| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
Loading 5 times doesn't seem like the safest thing to do either way. Besides without the shot-list, scum can fire away with impunity nearing endgame. And potentially all game but I could see scum using the early game to stock up on boolets while town take statistically bad shots at likely each other. Although the bullet counter plus some claims would make that not entirely safe. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On January 10 2014 06:38 Blazinghand wrote: I feel like a maximum of 6 bullets is a bit more fun since that's the most that can fit in a typical revolver Revolvers? What do you think this is, the Wild West? Only girls fight with revolvers these days. A pyramid of four cannonballs on the bottom and one on the top. If you try to put a sixth one anywhere in your corner, it will roll off and land on your foot, crushing it and giving you gangrene, causing you to die. | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
I am keen to hear feedback on both the concept/setup in addition to an expression of interest to play such a game. Title: "Speed Dating" Aim: Selective PM-game to reward general mafia skill (deception, logical thinking etc). Concept: - Mini: 9-13 players - Night 0 start - All vanilla roles <-Teams distributed for 3 mislynch = GG - Semi-Restricted sign-up (No entry for people known for lurking (at host discretion) and/or previously banned for AFK) PM Mechanics: General - PM nominations occur during night (to host) - Mason links last one full cycle (day + night) - Can not mason same person(s) in consecutive cycles - Mason chat will be via QT <-- Mainly because I want a history of this game so people can actually interpret the game post-game and learn from it. - QTs are able to be shared ONCE the mason link has expired Speed Date Twist - Each player will submit 1-2 players that they want to mason with for one cycle <- 1 for 9 player, 2 for 13 - Players do not have to mason anyone (which may come into play near LYLO) due to consecutive rule. - If the mason request is reciprocated, a mason link forms between the 2 players for one cycle. e.g. 4 players: A,B,C,D (can choose up to 2 ppl to mason) Night 0 A chooses: B, C B chooses: A, C C chooses: B, D D chooses: A,B This will resolve as: A masons: B B masons: A, C C masons: B, D D masons: nobody Day 1 Player A is lynched Night 1 B cannot mason C C cannot masons B or D D cannot mason B Thus B masons D or nobody C masons nobody D masons C or nobody [10:42] <mrbungle_> i know what marv would tell you [10:42] <mrbungle_> he would say "ask yourself. is it balanced? is it fun? is it simple?" Balanced: I think so. Standard mislynch mechanics, and I think a fun nerf to town OPness of valid PM circles Fun: I think so. Interesting mechanic that also requires mason choce strategising towards MYLO. (e.g. scum kills might force a player to be able to have no mason link before MYLO) Simple. I think so. Vanilla roles and the mason mechanics is straight forward. Did you tickle the girls fancy? | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
Unless of course you both telegraph it in the thread, but that would give info to everybody else (which kind of defeats the purpose of a PM game, with secret circles and stuff). Also, yeah, the following day you have even LESS chances of getting into mason link, because of the no-consecutive rule (in your example, in N1 NOBODY can mason anybody at all). Seems to me there will only be like 2 or 3 2-way mason chats, at most, every cycle, while every other player will sit in the thread twiddling their thumbs (since in PM games threads tend to be kind of a ghost town). I could be wrong of course. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
Blazinghand, Jitsu, ShiaoPi, Dandel Ion, WBG, Palmar, Adam4167, RoL, Zona I then submit a list like this: Jitsu, Zona, RoL, WBG, Dandel Ion, Palmar, Adam4167, ShiaoPi And everyone else does the same. First, you compare all the "level one" matches. Let's say Jitsu doesn't have me in slot one. that's fine. Anyone who gets matched via "level one" is removed. Let's say Palmar and WBG had eachother in slot one. now what remains is BH, Jitsu, ShiaoPi, DI, Adam, RoL, Zona We go into slot 2, and now I have both Jitsu and Zona available. Zona doesn't have me listed, but Jitsu had me as #2, and his #2 slot is now active, so Jitsu and I pair off. Then we do again with slot 3, and so on, until everyone is paired off. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
JubJub maybe? It was one of the games that Protactinium hosted-just search Protactinium and I'm sure you'll find it. I'm too lazy. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 17 2014 08:14 Blazinghand wrote: LII: JubJub http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=316574 that OP made me lol "X and Y are my cohosts, but don't bother PMing them because they're lazy" "I am a nazi on spam. Consolidate your posts and keep them focused towards contributing towards the game. The game really shouldn't have more than 30 pages by day 1." + Show Spoiler + Have we had any games recently where a single player had a 30-page filter by the end of Day 1? It wouldn't suprise me much... On topic: I think the mutual-desire-to-PM idea could use some refinement but is a promising concept. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
On January 17 2014 02:34 Blazinghand wrote: Maybe a good solution would be to have people submit a ranked list. For example, say the player list is like this: Blazinghand, Jitsu, ShiaoPi, Dandel Ion, WBG, Palmar, Adam4167, RoL, Zona I then submit a list like this: Jitsu, Zona, RoL, WBG, Dandel Ion, Palmar, Adam4167, ShiaoPi And everyone else does the same. First, you compare all the "level one" matches. Let's say Jitsu doesn't have me in slot one. that's fine. Anyone who gets matched via "level one" is removed. Let's say Palmar and WBG had eachother in slot one. now what remains is BH, Jitsu, ShiaoPi, DI, Adam, RoL, Zona We go into slot 2, and now I have both Jitsu and Zona available. Zona doesn't have me listed, but Jitsu had me as #2, and his #2 slot is now active, so Jitsu and I pair off. Then we do again with slot 3, and so on, until everyone is paired off. Okay, what about this scenario: There are 3 players: A B C These are the lists everybody submits A -> B, C B -> C, A C -> A, B Who gets paired with whom? A and B? B and C? or C and A? Now add 10 more players to everybody's list, and you will likely have problems figuring the "pairings" out. For example in a 5 player game with these ranking lists, you'd have the same problem A -> B, D, E, C B -> C, ,E, A, D C -> A, B, D, E D -> E, B, A, C E -> D, C, A, B E and D have each other as "top", so you pair them, and then remove them from the list of everybody else, and you get the same example as before. However, here it's much harder to notice the "deadlock" until you have already started doing pairs. Most likely you'll encounter something similar in a real game. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
| ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
But it may be kind of hard. I'll think about it | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
It's even harder in, for example, LYLO when the number of players is small. You'd have to ban Night 0 talking, and even so it still wouldn't be enough to stop plans, since they could just go into effect Day 2 as they are discussed Day 1/Night 1. Thus you basically can't stop town from making a plan like this. Let me provide an example that would favor town significantly, if not break the setup. Suppose you take the original idea. Only mutual requests. Then, town makes a plan that works like this: Everyone must publicly announce who they want to mason. Then, in the case of conflicts, you just reassign people or break ties somehow, but publicly. In other words, even if you don't get a list (BH's idea) the town can simply create one on their own and preplan it so that everyone gets a mason partner. Anyone who doesn't follow the plan will take a huge amount of attention, so scum have to follow it too-they're forced into PMing. Thus if anyone does not end up with a PM partner they have to explain to everyone why-this only should occur in the case where there are an odd number of players (one will be left out) and it's easy to make that player someone who is afk or unlikely to do anything anyway. In the case that one person doesn't follow the plan, you'll have two (three if odd) unpaired players, and they'll both be receiving a lot of attention, something that's quite hard to deal with if one of them is scum. Supposing then that everyone follows the plan, you'll get like 4-6 QTs that are dumped into the thread after the day is over, and it's fairly likely that several really townie people will emerge from that, if they aren't already. That makes it really easy to establish who is town during the night and how actions will probably play out, which will probably discourage scum from attempting to shoot the towniest players because they are likely to be protected. Overall in terms of effort a plan like this is really easy to put into action and would be really really effective. From a scum perspective I cannot see that there is much mafia can do about it. You could possibly introduce selective PM blocking roles, e.g. "blockade" a player where he/she cannot be masoned, but this is much weaker than being able to simply kill someone as the player will still have a voice in thread. The reason this could be breaking as opposed to a normal PM game is because the players are essentially being forced to dump their QTs into the thread. That can't be faked, whereas it is very possible to kill someone and then fake or doctor logs. I've done it myself, albeit with little experience and poorly, as I've only done it once. Staying mostly out of PMs on policy is also not a possibility in a game like this. Given a couple rounds of this type of thing it becomes apparent really fast who can't be scum, which reduces the pool of players considerably-the scum don't even have to be found relatively quickly. One can argue that this forces scum to be proactive and blah blah but I have experience trying to coordinate scum in PM games, it's much harder than it looks. You can really only rely on yourself and I can say from experience that even that is not always reliable. Scum manipulation is cool when it happens but it's rare because it's hard. So is it a nerf to town's power from PM games? Hard to say honestly, since most PM games I've ever seen are large (like at least 20 players, usually 30). In a small game even limited PMs are, IMO, op as shit, because the single KP limits who you can feasibly kill. | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
So, you make the list or choice hidden, so nobody can talk about it in-thread | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
On January 17 2014 09:34 gonzaw wrote: Well, you can just modkill anybody who posts their "ranking list" in the thread lol. So, you make the list or choice hidden, so nobody can talk about it in-thread I considered a rule like this in Witchcraft Mafia but decided against it as a matter of form. Not sharing Pms or Qts is one thing, but saying that someone can't share certain information about their own actions indicates a failure of setup design imo. Doing this would be the equivalent of making a setup with a doctor, a cop, and no roleblockers or gfs and balancing it by saying the cop is never allowed to claim. It seems unfun. Better to give mafia the tools to counter it (in normal games, rbs to stop "follow the cop"-- in Witchcraft, it was Witch Hunters) than to not allow town to share info | ||
|
Mocsta
Australia9388 Posts
Its a fine line between enabling free play and trying to restrict towns ability to plan. I really like the mechanic of reciprocated mason pairs though. Back yo thr drawing board | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Leta
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Flash
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
