Mafiascum.net

This is the thread dedicated to reviewing new open setups to be run in Central Park. If you're thinking about designing a game, or have a good idea for a game, start a thread in the Open Setup Discussion subforum to float it for interest. If you or anyone else values the setup highly and wants to run it, we'll bring it into this thread and review it for balance/playability.

Mods who want to run a unique game need to have one modded game completed.

There are two types of Open Games; Normal and Experimental. For a game to be approved as normal, it must pass the following criteria;

*Though subjective, the setup should aim to be as close to balanced as possible; that is, all factions should have a fair chance of winning.
*The setup should have a mafia/werewolf team of at least two players.
*There should be no alignments other than Mafia/Werewolf, Town and Serial Killer (no Lyncher/Cult/Jester/Survivor)
*There should be no mechanics that can change another player's alignment or bring a dead player back to life.
*The setup should maintain the basic premise of mafia; the outcome of the game should depend primarily (though not necessarily entirely) on whether or not the pro-town players can determine the identities of the Mafia through their posting and behaviour.
*The setup should not make claiming strategies (or any other predetermined plan) pivotal to the town's chances of success.
*Normal Open Games should always be primarily determined by the individual skill of the players, as such, setups with high amounts of role interactions/night kills, unique roles, or containing overly elaborate mechanics may be classified as an Experimental Game.

Experimental games are a little bit more lenient and don't have to follow most of the above guidelines, however there still are a couple of rules that won't be waived;

*Though subjective, the setup should aim to be as close to balanced as possible; that is, all factions should have a fair chance of winning.
*The setup should not make claiming strategies (or any other predetermined plan) pivotal to the town's chances of success.

Once a setup has been approved in this thread, it may be run by any experienced moderator who is in the Open Queue. If the game is successful and well-received, it may be added to the catalogue of approved games that regularly get run in Central Park.

Although there will be an "official" group who ultimately make the final decision on the validity of a new setup, anybody with an opinion is encouraged to post. The more sets of eyes reviewing a setup, the better. I will happily extend the group to those making consistent and meaningful contributions.

Edit: No longer needed

Hoopla 0 wrote:There are two types of Open Games; Normal and Experimental. For a game to be approved as normal, it must pass the following criteria;

Not quite on topic, but is there a usable synonym for the 'N-word' lying around? As it stands it describes two different sets of standards.

Vi wrote:

Hoopla 0 wrote:There are two types of Open Games; Normal and Experimental. For a game to be approved as normal, it must pass the following criteria;

Not quite on topic, but is there a usable synonym for the 'N-word' lying around? As it stands it describes two different sets of standards.

I don't think it's that big of a deal if we have Normal Open setups, especially since Little Italy's guidelines are essentially for "Closed Normal" games.

Yogur is cool.
And balanced.
And necessary.

Vi wrote:

Hoopla 0 wrote:There are two types of Open Games; Normal and Experimental. For a game to be approved as normal, it must pass the following criteria;

Not quite on topic, but is there a usable synonym for the 'N-word' lying around? As it stands it describes two different sets of standards.

Rational
Conventional
Natural
Traditional

Xalxe wrote:

Vi wrote:

Hoopla 0 wrote:There are two types of Open Games; Normal and Experimental. For a game to be approved as normal, it must pass the following criteria;

Not quite on topic, but is there a usable synonym for the 'N-word' lying around? As it stands it describes two different sets of standards.

Suggestions

Rational
Conventional
Natural
Traditional

"Standard" will do.

Yoguraimee is one of those setups that I reflexively wouldn't think would work, but after looking at it harder I have no idea if it's balanced or not.

Empking wrote:Yogur is cool.
And balanced.
And necessary.

It's breakable.

Both cops claim D1, which gives you two confirmed cops which will obviously produce a town win, so scum is forced to counterclaim. This divides the game into 3 cops/4 unclaimed, with one scum in each pool. You force the Doctor to claim, which scum cannot counterclaim without producing two confirmed townies. You then lynch one of the three unconfirmed players - if it's town, all three cops target the other two unconfirmed players. Scum is forced to kill the Doctor as it's a confirmed innocent, and too much of a risk trying to kill a cop which might be saved. Since all three cops targeted the same player, you get a result, which confirms the last two players' alignments, giving you an automatic scum lynch. There will either be three cops left which will produce a 50/50 3p lylo, or the confirmed townie left which produces a 50/50 3p lylo. This is a worst-case scenario for town, which can obviously be improved on in the 1/3 games where they hit scum on D1, which is an autowin.

So, the possible results are;

- Lynch townie 1 D1: 50/50 lylo
- Lynch townie 2 D1: 50/50 lylo
- Lynch scum D1: win

Obviously, they'll be a massclaim but I would not say that it increases town's win rate to unplayable levels. I know I'd play it.

(Also, on the last night (if they follow your plan) the Cops should circle investigate to force the townie kill.)

Empking wrote:Obviously, they'll be a massclaim but I would not say that it increases town's win rate to unplayable levels. I know I'd play it.

(Also, on the last night (if they follow your plan) the Cops should circle investigate to force the townie kill.)

Then it falls victim to this;



I think you'd be playing suboptimally if you didn't follow some sort of claiming plan, and there's no point promoting a game that has a blueprint to success. This is why we abandoned the old newbie setup. We have plenty of other 7-9p cop/doc setups - we don't need another, especially when it doesn't work.

Yeah Yogur is much more broken than you said. I change my mind.

I'm out the door very soon and can't do the numbers, but it seems altogether too likely that dayplay or a PR will get the goon killed D1/D2, leaving the GF in a unsatisfying 4:1 (or 5:1 if a Jailkeep is what found the goon.) no nightkill endgame. (I know balance is our chief goal, but I think we need to seriously consider fun as well.) Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but that seems like a problem.

I'd especially like players who have played lovers games without talking to your lover to weigh in. The fact that some players have to deliberately advocate their own suicide to get their lover lynched, and are doing so without the benefit of the QT, just seems like it would be not-fun to play. This isn't a balance criticism (and adding lovertalk might swing it towards town heavily - QTs are a good way to scumhunt), but a scummy-ish lover partner makes it hard to figure out exactly how to play to your wincon, and I think lacking that privileged information makes it hard.

I also think we only need 1-2 C9 variants, and I'm not sure My Name is Earl would be one I pick, but we can save that discussion until we've looked at all the small opens.

Those are the only issues I can find with the small ones you picked.

I think I agree with you on Mos Eisley. A goon dying early is a really bad situation, as it's essentially nightless, with one OR two roles confirmed or psuedo-confirmed. Too much hinges on the Goon's survival.

I think True Love would be a better game if Lover pairs could talk together - as far as I'm aware they could already? Though I haven't read the games that have used this setup.

Both previous True Love games allowed lovers to talk.

Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Both previous True Love games allowed lovers to talk.

Oh good. I'll update the wiki.

hitogoroshi wrote:

True Love:

I'd especially like players who have played lovers games without talking to your lover to weigh in.

The fact that some players have to deliberately advocate their own suicide to get their lover lynched,

and are doing so without the benefit of the QT, just seems like it would be not-fun to play. This isn't a balance criticism (and adding lovertalk might swing it towards town heavily - QTs are a good way to scumhunt), but a scummy-ish lover partner makes it hard to figure out exactly how to play to your wincon, and I think lacking that privileged information makes it hard.

There are no different-alignment Lover pairs in True Love.

Lovers are divided into four pairs. Both scum are individually paired with a town player.

Huh?

Vi is obviously confusing True Love with Lovers Mafia.

No, I went too quickly over the setup mechanics.

That and 6:2 with Lovers actually has a theoretical 50% Town win rate (like advertised on the wiki page) and is basically a smaller version of Polygamist.

EDIT: 6:2 True Love also has a theoretical 50% Town win rate, so etc.

this should be stickied.

To elaborate on the small setups I want to bin;

and are both very similar variants of PieE7, which is questionably balanced itself. There is little point running these games even if they were deemed balanced/fun.

is probably broken with a pseudo-follow-the-cop strategy. In 7p games, you really only need one investigation to increase your chances. The Bodyguard essentially acts a 1-shot Doctor. I think Bird 7P is the best variant of a 7P Cop/Doc game that isn't susceptible to cop/doc claiming strategies and doesn't require a roleblocker.

is plain unbalanced - I don't think I need to explain this.

is probably unbalanced based off F11's statistics. In the 2 Goons, 1 Cop, 6 Townies setups and the 2 Goons, 1 Doctor, 6 Townies setup, they respectively have 35% and 39% winrates for town. 2:7 mountainous is a terrible option, and I'm surprised towns win in it 32% of the time. I don't think we can promote a setup based on these numbers - that's even before considering this setup is stale and not very interesting.

isn't balanced. We have the newbie C9 statistics for the California setup to qualify this claim; 82 Mafia Wins, 32 Town Wins. Nooooope.

was deliberately broken by JDodge as an experiment.

has been upgraded to Alternating 9P - we don't need this setup.

is probably unbalanced given we used to run a 2 mafia, 2 Masons, 7/8 Townies variant of Friends and Enemies. The novelty of an Encryptor isn't really a novelty when plenty of other setups feature scum daytalk. 3 Mafia wins to 0 town wins isn't anywhere near enough of a sample size to determine balance, but I suspect when considering what makes other 7P setups balanced/unbalanced that this one isn't.

is breakable.

I don't think broken is the right word for "Don't Cut the Red Wire"; it wasn't intended to be run after the first time.

About the comment you left on JK9. A good fakeclaim will help the mafia.

Herodotus wrote:I don't think broken is the right word for "Don't Cut the Red Wire"; it wasn't intended to be run after the first time.

About the comment you left on JK9. A good fakeclaim will help the mafia.

Mafia is winning 3-1 in JK9. I think if scum is lynched D1, having to no-kill until they find a PR to safely kill (or take a risk) isn't game-breaking. It should be difficult to win if you lose half your team on D1.

Hoopla wrote:

Even/Odd C9

has been upgraded to Alternating 9P - we don't need this setup.

But Alternating 9P is a Mid-Size Setup and Even/Odd C9 isn't.

Um, no?