care about each other seeing as they compete for nothing on the mechanical level of the game.

Any thoughts?

Mistakes, that is why war happens, I have been around quite a bit, not as long as others but a bit. I asked Tanda after the NO war and I said if you could do anything different in the time as GF when it had to do with the city of NY what would it be? He said he would of killed them along time ago because he let them get away with making mistakes he felt he should of took them down for. I think alot of war has to do with mistakes, the motivation here to survive is to not make mistakes. Wars typically happen from what I have seen because Godfather A does not like what Godfather B is saying or doing or having the possibility of doing which all are mostly due to making some form of mistake whatever it is. I dont think anyone here really WANTS to kill other human players, but we all know it is inevitable at one point or another. I wish I could just sit here for a year and see how high I can build but I know it wont happen.

That is exactly my point typhoon. There are no game mechanica that drive the players towards killing other players. It only happens because of human factors. Do you find this acceptable? Do you think iy effects the way you or anyone plays?

I do find it acceptable, I feel like in a game of build up human error is a perfect reason for a take down or a war to occur. I think of this game as a build up game so my opinions are based around that, if the only way war happened was via some form of in game such as lets say maybe turfs? or I dunno just going off the top of my head maybe w/e it would be to make more money as a whole I think it would hurt the game.

The shape the game is in as far as reasons of war is perfect, every member who joins X city, trusts that Godfather A is going to do what is best for them and their city, and if they have full trust in them they expect them to keep them all safe. To keep them safe you have to make sure you are mistake free and doing what you should be doing whatever it may be. When this Godfather A makes a mistake the entire city pays for it as they should which makes it completely acceptable to me as this is caused by human errors which is what it should be about.

take out the human factor and you have a useless website....as for me the HUMAN FACTOR is what has kept me coming back for over ten years.

take any Xbox or playstation game...you play it, you finish it and then you never touch it again. Any of you constantly play an old xbox game for over ten years straight? I think not

Thats what this game is about is the human factors, everything in this game is mostly ran by the humans, even the Admins ask us about certain things they feel needs user input and with the PC now that is also human controlled. Games run much better by humans.

I've always seen war as a battle of philosophy and direction rather than someone committing an error. For the vast majority of cases, the error serves only as an excuse to instigate a war, rather than what is primarily the reason for it. There's the power and paranoia factor, obviously, but the game has always been in a state where it's in a perpetual cold war. Users will routinely lump cities together by what they interpret is a cozy, coffee-shop based relationship, and separate them with another faction - both of which, you can surely bet, are squeezing every last dollar they can to load up on protection and guns that can eviscerate their enemies in a wave or two. Adding to that, the powers that be will generally find an excuse to insert themselves into a situation where it isn't warranted, further complicating matters. The weaker faction will usually stay out of it, because they've wisely chosen to pick their own battles, instead.


I don't see the average dynamic of what I've just described changing anytime soon.

Im not saying the human factor should be taken out if the game. What im suggesting is that thise factors that lead to war, if every player was playing in the most optimal way, would never happen. Im speaking purely in game design and mechanics.

I think a simple solution is to instead of have an infinite pool of money that us just generated there is a limited amount of businesses yhat we as mafiosos have to shake down to make cash. Obviously ive thought about this and will go into detail if anyone is curious. Though so far it seems that people are okay with the way it is.

I would like to see turfs put in, along with businesses which are limited, I would like to see some more form of things like that but I dunno.

We argued that killing a user does give stat modifications but with the availability and diversity of non player accounts the risks far outweighed the rewards.

Ask anyone who's ever played this game what their favourite memories have been, and I'd be willing to bet they occured during a war, not during peace time when you idle around waiting for the petty timer to pop up. Wars are fun. It's not the stat boost that's the reward of the war, it's the war itself!

Since resources are infinite there can be no competition.

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, it would be interesting to see cities (or crews within cities) competing on a basis where there wasn't enough to go around. (I made a rough suggestion that kind of mirrors this concept on a much smaller basis: http://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/309256). By the same token, creating an environment where wars are basically conducted out of necessity would just cheapen the whole experience for me. One of the most beautiful things about this game is the human interaction.

This has never been a game model with tons of superfluous features; it's always been pvp. Off the top of my head, I could easily name 5-10 Leaders who got to the top because of sheer froce of personality or cunning strategy when, by rights, they had no right being on top based on their relative account strength. Conversely, I could list a dozen powerhouse accounts that died before their time because tactically, the people holding the accounts sucked, or just couldn't get on with people. That's what makes the game exciting for me.

So litterally the best decision for any player is no never interact with anyone outside of their city.

I can't fully articulate how much I disagree with this. We've seen time and time again that Crewleaders have been taken out by other Crewleaders, not because they were threat, but because they did nothing. Just an empty suit taking up a CL spot that could go to someone more deserving. If you aren't a CL then, sure, the policy of not interacting with anyone outside your city might lead to a longer account span, but what would be the point in that? I can imagine a more unfulfilling way to play this game regardless of your place within the power structure.

The game has tons of incentive to live on an ongoing state of peace and the only motivation to kill another user is fear of them killing you first. But if each player was attempting to play at the optimal win strategy then they would never care about each other seeing as they compete for nothing on the mechanical level of the game.

Technically yes. Realistically, this is never going to happen because what it would require is every user agreeing to a scenario where you rank/train/build your account up indefinitely whilst simultaneously doing nothing with it. The odds of this happening are astronomical, and even if it did happen, can you imagine anything less fulfilling? This game is all about power, being the top dog; whether by political or brute strength. Picture a game where you attained that much power and never excersised it. Sound awful? That's because it is, and no one would ever try to seriously play the game with that strategy on a long term basis. That fact alone makes the the thread pretty redundant TBH!

The optimal way to play the game is whatever leads for you to have the most enjoyment from it. It is a game and the only real measure of success from an OOC point of view in this game, which can never truly be "won", is how much entertainment you derived from playing it. Everything else is just dressing up from an IC point of you.

Check me out typing point of you like a total idiot.

I, of course, meant point of view.