[OLD] Open Setup Ideas and Discussion

[PokerFace]

Loser Mafia hurt my brain and the version skitzer describes seems to involve only one mason needing to get lynched instead of both mafia needing out of the game to win

[farside22]

I'm going to start really looking these idea over when I get back from my vacation. Anything I feel looks good I will take over to the certify people and start lighting a fire to get more game choice to play for Open.

[Empking]

50%?

2 Lovers Mafia

2 Masons
2 Townies

Night Start

[Korts]

50%?

2 Lovers Mafia

2 Masons
2 Townies

Night Start

I'm not comfortable with D1 LYLO.

[animorpherv1]

50%?

2 Lovers Mafia

2 Masons
2 Townies

Night Start

I'm not comfortable with D1 LYLO.

QFT

[Empking]

50%? V.2

2 Mafia Lovers
2 Masons
1 Vengeful Townie

[ortolan]

That is genuinely 50%. Well done. I approve.

[Korts]

50%? V.2

2 Mafia Lovers
2 Masons
1 Vengeful Townie

Daystart I assume? Again, D1 LYLO, and as opposed to Vengeful, if a pro-town role is lynched town has only a 1 in 3 chance of getting a vengeful kill. If a mason is killed mafia win instantly.

Breaking strategy: instant mason claim, getting either a confirmed pair or two pairs of claimed and counterclaimed; first scenario yields instant town win by lynching a random person of the three and if townie having them shoot another of the three; in the second scenario the unclaimed remaining player (the townie) is lynched and has a 50% chance of hitting scum. It takes the game away from town and puts it into a single player's hands.

The original was probably better, although I haven't given that much thought yet.

[Empking]

The First Part of your breaking strategy: Scum could also claim scum. That's not a problem with the set up.
The second part: This doesn't increase the town's odds of winning.

[Korts]

The First Part of your breaking strategy: Scum could also claim scum. That's not a problem with the set up.
The second part: This doesn't increase the town's odds of winning.

That's true. But masons will have to claim, since lynching a mason = a town loss. And if masons claim, then scum counterclaim, and again, it is down to a single player to actually play.

[ortolan]

what do you think about this one Korts: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 65#1532265

Also 50% odds of winning for either

Is there any chance of me running that in the open games queue or will I need to run it during a marathon day or something first to prove whether it's workable?

[Empking]

The First Part of your breaking strategy: Scum could also claim scum. That's not a problem with the set up.
The second part: This doesn't increase the town's odds of winning.

That's true. But masons will have to claim, since lynching a mason = a town loss. And if masons claim, then scum counterclaim, and again, it is down to a single player to actually play.

If masons claiming leads to masons getting lynched then it ruins your reasoning for masons claiming.

[ortolan]

I agree with Korts' point- while strictly speaking it does have a 50% expected win percentage for both town and scum, it is just a bad/boring setup regardless.

[Empking]

I agree with Korts' point- while strictly speaking it does have a 50% expected win percentage for both town and scum, it is just a bad/boring setup regardless.

Its only boring when you try (and fail) to break it.

[Korts]

I like it. No breaking strategies occur to me, and 50-50 is a very very good EV. The certification group is discussing friends and enemies at the moment, but I'm sure this will go through very easily.

[ortolan]

The setup is really just: one judge with two pairs trying to convince this judge to lynch the other.

[Empking]

The setup is really just: one judge with two pairs trying to convince this judge to lynch the other.

Only if you play suboptimally.

[ortolan]

only if who plays suboptimally? it is optimal play for the scum to force this situation to begin with.

[Empking]

only if who plays suboptimally? it is optimal play for the scum to force this situation to begin with.

What game?

[ortolan]

I meant your game

[Empking]

I meant your game

If scum do an action that everyone knows is bad for the town, I doubt they won't be lynched.

[Korts]

I meant your game

If scum do an action that everyone knows is bad for the town, I doubt they won't be lynched.

But it is optimal play for the town for the masons to claim, since accidentally lynching them would be an instant scum win.

[Empking]

I meant your game

If scum do an action that everyone knows is bad for the town, I doubt they won't be lynched.

But it is optimal play for the town for the masons to claim, since accidentally lynching them would be an instant scum win.

No it isn't.

They Claim - 50% random and unincreasable
They don't claim - 50% random and can be increased by good play.

Do you honestly think the first is better?

(Also, your plan (unless I'm mistaken) is to increase the odds of the masons being accidently lynched to stop them from being accidently lynched. Which is just silly.)

[ortolan]

Thanks Korts

I assume 689 was directed at True Love

[Korts]

The First Part of your breaking strategy: Scum could also claim scum. That's not a problem with the set up.
The second part: This doesn't increase the town's odds of winning.

That's true. But masons will have to claim, since lynching a mason = a town loss. And if masons claim, then scum counterclaim, and again, it is down to a single player to actually play.

If masons claiming leads to masons getting lynched then it ruins your reasoning for masons claiming.

Um, masons

not

claiming is what may lead to masons getting lynched, while masons claiming turns the game into a single player's decision. It is a game without any fun.

And yes, 689 is at True Love I just went to have lunch and posted without checking the thread. I nominated it for certification.