ChaosOmega's Mini Normal Review, September 2021

[Isis]

This is not normal even if it is publically 4:9 because of the possibility of extra deaths night one.

I feel a passable 4:9 setup would need to be both publicly 4:9 and unable to produce extra deaths at any point in the game (no babysitters or weaks either).

[Isis]

I don't think informed addresses the heart of my concern. It's highly plausible the informed goes unclaimed and is nightkilled night one or night two, resulting in a <normal> game with strong incorrect assumptions about the timing of eLo that are too far from current player expectations.

That's stricter than implo's stance but I'm primary

[Isis]

You can create ambiguity with "Town can lose before day 4", maybe, suggesting the warning might just be about lots of weak and vig when it's actually about lots of scum.

[Isis]

Oh I was ninjaed

[Isis]

Is post 7 for public knowledge of 2 traitor 2 groupscum or public knowledge of 4:9?

[Isis]

I think that's prolly fine since players should expect wonky once they know it's 4:9, but needed to know

[Isis]

This is really hard to evaluate for balance but I think it's what you want? It seems like town can win, jk and follower are 50% effective correctly targeting "that person no one seems to want to lim"

[Isis]

By what you want I mean, "what one wants for 50% win probability"

[Isis]

How would you feel about changing the goon to a watcher enabler for antiswing and calling it a setup

I'm loathe to remove hard-hitting prs from a four scum setup

[Isis]

Cool

[Isis]

"action type" would be a smidge better for follower.

The BP wording is raising some questions I don't have the answer to lol. I kind of think the word successful does more harm than good but not sure. As written it would be expended even if the mafia says "I can't get into prison, therefore you don't die", because there is no reason to regard jail confinement and BP saves as different reasons for unsuccess?

[Isis]

Mafia rules engines have sucked for eternity, it is never improbable that the roles pulled from the whitelist are themselves the source of the problem.

The proposed wording is probably good enough and I consider it passed although I think it is still susceptible to certain ambiguities.

If I had a free canvas I'd want to copy umbralogic and use "the first time you would be flipped and removed from the game due to a kill attempt at night, if you're a 1-shot bulletproof, instead you will be converted to a 0-shot bulletproof. You will not be informed of this. Once you are a 0-shot bulletproof this ability is furthermore ignored." That unambiguously resolves doctor+bulletproof in favor of the bulletproof with regard to early expenditure of the vest when a doc save occured during the first attempt, even though it's internally consistent and very balanced to just have early vest expenditures concurrent with doc saves.

I think I implo would urge the importance of wordcounts that don't run off the reservation and prolly say just to use your second proposed wording. It doesnt use the word "successful" which I appreciate since there can be a parade of horrible a for misinterpreting the word successful given the wrong readership.

[Isis]

Wow

Gonna go with what implo said.

To drill down a bit, formatting is one thing but attribution is critical here. "Anonymous" means you'll use some kind of formatting that indicates a player sent the message but not which player. The FN trick only works if the communication is being attributed or possibly being attributed to the mod. That's not what mailman does, mailman makes it clear an anonymous -player- wrote the message.