i would like to say that i like this setup a lot. i think it's elegant in its simplicity and i think it's a nice way to spice up mountainous to make it a bit more interesting and to give it a bit more widespread appeal.
reminds me a little bit of cul-de-sac, but i
think
i like this one better. (of course, this is 2:9 mountainous while i think cul-de-sac is 2:11 mountainous)
could the alternative vote work as a system for this? i think it'd place more emphasis on 1st choices as opposed to a ranking of every setup, not sure if that's desirable or not.
i would like to say that i like this setup a lot. i think it's elegant in its simplicity and i think it's a nice way to spice up mountainous to make it a bit more interesting and to give it a bit more widespread appeal.
reminds me a little bit of cul-de-sac, but i
think
i like this one better. (of course, this is 2:9 mountainous while i think cul-de-sac is 2:11 mountainous)
I really like Allomancer's setup a lot, as well. Analysing voting patterns in a setup like this sounds like a blast.
One of those which I think would be even more fun to play than to analyse.
I think Guilt Neighbourhood is pretty scumsided. If not for that, I'd have ranked it more highly. (That said, 2:7 is winnable in practice, and I have a suspicion that 2:9 is actually less scumsided than 2:11, so it may be the best numbers for a vanilla setup with a regular day/night cycle and regular win condition.)
Ignoring my own setup (because I can't evaluate it objectively), NSG's is the most interesting design; my main reservation is that I'm not sure whether it's balanced or not (it may be, it's hard to evaluate).
As for the voting system, I'd recommend something that a) is easy to understand, and b) never causes dishonest rankings to give worse results for the voter than honest rankings (people tend to feel shortchanged if they vote honestly, but the voting system requires a less honest ranking in order for the votes to actually have the desired effect). AV/IRV has the issue that it's fairly complex to understand how the results are calculated (although actually casting the votes is fairly easy); you can also sometimes get an advantage from voting dishonestly, but that's hardly likely to be an issue in practice (as tactical votes in IRV normally require probabilistic coordination among a large number of people, and it's rare for people to regret not having done that).
I still think "each voter rates each setup, highest average rating wins" is likely to be an excellent choice for voting (being easy to understand, both in terms of casting votes and counting them); the main problem is that it tends to miss fine distinctions in which setup is better when two setups are widely liked (voters will often max-rate several options to give a bigger contrast to the setups they dislike, meaning that widely popular options will often get close to the maximum score), but I'm not convinced that that's really a problem; if we end up in a tie for first we can always have a runoff, and it's likely that we'll have discovered multiple good setups in the process. Note that all voting systems are vulnerable to tactical voting, but tactical voting in this system ("range voting") consists of changing ratings while leaving setups in their honest order; there's never an incentive to rank setups out of order.
i would like to say that i like this setup a lot. i think it's elegant in its simplicity and i think it's a nice way to spice up mountainous to make it a bit more interesting and to give it a bit more widespread appeal.
reminds me a little bit of cul-de-sac, but i
think
i like this one better. (of course, this is 2:9 mountainous while i think cul-de-sac is 2:11 mountainous)
Same here! While clearly scumsided I thought this would be really fun to play. I ranked it third.
I think Rel is passing the reins onto the winner (assuming mith is keen to run the Feb one). I'm also more than happy to help with admin backup on the voting side of things. If you have an idea maybe shoot mith a pm and ask if he wants to run Feb or would be cool with you doing it?
Sorry, but I don't really see the appeal in mith's setup. It kind of reminds me of Secret Hitler. The issue is that a lot of the EV is dependent on who the traitor kills, which town have no control over. On the other hand, such kills are unlikely in practice, making it hard for town who have no power and rely on the traitor killing scum. This sounds stressful to play as either alignment.
i enjoy the idea of a traitor controlling the kills and in some part i enjoy the idea of a flagbearer when it comes to the associations that i think it creatues, but i do think that it might focus on a single slot too much
not to try to take over someone else's setup, but i wonder how balanced it would be if instead of the traitor being a flagbearer, it worked like how normal games deal with traitors, in that the traitor is endgamed if both of the mafia goons die. might be a little bit swingy / boring if the traitor dies early and the mafia have to deal with the game suddenly being nightless, though – the traitor being a flagbearer does solve that issue.
In post 131, the worst wrote:I think Rel is passing the reins onto the winner (assuming mith is keen to run the Feb one). I'm also more than happy to help with admin backup on the voting side of things. If you have an idea maybe shoot mith a pm and ask if he wants to run Feb or would be cool with you doing it?
Congrats mith! The next challenge is meant to be run by mith, yes, as part of the prize of winning. If he chooses not to run one, I suppose it’s up to him who runs it instead
had an idea for a slight modification to guilt neighborhood.
there's an incentive for mafia to always be on lynch wagons so that the traffic analyst can't truly get a "guilty" on them.
something interesting i also noticed is that venge-neighborhoods always allow people to get final thoughts out after a flip and before they can be killed, which i think is a good feature. that was present in the original setup, of course.
(also, i used traffic analyst for the flavor of everything being city-themed, but really i think it should function more like a PT Cop in that it could still get a guilty result on scum even if their partner had been lynched.)
Last edited by northsidegal on Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In post 135, Jingle wrote:I thought he was supposed to pick the setup criteria, not necessarily run it wholesale.
NSG's proposed vote system also seems like a decent alternative.
If mith would like me to run his setup criteria as a challenge, I will do so gladly! It’s not too much work, with tw’s help. My originally thought was that the winner would run the contest, though. Up to him!
In post 135, Jingle wrote:I thought he was supposed to pick the setup criteria, not necessarily run it wholesale.
NSG's proposed vote system also seems like a decent alternative.
If mith would like me to run his setup criteria as a challenge, I will do so gladly! It’s not too much work, with tw’s help. My originally thought was that the winner would run the contest, though. Up to him!
Does mith know that they won, and what that means?
