...I'll be more specific.
I've been roaming around the wiki lately,
On a tangent from setups themselves, navigating this thing is so wierd. So you start at
Open Setups, which has four subcategories:
First things first, why is Semi-Open Setups here? At the top of the page it mentions the other three, but for some reason, Semi-Opens are under this branch? (Also of note, this category is empty, leading me to believe it was something started but forgotten.)
Second thing. If I make a setup and want to put it on the wiki, where do I put it? It's probably not Approved, so not there. It's not Historical cause it hasn't been run. Setups Outside Rotation as a category is a wonky "Approved, but not for new people and not run very often" category. So where do you put a new setup you make? Or are you not allowed to unless it's "approved" (which I honestly don't even know what exactly qualifies as "approved") OR, does it just go under none of the sub-branches, only going instead under Open Setups? Semantics I know, but there is just some inconsistencies.
Mainly, I see some setups not in
Approved Open Setups, but in the sub-categories of Large Open Setups, Mid Open Setups, Small Open Setups, and Untested Open Setups. Why is this? Because if I make a 6 player open setup and want to categorize it, what will I choose? Obviously it's a Small Open Setup and I put it under Open Setups. But as I've just shown, that makes the branches super wierd.
I guess my biggest complaint is that it's inconsistent, mainly due to a lack of consistency within categorization. Is this
really
that important? I guess no. But if we're going to be linking the wiki to players using the cards, on the off chance that any of them click the wiki to find a setup to play, I'd prefer it to be more consistent/navigatable.
Now, to setup specifics. Just looking at random setups.
I found
Picking Simplicity hiding under Approved Setups > Large Open. This was brought up
earlier in the thread and eventually Hoopla decided on approving with "(with Macho Cop)." The setup is still there without Macho Cop, so I'm just double checking to make sure this was just a change that never made it. Because I can't imagine a large with follow-the-cop being easily done being approved? Unless I'm missing something.
Faith Plus One has yet to have a town win, and I absolutely hate open setups with random chances so I was wondering if we could try to rework this a bit. I don't have anything great to suggest as of yet, but I definitely love the "If both Docs protect the cop, their protection fails" element of the setup. Or, it's entirely possible the setup is fine as is and I'm just being a loser. Looking back, people seem to have commented on enjoying the setup:
In post 190, Amrun wrote: In post 183, DarthYoshi wrote:Faith Plus One
- This setup has four variants, so we really ought to just pick one and use it if people like it. I know it was played recently. Is there anyone here that played or read the game? What did they think of the setup? To me, it doesn't have that X-factor about it, and I think there are some people who think %-based roles are kind of meh. It feels a little scum-sided too. Again, would like others to weigh in on this one.
Speaking as the setup creator--the reason it was made was back in the spring when people discussed the brokenness of the basic 12p, I wanted to make a setup that allowed for both cop + doc roles without having to fall back on more cliched counters like maf roleblockers, macho cops, etc. Faith +1 is what resulted from that. If I had to pick one variant to go with, it'd be 1 doc + 1 ineffective doc + 1 cop. If it feels a little scum-sided, I am happy to work on that as well.
I played in the first time this was run and I really enjoyed the set up.
I think the 2 ineffective doc version (the one I played) was really interesting because we had to figure out how to try and protect the cop correctly without BOTH doing it (and I actually was protecting the cop the night he died, but my 50% failed).
I didn't see a problem with it, balance-wise. it was fun.
And here's my problem with it. Here you have a game completely changed because of the 50%. A cop living or dying randomly is
hugely
swingy.
Worst comes to worst, I might just take the "both docs protect X target is fails" concept and make a different setup.
Hard Boiled seems to have been better since the removal of Hider Tracker and +1 VT, but I don't really understand why you'd take Vig over Tracker, basically cause
this. Also, IIRC, there was some strategy with Hider claiming d1 and tracker tracking them that basically makes choosing Vig almost gamethrowingly bad, no? So my question is, why is choosing Vig or choosing Tracker an option? I just don't really understand it, if someone could explain it to me, then that'd be grand.
Jungle Republic endgames need to be clarified imo, because situations like
this are ridiculous. (Basically, Town couldn't win and were put in a Kingmaker situation.) Post game,
Shadow Dancer addressed the points, but no clarification of win conditions really came of it. If you clarify those win conditions to avoid people playing out a game they already lost, it'd be great.
Semi related note,
Jungle Anarchy is basically a fixed version of Jungle Republic due to the exclusion of the Seer and inclusion of the Vig, but the endgames are unclarified, and the Role PMs look inconsistent with the rest of the wiki. (This also begs the question: Do we want consistent role PMs throughout the wiki? I know I do, but I don't want to go changing it all without discussing it first.)
Masons and Monks has yet to have a town win, even since the added VT change. While the setup itself is very elegent in its simplicity, is it just all of the towns playing badly or is it scumsided? I actually don't know so I just thought I'd bring it up.
Cult Vengeful is barely mafia and just a worse version of vengeful, but I've discussed this with the setup creator and a few others and was disagreed with wholly so whatever. Mainly it has me asking: Can I make any setup and put it on the wiki? My big issue with it is that it's under Small Open Setups which is under Approved Open Setups which means it can be run in the open queue(I think?). I guess I'd just like higher ups to address this.
SCIENCE! has a hilarious 90% Mafia winrate. It was suggested that it be changed to 2:5:2 for balance reasons, but many liked the simplicity and Veto'd it. I'm fine keeping it as is mainly due to lack of 7 player setups, but I think the Encryptor needs to not be named so. I just think it'd be cleaner if there were 2 mafia goons and it was specified that they had daytalk. Just a visual change for clarity's sake I'd like to make. (People could get confused and think Encryptor dying stops masons from daytalking) If someone also thinks the 90% Mafia winrate is too absurd to keep it an approved 7p, I'd also be willing to talk about if it should be changed or even if there should just be a new setup with 2 mafia, 2 masons, and 5 vts.
Vengeful is beautiful as always, but is there a reason we're still calling the Godfather in this setup a Godfather? Is there a reason not to find another name for this role? I know it's a stupid detail, but I know I don't like to play this setup with cards simply because people get confused when I call the role a Godfather and have to go through explaining "it works not like a normal Godfather, if it's lynched then scum loses bla bla bla..."
We Need A Fifth is obviously a setup of my own devising that is obviously very similar to vengeful. It's debateably mafia, and because of that I wanted to just take a look and make sure it's fine as is. In order to get a lynch on someone atm, you need every other player to vote that player. Meaning for you to lynch scum the first day, you know that a partner bussed. I just wanted to run the idea of having it 2 votes to lynch. How would this affect the game? Does Bo Know brought up
this point but I still wanted to get more feedback on the idea. For thoughts sake, both games run have been mafia wins where town was lynched day one and shot the other townie, but obviously the sample size is completely unreliable.
There are random setups everywhere in the open setups category. And mainly I see it because of unclear organization. Is there a reason we don't have an Unapproved section? Or is it correct for you to just try your luck in finding a setup of a certain size in the Open Setup category.
If the reasoning for disorganization is laziness, I can take it upon myself to organize things, that's no big deal. But I don't want to do that without a discussion first, it may be that things are running as intended and I just don't understand it.
