I think this being a standardized thing means it can't be closed. I'm assuming the whole goal is to come up with a list of setups or a method for determining setups in a way that is balanced, fun, varied, and allows for all types of play. If anything, I always prefer semi-closed, but I feel that no matter what we do, we will end up with something that is semi-open due to the whole open and collaborative nature of this idea (which isn't a bad thing mind you, just something to realize).

Risen

United States7927 Posts

December 30 2013 19:19 GMT

#22

I like notification because I think it makes choices mute important. Adds an additional layer of intrigue. Could see the normal not wanting that, though.

I would like semi-open

Blazinghand

United States25550 Posts

December 30 2013 19:21 GMT

#23

Semi-open means we'll decide here on a bunch of setups, maybe make a pool of them and hosts can draw from those setups for their games. Maybe we can just make an OP with all the setup info and hosts can just link to it (like a standardized OP with possible setups and all the normal mini rules) in their OP and make the Normal Mini OPs pretty concise as a result.

Risen

United States7927 Posts

December 30 2013 19:22 GMT

#24

That would be ideal

marvellosity

United Kingdom36156 Posts

December 30 2013 19:22 GMT

#25

If I hosted a mini normal, it'd definitely be semi-closed, regardless of what got decided here :p

Crossfire99

United States1529 Posts

December 30 2013 19:23 GMT

#26

Eh, I prefer there to be choices whether or not someone is notified of being roleblocked. It should depend on the setup. For example, there should totally be a 9 VT, 2 Mafia RB, 1 Godfather setup with no rb notifications. There should also be a 8 VT, 1 town RB, 1 Mafia RB, 2 Goon setup with rb notifications. I think flexibility is key.

Crossfire99

United States1529 Posts

December 30 2013 19:26 GMT

#27

On December 31 2013 04:22 marvellosity wrote:
If I hosted a mini normal, it'd definitely be semi-closed, regardless of what got decided here :p

I know what you mean, but I don't think it is possible for whatever we create to be truly semi-closed because unless a few people decide the setups or the way to create the setups behind closed doors and never reveal that info, we will always be semi-open or open because at least a few people will know things and could share that info. And in the interest of fairness we probably should share that info to prevent accidental or purposeful advantages gained from people getting access to that info.

Blazinghand

United States25550 Posts

December 30 2013 19:30 GMT

#28

part of what we need to decide is whether we want to make a standard OP to link to (this would basically force us to be semi-open, I think) or just to make a list of roles and some guidelines + standard rules to make hosting mini normals a bit easier / more standard

Risen

United States7927 Posts

December 30 2013 19:48 GMT

#29

I think the OP to link to is the way to go.

marvellosity

United Kingdom36156 Posts

December 30 2013 19:55 GMT

#30

Isn't the net of this going to be that those who like how the standard template turns out will use it, and those who don't, won't?

I think one of the inherent problems of trying to create a "standard" setup is that it already gives away more information than it needs to necessarily :/

Like I think semi-open setups are pretty restrictive in terms of the ability to do fun things like fakeclaim, and so I wouldn't run one for that reason

Dandel Ion

Austria17960 Posts

December 30 2013 19:59 GMT

#31

Honestly the simplest solution is to agree on "normal mini" roles, and hosts just determine them "however they want to" (as long as it keeps in line with a rough balance I guess)
If you control it in too much detail, it'll be ez to game the setup.

Hey...
That's pretty much how it is already!

kitaman27

United States9244 Posts

December 30 2013 20:25 GMT

#32

We kinda already have a thread for discussing normal game setups and what roles/mechanics should be allowed. Even if we come up with a default setup, I'd think hosts would still be allowed to run any variation of any setup they would want (within reason).

I'd imagine the goal of this thread would be to come up with a well-defined setup like Matrix6 or C9++ that we could call our own and make improvements until we're satisfied with the balance and how it plays out. In my opinion, a setup that is randomized between a list of possible open setups in the way to go.

It's tough to say much about balance in a semi-open setup that leaves it up to the host to determine role distribution. It's a lot easier to examine the balance of setup that is a coinflip between 3 goon, 1 medic, 8 VT and 3 goon, 1 cop, 8 VT than a setup with "an unknown number of vanilla, cops, detectives, and vigilantes".

While it may be difficult to come up with a 12-13 person setup with a set in stone role list and call it balanced, if you can come up with a couple slightly town favored setups and a couple slightly mafia favored setups and randomize the actual setup between these, than you can try to aim for something that averages out closer to 50/50, while promoting setup variety at the same time.

Foolishness

United States3044 Posts

December 30 2013 21:12 GMT

#33

I agree with Kita in that a setup that is randomized between a list of possible open setups is the way to go. I think knowing what to expect without knowing the details still allows for plays to be made (e.g. fake claiming) while ensuring some sort of balance.

Personally I'm against any sort of 3rd party in these setups.

marvellosity

United Kingdom36156 Posts

December 30 2013 21:30 GMT

#34

I think dandel got it tbh

[UoN]Sentinel

United States11320 Posts

December 30 2013 21:52 GMT

#35

I have to go with dandel as well

Foolishness

United States3044 Posts

December 30 2013 22:15 GMT

#36

On December 31 2013 04:59 Dandel Ion wrote:
Honestly the simplest solution is to agree on "normal mini" roles, and hosts just determine them "however they want to" (as long as it keeps in line with a rough balance I guess)
If you control it in too much detail, it'll be ez to game the setup.

Hey...
That's pretty much how it is already!

I agree, but that doesn't mean we can't come up with the exclusive "TL Mafia Normal Mini" setup (with a catchier name of course). I wouldn't force the normal mini queue to just be only this type of game if it existed. This would serve as more of a default setup or go-to setup, with hosts having the power to tweak numbers/roles if they so desire for their own game.

LSB

United States5171 Posts

December 30 2013 22:28 GMT

#37

Personal preference I like dandel's method, there should always be a possibility of two cops (or any other roles) to help with counterclaims.

I also don't like 3P in minis. SK can mess with the balance too much, and Jester/Survivor is just so disruptive to the metagame in general.

If I were allowed to host a mafia cup, I would use this setup

No PMs, Roleblocks not notified

12 People Total
3 Scum (One Roleblocker, One Godfather, One Goon)
3-4 Blue Roles (Host can fill however he wants)

Possible Roles
Blue Roles: Cop, Doctor, Veteran, 1 Shot Vig, Tracker, Watcher, Jailkeeper
Green Roles: VT, Miller, Nosy Neighbour

No mad hatter as they carry too much KP in a mini. No Bus drivers because it should be a normal game, and night action resolution should be simple

[UoN]Sentinel

United States11320 Posts

December 30 2013 22:49 GMT

#38

If minis are generally 16-ish or less, what happens between 16 and say, 25? Do we have a "moderately sized mafia"?

LSB

United States5171 Posts

December 30 2013 22:50 GMT

#39

Isn't that just a normal?
We could call large games 30+ ish

Blazinghand

United States25550 Posts

December 30 2013 22:52 GMT

#40

I always thought of minis as a combination of "less than 16" and "mafia has a single KP" and anything more than that is normal-sized (which is quite a range)