|
On July 12 2012 01:05 gonzaw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 00:37 MidnightGladius wrote:
The biggest problem I foresee is low volume of trades creating price instability. If activity levels are low, a player could short a stock, wait 47 hours, and then sell a few shares way below market price for someone else to buy. In a real market with high volume trading, that buyer would immediately re-sell higher, at the market rate, to make a profit, or someone else would re-establish the previous, higher price on their own. Here, though, shorting a stock and then selling it could be rather exploitative. Wait, how do the stock change price in this game? Is there a formula that will be known or something? Also...lol how do you play this game? Like.....why would people even try to sell their stock if their win-con is to get the most stocks? Does each "faction" know each others members apart from the red guys? (does the blue executive know who the blue allies are?). You know......this gives me another idea: [M][T]Monopoly MafiaMake it happen
The Struan and Gornt Executives would start the game with big blocks of stock, but very little actual money. If they lose money through bad deals or Par-Con actions (or other cash-squeezing Favors), then they'd have to start selling off stock to stay solvent. Also, at some point, the two town factions would have to consolidate their shares to achieve the individual majority vote part of their win-cons.
Executives don't know who their Allies are. As almost all of the non-Favor transactions (which aren't alignment-indicative) are anonymous and conducted through the host, any attempts to "confirm" people through timed stock selling would be easy to counter-claim. Basically, each company wants to try and identify each other, protect the stock price, and keep each other solvent. Once any team has a sizable vote on Opportunity bids, then they can easily bankrupt the others by forcing them into bad deals and using the profits to buy the other players out.
|
I really don't care if it's balanced or not, I'm playing.
|
On July 12 2012 02:59 MidnightGladius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 01:05 gonzaw wrote:On July 12 2012 00:37 MidnightGladius wrote:
The biggest problem I foresee is low volume of trades creating price instability. If activity levels are low, a player could short a stock, wait 47 hours, and then sell a few shares way below market price for someone else to buy. In a real market with high volume trading, that buyer would immediately re-sell higher, at the market rate, to make a profit, or someone else would re-establish the previous, higher price on their own. Here, though, shorting a stock and then selling it could be rather exploitative. Wait, how do the stock change price in this game? Is there a formula that will be known or something? Also...lol how do you play this game? Like.....why would people even try to sell their stock if their win-con is to get the most stocks? Does each "faction" know each others members apart from the red guys? (does the blue executive know who the blue allies are?). You know......this gives me another idea: [M][T]Monopoly MafiaMake it happen The Struan and Gornt Executives would start the game with big blocks of stock, but very little actual money. If they lose money through bad deals or Par-Con actions (or other cash-squeezing Favors), then they'd have to start selling off stock to stay solvent. Also, at some point, the two town factions would have to consolidate their shares to achieve the individual majority vote part of their win-cons. Executives don't know who their Allies are. As almost all of the non-Favor transactions (which aren't alignment-indicative) are anonymous and conducted through the host, any attempts to "confirm" people through timed stock selling would be easy to counter-claim. Basically, each company wants to try and identify each other, protect the stock price, and keep each other solvent. Once any team has a sizable vote on Opportunity bids, then they can easily bankrupt the others by forcing them into bad deals and using the profits to buy the other players out.
Wait, the Greens and Blues (yeah I'm not learning those names >_> ) have confilcting win conditions, right?
Struan players win when they control at least a 3/4ths+1 voting majority of Struan's and Company collectively, and one player controls at least a 1/2th+1 voting majority of Rothwell-Gornt.
Gornt players win when they control a 3/4ths+1 voting majority of Rothwell-Gornt collectively, and one player controls at least a 1/2th+1 voting majority of Struan's and Company.
If the Greens win, then one of them has 1/2th+1 voting majority of Blues...meaning NO Blue can have more than 1/2th of their own stock, meaning they can't fulfill their "Blue players win when they control 3/4ths+1 voting majority of Blue collectively"
Also again, how does the stock price work in this game?
EDIT: I mean, you call them "town factions", but they can't both win at the same time, so it's more like 3 different factions.
..at least that way the "red" guys don't feel bad about being the bad guys 
|
Yeah, the Greens and Blues are on separate, competing teams. Only one faction of the three can win.
Player A, a Struan Ally, owns 5k shares Struan stock, and as a result of bad joss, his Balance is -$56k. He decides to offer to sell stock so as to not die. This is the first sale of the game, so the listing price is still $30. He PMs the host that he would like to sell 3k shares of stock at $28/share, because he's in a hurry to sell. And if no one buys, then he loses the game.
The host posts in the thread that 3k shares of Struan's is on sale at $28/share,
Player B, a Par-Con Executive, sees this post and decides to move in. He PMs the host that he would like to buy all 3k shares for a total of $84k. When the transaction is complete, Player A has a Balance of $28k and owns 2k Struan shares. Player B has a Balance of <whatever it was before>-$84k and owns 3k Struan shares. The thread is updated that the most recent price of Struan's was $28/share, down from $30/share.
Now let's say that earlier, Player C, a Gornt Executive, had decided to short sell 10k Struan shares at $30/share. If his short sale resolved after the above transaction, then he would buy back in at $28/share, earning $20k. With a 10% fee for short selling gains, Player C profits $18k.
EDIT: They're both still "town factions," in that they are uninformed majorities. Par-Con is an informed minority :3
|
In that case...why wouldn't others let that guy die instead of buying his shares?
In case its an Ally from their own faction?
|
Players that die have all of their shares sold anyways at the current price. It would obviously be better if a team member could buy the shares instead, but they might not have the cash on hand. And yes, teams want to keep their own members alive, because they have access to Lines of Credit (and thus income from short-selling), that once lost are lost forever.
Also, dead players can't offer any more Favors :3
|
Drunk Mafia
Just for kicks, requires longer cycles than 48/24.
Players are only allowed to look at thread/post/etc. while drinking/drunk, preferably the latter.
Time to put the posting drunk = town heuristic to rest, and make EVERYONE play drunk. Give like...2 week/1 week cycles or something so that nobody's liver gets destroyed. Mainly the game just sounds like fun both for the players involved and for anyone who reads through later.
|
|
|
United Kingdom36160 Posts
|
It still pops up though. Plus, be honest, don't you want an entire game of drunk posting? It really just sounds like fun.
Maybe it's better done on irc.
|
I dont get drunk every week... Skype with mafia people while playing games and drinking then posting... Sounds good =)
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
So I was thinking of this setup and was wondering what people thought of it. It's a small multifactional open setup:
2:2:8
5 Vanilla Townies (Villagers)
1 Town Orc Hunter (DT returns "Orc" or "Not Orc")
1 Town Goblin Hunter (DT returns "Goblin" or "Not Goblin")
1 Town Doctor
2 Orcs (Mafia Goons)
2 Goblins (Mafia Goons)
Each faction has 1 KP
I was thinking this would be a cool setup, and even though it seems like a lot of mafia compared to town (4 mafia, 8 town) due to the possibility of mafia shooting each other, it seems like it's still balanced. Any thoughts?
|
On July 20 2012 05:21 Blazinghand wrote:
So I was thinking of this setup and was wondering what people thought of it. It's a small multifactional open setup:
2:2:8
5 Vanilla Townies (Villagers)
1 Town Orc Hunter (DT returns "Orc" or "Not Orc")
1 Town Goblin Hunter (DT returns "Goblin" or "Not Goblin")
1 Town Doctor
2 Orcs (Mafia Goons)
2 Goblins (Mafia Goons)
Each faction has 1 KP
I was thinking this would be a cool setup, and even though it seems like a lot of mafia compared to town (4 mafia, 8 town) due to the possibility of mafia shooting each other, it seems like it's still balanced. Any thoughts?
Written for a discussion on serial killers, but it applies to any potential setup where there are 3+ factions, wherein at least one faction does not have very many members (such as both of your mafia teams):
On February 11 2011 13:59 Qatol wrote:
Now that Mafia XXXVI is over (and talking about this cannot affect the game in any way), I'd like to bring up the problems I have with the Serial Killer role:
2. More importantly, all too often it sets up a situation in which Town/Mafia/or the SK cannot win. Instead, they are able to decide which of the other two sides will win the game. I don't think it is fair to the members of the other two sides because they become reliant upon the actions of people who no longer have a stake in the game.
Examples:
a. In PYP3, deconduo as mafia was forced into a situation he could not win unless JimboSIlvers (the SK) decided to forfeit the game by saving deconduo from a lynch. However, JimboSilvers was reliant upon deconduo to use his night hit on a player other than JimboSilvers or the bulletproof player. JimboSilvers only won the game because a player got himself modkilled. Otherwise, deconduo's decision to not hit anyone would have given the game to the town.
b. In Mafia XXXVI, LunarDestiny was exposed as a SK relatively early in the game, but he was not lynched. At this point, he has lost. The town and the mafia will unite to take him down later in the game. There is no way for him to win. However, he can still significantly affect the outcome of game by either hitting town members or mafia members before he gets himself lynched. This is particularly frustrating for the mafia because if LunarDestiny decides to side with the town, the mafia have no way of eliminating him from the game because Serial Killers are immune to night kills.
c. This has not happened yet, but imagine an end game scenario with 2 greens, a SK, and a mafia. It is day. For simplicity's sake, assume that everyone knows the alignment of everyone else. If the townies both decide to vote for the SK, then the mafia member wins. Otherwise the SK wins.
Now you might argue that the player/faction should just play better to avoid this problem. However, I think that the current design of the SK role invites these situations, especially if the Serial Killer survives into the late game because it is in the Serial Killer's best interest to keep at least 1 mafia member alive for the extra KP. Additionally, the mafia cannot usually eliminate a SK without the help of the town.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On July 20 2012 09:30 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2012 05:21 Blazinghand wrote:
So I was thinking of this setup and was wondering what people thought of it. It's a small multifactional open setup:
2:2:8
5 Vanilla Townies (Villagers)
1 Town Orc Hunter (DT returns "Orc" or "Not Orc")
1 Town Goblin Hunter (DT returns "Goblin" or "Not Goblin")
1 Town Doctor
2 Orcs (Mafia Goons)
2 Goblins (Mafia Goons)
Each faction has 1 KP
I was thinking this would be a cool setup, and even though it seems like a lot of mafia compared to town (4 mafia, 8 town) due to the possibility of mafia shooting each other, it seems like it's still balanced. Any thoughts? Written for a discussion on serial killers, but it applies to any potential setup where there are 3+ factions, wherein at least one faction does not have very many members (such as both of your mafia teams): Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 13:59 Qatol wrote:
Now that Mafia XXXVI is over (and talking about this cannot affect the game in any way), I'd like to bring up the problems I have with the Serial Killer role:
2. More importantly, all too often it sets up a situation in which Town/Mafia/or the SK cannot win. Instead, they are able to decide which of the other two sides will win the game. I don't think it is fair to the members of the other two sides because they become reliant upon the actions of people who no longer have a stake in the game.
Examples:
a. In PYP3, deconduo as mafia was forced into a situation he could not win unless JimboSIlvers (the SK) decided to forfeit the game by saving deconduo from a lynch. However, JimboSilvers was reliant upon deconduo to use his night hit on a player other than JimboSilvers or the bulletproof player. JimboSilvers only won the game because a player got himself modkilled. Otherwise, deconduo's decision to not hit anyone would have given the game to the town.
b. In Mafia XXXVI, LunarDestiny was exposed as a SK relatively early in the game, but he was not lynched. At this point, he has lost. The town and the mafia will unite to take him down later in the game. There is no way for him to win. However, he can still significantly affect the outcome of game by either hitting town members or mafia members before he gets himself lynched. This is particularly frustrating for the mafia because if LunarDestiny decides to side with the town, the mafia have no way of eliminating him from the game because Serial Killers are immune to night kills.
c. This has not happened yet, but imagine an end game scenario with 2 greens, a SK, and a mafia. It is day. For simplicity's sake, assume that everyone knows the alignment of everyone else. If the townies both decide to vote for the SK, then the mafia member wins. Otherwise the SK wins.
Now you might argue that the player/faction should just play better to avoid this problem. However, I think that the current design of the SK role invites these situations, especially if the Serial Killer survives into the late game because it is in the Serial Killer's best interest to keep at least 1 mafia member alive for the extra KP. Additionally, the mafia cannot usually eliminate a SK without the help of the town.
So, in this case the problem is caused in 2 ways: first off, with the DT that distinguishes factions, a claimed flipped DT might mean that one faction has its last member outed to the thread, making it a kingmaker. The second would be in like a 2 VT, 1 Orc, 1 Goblin scenario. In this case, the VTs can't win since no matter which faction they lynch into (with the help of the other guy), the other faction wins by shooting one of the two VTs in the following night.
So, I could try to fix the first situation by just dropping the DTs entirely. Then the setup could look like this:
2:2:8
7 Vanilla Townies (Villagers)
1 Town Doctor
2 Orcs (Mafia Goons)
2 Goblins (Mafia Goons)
Each faction has 1 KP
This means there's no chance of a scum player getting outed by a DT as the last member of his faction. This doesn't resolve the final problem, which is the possibility of a 2 VT 1 Orc 1 Goblin endgame. Should that just be declared a draw? Or should it be declared a joint victory between the two scumteams because one of them MUST win?
|
Well.. in your 2 vt, 1 orc, 1 goblin scenario town can still win. You lynch a VT and the scum teams kill eachother = last VT win... =)
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On July 21 2012 08:33 Dirkzor wrote:
Well.. in your 2 vt, 1 orc, 1 goblin scenario town can still win. You lynch a VT and the scum teams kill eachother = last VT win... =)
Oh man, that's actually worse though, right? Because then it's a situation where town is trying to lynch another townie, and then during the final night both mafia players are gonna die shooting each other, right? So they can't win. Their only hope is to try to lynch each other, and town's only hope is to try to lynch a VT. Damn
|
Hence why I'm skeptical about 3+ factions with a small faction. I agree that removing the detectives helps (and probably should have been done anyways - too many minis are just follow-the-detective games these days). Another thing to consider is your game is going to end really quickly because of the high amount of KP relative to the number of players in the game. You might consider allowing the mafia to only shoot every other night to slow things down a bit. Otherwise, it's possible the town could lose after only 1 mislynch.
|
Mario Mafia!
Mama mia! Bowser is up to his usual shananigans, and its up to the Mario Brothers and their compatriates to save the Mushroom Kingdom from the Koopa Troops yet again.
This is a semi-open setup, with the following possible roles:
Town roles
Citizen - Vanilla Townie
+ Show Spoiler +
Mario - Cop
+ Show Spoiler +Insert flavor text, typical cop rules
Yoshi - Doctor
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor text, typical doctor rules with the exception that doctors can't target the same player on consecutive nights.
Luigi - Vigilante
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor text, typical single-shot vig rules.
Toad - Lucky Townie
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor text, typical vet role. Survives 1 night hit, even from Hitman
Bomb-Omb - Volatile Townie
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor text. Whoever hammers, or nightkills the Bomb-omb is taken out along with them
Mafia roles
Koopa Troopa - Mafia Goon
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor Text. Typical mafia goon.
Hammer Brother - Mafia Hitman
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor Text. If there is a Hitman, he carries out the night hits until he dies. Penetrates through medic saves, but not Lucky extra life.
Kamek - Mafia Roleblocker
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor Text. Typical mafia roleblocker.
Bowser - Mafia Godfather
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor Text. Basically typical mafia GF, with the exception that he's immune to night hits from vig/sk, as well as Cop immune.
Neutral roles
Wario - Serial Killer
+ Show Spoiler +Flavor text. Typical serial killer. 1 KP per night.
some other possible roles:
Poochy - Tracker
+ Show Spoiler +Insert flavor text. Can track 1 player per night to see if that player targets anyone. Tracks any kind of targetting (cop, medic, mafia kills, etc.
Princess Peach - Princess
+ Show Spoiler +Insert flavor text. If Princess Peach is lynched, then town forfeits the next full day cycle. Toss up for SK/Mafia to leave her alive as a confirmed townie, or hope she is suspicious enough to get lynched and get free kills.
Special Rules
Majority Lynch system. In the absence of a majority, there is a no-lynch.
You can specifically vote for no-lynch by using ##Vote No-Lynch.
Whomever hammers the bomb gets killed with him. If there are more votes on bomb than it takes to lynch, then the last voter will die with him, rather than the hammer.
Mafia roles resolve first (IE, if Mafia Roleblocker blocks a medic who is protecting the mafia kill target, the medic gets blocked and the kill goes through).
Mafia kills are carried out by the Hitman. In the absence of a Hitman, they are carried out by the person lowest in the Mafia Heirarchy (Goon -> Roleblocker -> Godfather).
Mafia and SK can choose to forgo their night kills, if desired.
Roleblock PMs will ONLY be sent to people with active powers.
There may be multiple of any roles, and the absence or presence of any role does not guarantee or prohibit the presence of any others.
I'm not sure what the ideal amount of people would be. I always played this setup on IRC with ~15, but I don't remember the win/loss stats.
I realize there are a lot of town roles, but honestly who wants to be a VT every game? There are enough anti-town measures in the town roles that I think it balances it out a bit.
Anyone have any suggestions/improvements?
|
blah blah blah something about the difference between balanced and swingy
[EDIT]no reflection on setup, just on your comment
|
You're right, it is swingy. But when people know that there are more repercussions than just "oh I might get FoS'd for this", it makes each decision matter more, so maybe people will be more careful with their actions.
But, again, I'm not exactly good at deciding what good "balance" is. For now I'm mostly curious as to what people think of the "abnormal" roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
