↑Sméagol wrote:Is there an equivalent thread for closed set-ups? Or something similar to the theme test market, but then for mechanics rather than flavour.
I think a thread for discussing mechanics that won't be used in open set-ups could be useful. At the moment, for example, I'd like to know if an informed majority vs an informed minority has been done before. Lynch mechanics are obviously removed, and the mafia would be a lot stronger than town. I had some rudimentary ideas about it, and was wondering if there already have been games like that.
↑Sméagol wrote:Is there an equivalent thread for closed set-ups? Or something similar to the theme test market, but then for mechanics rather than flavour.
I think a thread for discussing mechanics that won't be used in open set-ups could be useful. At the moment, for example, I'd like to know if an informed majority vs an informed minority has been done before. Lynch mechanics are obviously removed, and the mafia would be a lot stronger than town. I had some rudimentary ideas about it, and was wondering if there already have been games like that.
If we talked openly they wouldn't be closed.
You can still talk about specific mechanics without disclosing the complete set-up (like the role distribution). I guess I can do that here as well, but I was wondering if there was amore appropriate place.
↑Sméagol wrote:Is there an equivalent thread for closed set-ups? Or something similar to the theme test market, but then for mechanics rather than flavour.
I think a thread for discussing mechanics that won't be used in open set-ups could be useful. At the moment, for example, I'd like to know if an informed majority vs an informed minority has been done before. Lynch mechanics are obviously removed, and the mafia would be a lot stronger than town. I had some rudimentary ideas about it, and was wondering if there already have been games like that.
If we talked openly they wouldn't be closed.
You can still talk about specific mechanics without disclosing the complete set-up (like the role distribution). I guess I can do that here as well, but I was wondering if there was amore appropriate place.
we have a thread to introduce themes and ask for co mods and reviews
I've already mentioned the theme test market thread, which deals with flavour.. That's not what I'm talking about. And I was talking about discussing mechanics in general, long before I'd need a reviewer. But like I said, I guess I can discuss them here.
To go back to my original example: have there been games with an informed minority vs an informed majority? I'm looking for inspiration.
Like.with serial killers? Or.with siblings? I once played a game with 3 mafia and 3 sets of quadruplits, but the thing was you couldn't confirm your siblings as town and each group had one traitor
↑Sméagol wrote:Is there an equivalent thread for closed set-ups?
"The New Set-Up Review Thread" allows you to find a reviewer for a Closed game. (I used to be pretty active there, although more recently I've mostly been doing closed Normal reviews rather than closed Theme reviews, and thus have been going via the NRG.)
Since your mostly looking at this mechanism, since your not telling us the PR's or anything.
My main question is are the messages anonymous?
Would they have a tag to be able to identify that they are different players (EG. one message comes from A, another from B)
Basically the mechanic basically means shit all if it's not anonymous (as you may as well just say the message in the thread) however if it is, then it just gives a way for PR's to claim extremely safely (claim in your first message to the mod, provide results after each night)
There is basically no reason to use it outside of that sort of thing (why do you need these messages when you can just say things in thread?)
Neither Neighborizer should really actually use their ability because they are 50/50 scum, and the person neighborized should just claim the neighborizer.
↑yessiree wrote:I just had to get this idea out there... :P
Town's nowhere near powerful enough for a 10:3, and the fact that scum don't know each others' identities makes scumhunting basically impossible; there's no way to draw associatives. I'm inclined to call this "not Mafia". (Besides, a decent proportion of the value in a town Neighbourizer is in neighbourizing scum and figuring out who their buddies are via seeing how they react to various suggestions of yours.)
↑callforjudgement wrote:Town's nowhere near powerful enough for a 10:3, and the fact that scum don't know each others' identities makes scumhunting basically impossible; there's no way to draw associatives. I'm inclined to call this "not Mafia". (Besides, a decent proportion of the value in a town Neighbourizer is in neighbourizing scum and figuring out who their buddies are via seeing how they react to various suggestions of yours.)
I don't think drawing associatives is the only way to scumhunt though. It's true you can't draw associations between scums, but at the same time, that lack of coordination makes it that much more difficult in achieving a mislynch.
Scum have zero incentive to act any differently from town.
Think of it this way: normally scum have to play a little nontownishly to help out their partners, but if they don't know who their partners are, this incentive isn't there. So scum can just play exactly as though they were town; there is no reason for them to do anything else. (In fact, it would be optimal to not read your role PM in that sort of setup, except for the fact that you have to know whether you need to send in a nightkill.)
↑JasonWazza wrote:Neither Neighborizer should really actually use their ability because they are 50/50 scum, and the person neighborized should just claim the neighborizer.
Then i guess it turns into a mountainous with an uninformed scum team?
Numbers are flexible and I have no idea whether they're in the right place or not at the moment (it should be close though). This is a Bad Idea variant, or viewed another way, a Texas Justice variant. I can't see a way to break it due to the fact that actions happen in sequence rather than being simultaneous.
↑JasonWazza wrote:Neither Neighborizer should really actually use their ability because they are 50/50 scum, and the person neighborized should just claim the neighborizer.
Then i guess it turns into a mountainous with an uninformed scum team?
Which is as CallForJudgement said, basically not mafia (i'd actually not read the part of the mafia not knowing each other when i posted).
callforjudgement wrote:
Numbers are flexible and I have no idea whether they're in the right place or not at the moment (it should be close though). This is a Bad Idea variant, or viewed another way, a Texas Justice variant. I can't see a way to break it due to the fact that actions happen in sequence rather than being simultaneous.
You can basically view this as a 5v3 due to the fact that really, Mafia can just shoot off the bat and go random to make them have the best chances.
But the 5 all do have a 1 shot day kill, but in a town with 3 random townies dead, i'm inclined to think that's not a good thing.
EDIT: Just thinking on how that would work.
Mislynch (don't vengekill) LYLO
Then every mislynch after that the townie has to manage to hit a scum.
It's more like a 6:3 than a 5:3 if scum all shoot first. If the setup ends at 2:2 or 1:1, a townie can daykill scum in order to keep town's chances alive, thus town have one extra mislynch. (Not to mention that if town
knows
that scum have used their shots, they can pick two people for the lynch and ask them to vig each other; if both are town only one would die, if one were scum then they'd be killed by the townie, and if both were scum it'd become obvious when neither could shoot. As such, scum would have to claim their daykills on townies in order to prevent it being obvious that it was a scum shot, which makes them easier to read and rather restricts their targets.)
Day start. Each Night, the Mafia must choose someone (X). They can choose themselves, but not the person they are killing. X will then choose another player (Y) before the next Day starts. X and Y will be publicly announced, and will be the only votable players on that Day.
So I thought of a few ways to balance this:
Make the gladiator choose two people instead of one to have a higher chance of hitting scum (but personally I dislike this idea).
Insert 2/3 masons for Micro/Mini. This is my preferred variant, but I'm unsure if 2/3 or 3/4 masons is better. Former seems tad bit underpowered but latter seems like it could be too much power. I like masons more than other PRs for this setup because it avoids the nasty "PR gladiates other PR" scenario.
Maybe allow the gladiator to choose his target halfway into the Day, but I don't really like this idea either.
Also, I disagree that Mafia choosing target randomly is a concern. In a normal Mafia game, scum can also kill randomly, but they do much better, and NKA is a thing.
Basically, the idea is that town have to estimate whether having the scummiest scum revealed would be more useful in the future or now. If there's obvscum, you lynch them as if they're actually scum, no lynching now would give scum a relatively cheap sacrifice. If there isn't, it may well be that a flip would make the situation clearer, in which case it's probably in your interests to get a scumflip now rather than risking lynching someone who makes the scum's sacrifice decision easier. This reminds me of Deal or No Deal a lot (you try to estimate the best time to "take the offer" as the probabilities change, you can only take the offer once, but even after you do you play the game out), so the name is very fitting :-)
The idea originally came about when trying to fix an issue in White Flag (that it's hard to get associatives with dead scum in a mountainous and the White Flag mechanic just makes it harder, thus forcing you to scum
team
hunt rather than scumhunt in the normal way). Giving town the first scum death for free rather than the last seemed like the way to go, but you can't just flip one scum at the start of the game because town wouldn't gain anything from it. Instead, by adding the possibility that scum can be lynched
first
, scum are encouraged to defend each other and thus create associative tells.
The EV (town win percentage with random lynching) is highest if town delay their no-lynch to the last possible moment (to increase the chance of a random lynch hitting scum), at 48.646%.
Honestly i think what you aim to do, is only reveal your most scum where ever possible, and once you lynch the first scum, instantly no lynch, as then you give scum less info on who to keep alive in the scenario.
Though that runs into other problems, and is mostly a best case scenario sort of thing.
EDIT: Also question, if the deadline is what forces a no lynch, what is your plan there?
Cause i feel like that almost breaks the spirit of what your trying to achieve with this setup.
I thought about that but decided that there wasn't much of a reason not to leave it up to the moderator. It doesn't have a balance effect, just an effect on town activity, so it falls into the realm of moderator discretion.
