Open Setup Certification Group

[shaft.ed]

I'd be happy to help out, though I don't feel my analytical skills are strongest on site.

Though I disagree with this if we are going to keep Open Games as a way for new mods to start out:

producing standard role PMs and rulesets for these games

Perhaps producing carefully thought out win conditions and role resolution orders would suffice?

[shaft.ed]

Could someone summon Kelly Chen out of retirement for this?

this

[shaft.ed]

I'd propose as long as two "certified" players have signed off on it, and no unanswered questions exist, it's good to go.

Win conditions
Role resolution
Special rules should all be spelled out

[shaft.ed]

Someone (perhaps the person who modded it?) should also re-review a setup AFTER it was played once, and suggest if they thought the setup was balanced or not, any possible problems with it, anything that was unclear, ect. That is, we should re-decide if a game is good or not after it is run when we have more info, so we can know if it should be run again in the same way or not.

I agree with this. Also the game designer should be available for back and forth with the "certifiers."

[shaft.ed]

I like the cycling in and out of tested set ups idea. I think the Open Queue List mod can update the Queue sign up thread (monthly) to change out the games that are available for /in'ing.

How about ~18 Total slots:
3-Large (>12)
4-Medium (9-12)
5-Small (<9)
3-Wild Card (mod's whim/popular support)
3-Experimental

EDIT: Another idea would be to cycle a game off the Queue once it's been filled and replace it with another from a similar category.

[shaft.ed]

You guys should have a member of your group willing to be devils advocate. basically its their job to break, abuse, or find flaws on purpose as much as possible in any setup so that these ideas are found and stopped before a setup is run.

I think everyone should be doing this.

[shaft.ed]

Would those be available to be in'd at the same time?

Yeah basically there'd be a menu at the top.

You tell the waitress that you'd like carbon-14 for lunch (assuming it's on the menu). Once enough players sign up for carbon-14, it runs.

[shaft.ed]

Open 44 was Twofold Mafia...yeah I know not much help.

[shaft.ed]

Flay, I can't remember, what was the problem with California? Why was it dropped as the newbie setup? Was it a balance issue?

There is a bug that Kison picked up on in which the town auto wins with a Roleblocker lynch day 1.

[shaft.ed]

Is there a reason that 2:4 nightless is a horrible idea?

I thought 2:10 was already difficult for town

[shaft.ed]

Is there a reason that 2:4 nightless is a horrible idea?

I thought 2:10 was already difficult for town

That has nights.

...I knew that...
Wouldn't that equate to 2:5-6 nightless then?

[shaft.ed]

why is this starting to feel like genetic nomenclature?

And I think I'm rapidly demonstrating my lack of qualification for this endevour.

[shaft.ed]

If PM's and rulesets are going to be handed to the mods, I do not think that Open Games should be applicable for New Mod experience.

[shaft.ed]

I'm all for handing PMs and rulesets to the new mods. They can use them as reference when they design their own game.

OK, I thought they would be required to cut & paste. I'd prefer their being some room for flavor should they wish it.

Good point Gurgi as well.

[shaft.ed]

I'd like to see a footnotes version for the mod, not a polished PM. I think they'd likely just cut and paste it.

ie for a Cop:

Role Specific Features:

Each night can target a single player. Will receive relevant alignment info.

Faction:

Town

Win Condition:

When all threats to the town have been eliminated and at least one member of the town is left alive.

Notes:

Sane

for a Godfather:

Role Specific Features:

If targeted by the Cop will reveal a town alignment.

Faction:

Mafia

Win Condition:

When the only remaining faction is the mafia or nothing can prevent the same.

Notes:

Is

not

night kill immune

[shaft.ed]

If there are no further flags, I think we can approve that list for a first batch. shaft.ed? Korts?

I'm just a guy

[shaft.ed]

I agree with the three times running without an obvious breaking strategy being used rule of thumb.

I also think while AITP has a different style in order to win the game and is different from more standard set ups, the breaking strategy itself still involves reading other people's actions and thus it should be maintained as an available game for the Open Queue.

If there are no further flags, I think we can approve that list for a first batch. shaft.ed? Korts?

I'm just a guy

You're on the list in the first post

huh, I guess that shows if you just pretend to be something for long enough, eventually you'll get your way.

[shaft.ed]

Yay for argument and abuse!

One other metric I think would be worth considering is a "balanced" worst case scenario. This would make swinginess tolerable just as long as the swinging goes in both directions. Basically just calculate what's the fastest possible win for either faction and compare.

[shaft.ed]

Am I alone in thinking that the relation between size and power of mafia groups is not linear?

I see 2:4 or even 2:5 as being much more balanced than 4:8 or 3:9.

It actually is linear in nightless. With nightkills, not so much.

I disagree. Increasing the size of the group allows for greater protection, culling of the weakest, bussing without crippling the group, etc. The tools of the mafia become more useful as they have more members to run through.

^agree

[shaft.ed]

Should we work on getting a coule 2:2:8 set ups examined.

They seem quite popular and many types have been run.

[shaft.ed]

I agree with a range of Nightless ratios as mith suggets. I'd like to maintain variety where ever possible. However, are we maintaining the EV's in scum favor because a theoretical town will perform better than random? I'd support inclusion of some pro-town EV scenarios as well. Maybe keep the goalposts between 40-55(60)?

Also editing doesn't work for me either (no option to edit on other people's posts)

[shaft.ed]

I like Xyl's numbers, but I'd like to move from a 12 cut off to a 13 personally (4:13, 5:13; or possibly 4:13, 5:12).

And as scum I prefer Nightless games. Bus'ing works incredibly well in Nightless.

[shaft.ed]

Oh, I skipped over the "however many signup" part.

The only problem I have with that is that some people may prefer certain sizes of game, and wouldn't have much say in how big the game got. Not sure what the solution to that is, or if it's even really a problem.

Solution is that the list mod maintains 1 or 2 vanilla Nightless set ups on the "menu" at a time. A smaller one and a bigger one?

[shaft.ed]

I guess the main decision to be made, then, is: 3:9 or 4:8 or both? (Well, similar decision for 16 players; 4:12 or 5:11. But they are basically the same question... if we prefer 3:9, we prefer 4:12, and if we prefer 4:8, we prefer 5:11.)

I'm still in favor of 3:9, but wouldn't mind seeing both run.

Seeing as we're already running 4:8 I don't see a need to remove it. I also would prefer having more options not fewer, so maintaining 3:8, 3:9, 4:8, and 4:9 as all viable set ups would not bother me.

[shaft.ed]

As far as number of trials to determine significance. I think we need to run a power analysisfor that, if you want to get technical.

It should be noted I'm a neurobiologist that works in qualitative data, so stats ae the bane of my existance, and I haven't had a real math class since high school.

[shaft.ed]

Standard nightless games found by searching for "Nightless" in Little Italy and New York:

• Open 6 (4:8; town win)
  Open 19 (4:8; town win)
  Open 79 (4:7; I think this was the game Farside was talking about; town win)

So I'm really not getting the need to further handicap the scum.

EDIT: Open 79 was 4:7, not 4:8.

Ether if you read through those game one had scum lynched on day 2, one had scum lynched on day 1, and one even had scum lynched back to back on days 1 & 2.

This really points to very poor performance by the scum in these games. They aren't blending in well and they are throwing their weight around. Hell in a 4:7 game they only need two townies to wagon with them on Day 1 and they still wound up getting one of their own lynched.

[shaft.ed]

So at this rate we might finish before a solar apocolypse.

I propose we nominate an Open Game Steering Committee in order to move the Open Game Certification Group in the right direction.


On a more serious note. I don't think we need to dwell on vanilla Nightless this long. Our sample size is obviously small, and I believe it to be rather craptastic as far as representation of a normal distribution. However, the game is clearly not broken, and we are not setting these rules in stone for all eternity. Can we please agree on a set of vanilla nightless games and move on to set ups that might actually involve breaking strategies. If the ratios that get run are clearly not fun they can be altered at any time.

@ortolan, not that I know of.

[shaft.ed]

6-8 players: 2 scum (2:4 to 2:6)
9-12 players: 3 scum (3:6 to 3:9 and 4:8)
13-16 players: 4 scum (4:9 to 4:12 and 5:11)

I added two extra ratios.

[shaft.ed]

Bird C9 (27, 98, 117)

(flagged by Xyl)

Trendy and Subversive C9 (90, 91, 94)

(flagged by Xyl)

Basic Twelve Player (3, 9, 54)

(flagged by Lord Gurgi)

Masons and Monks (12, 23, 56)

(flagged by Adel)

Strawberry (17, 46, 62)

(flagged by Adel)

Polygamist (76, 83, 88)

(flagged by Adel)

The New C9 (50, 60, 81, 104)

(flagged by Adel)

Nightless Vanilla (6, 19, 41, 79)

(flagged by Xyl)

Where shall we start?

Polygamist should behave similarly to Lovers no?

Masons and Monks is a 2 v 2 v 8 I ask that we lump these games together for a separate discussion because I think they all need to have crosskill issues resolved.

[shaft.ed]

What do you mean by "resolved," Shafted? Block the first crosskill on each group, or give the last survivor of a scumgroup nightkill immunity? I think multiballs will always be swingy. I feel kind of out of my depth here; I'd be curious to see some simulations (noting how frequent crosskills and prisoners' dilemmas are).

Yeah 2 v 2 v 8 is always swingy, but by resolved I just mean discussed. I don't think the town can win such set ups without at least one crosskill, but more than one and it becomes a somewhat easy win for town. I haven't modeled out how frequently to expect them without any sort of night immunity. But I was hoping to discuss if there were certain simple tweaks that could be made to hit a "preferred" number of crosskills per game.

So basic questions are:
How many crosskills should one expect with no NK immunity of any sort?
What are the EV's given each number of crosskills?
Is there a way to shift the expected number of crosskills to the most balanced EV without totally convoluting the set ups?

[shaft.ed]

Somehow I think 2v2v9 is better.

That's so simple it just might work.

[shaft.ed]

So in a "perfect storm" double townie death every night, this would effectively give the town one mislynch as you have a 1 v 4 day in Ether's scenario, but this requires the town to either a) get rid of a scum group or b) have a night where one townie is killed by both scum teams.

It still doesn't solve the opposite conundrum which is what happens when there are too many crosskills and the town walks away with the game.

Really need to calculate the crosskill odds, but I'm busy ATM. Maybe when I need to procrastinate more later.

Meanwhile, I think we should be discussing simpler issues right now. I think the natives are getting restless in the Open Queueueueueu.

[shaft.ed]

Is Trendy and Subversive the one with the {Cop, Nurse}/{Doctor, Deputy} split? I don't see the problem.

This.

I think the set up is quite nice. I don't think it should be blocked just because you don't like back up roles.

One point of confusion I noticed when skimming the games is that the mafia Roleblocker can block and kill on the same night. This needs to be made clear in the role PMs and to the mod running said games.

[shaft.ed]

I didn't even realize TaS had a mafia roleblocker. Dunno if it really needs one; I thought Pie started the trend to prevent a cop from claiming and getting protected. In both C9 and TaS, there's a 50% chance of that not working, which discourages the claim anyway.

The TaS town is definitely stronger than a C9 town in three of the four situations and equal in the fourth, but I'm not so sure that's a problem that needs scum compensation.

(I do like C9 as it is, even if it's scum-sided...it's a losing-builds-character sort of fondness. Back in my day, whippersnappers...)

The RB's nice because the Cop has two definite "outs" having a Doc OR a Deputy definitely in the game. It also discourages powerrole claiming which is nice given the near instaconfirm due to the set up.

Xyl if you have specific reasons why the Nurse slash Deputy are bad for this set up please state them so they can be aired.

@Gurgi, we're not ready for 2 v2 v town yet.

[shaft.ed]

Can we finish up with Monks?

2v2v9 seems good enough to me, can we certify?

Slow down. 2-scumteam setups need deeper analysis.

I just don't like all the jumping around. It seemed like we were finally getting somewhere, then tangent.

That was the tangent.

[shaft.ed]

OK I think I see what we're missing.

Certify Trendy and Subversive C9

bandwagon to victory.

On a more serious note:
I see no breaking strategies. The only ones I can think of involve town power role claims. So at some point we should run through all of the various four role's viewpoints to see if claiming has any sort of breaking effect on unraveling the set up.

[shaft.ed]

Bird C9 (27, 98, 117)

(flagged by Xyl)

Trendy and Subversive C9 (90, 91, 94)

(flagged by Xyl)

Basic Twelve Player (3, 9, 54)

(flagged by Lord Gurgi)

Masons and Monks (12, 23, 56)

(flagged by Adel)

Strawberry (17, 46, 62)

(flagged by Adel)

Polygamist (76, 83, 88)

(flagged by Adel)

The New C9 (50, 60, 81, 104)

(flagged by Adel)

Nightless Vanilla (6, 19, 41, 79)

(flagged by Xyl)

Can the people that flagged these set ups please state their cases against them?

EDIT: Saving Masons and Monks for a later discussion however.

[shaft.ed]

6-8 players: 2 scum (2:4 to 2:6)
9-11 players: 3 scum (3:6 to 3:8)
12 players: 3 or 4 scum (3:9 or 4:8)
13-15 players: 4 scum (4:9 to 4:11)
16 players: 4 or 5 scum (4:12 or 5:11)

Certify the above ratios for vanilla Nightless

[shaft.ed]

IMHO, cop and doc versus mafia is broked or sucky.

We aren't worrying about sucky. Why is Cop + Doc + 7 Townies, vs. 3 mafia broken.

[shaft.ed]

So the standard "fix" is throwing the scum a Roleblocker. Is that worth doing for this set up?

I'm not a fan of forced No Lynchings.

[shaft.ed]

By "sucky" I meant "has a breaking strategy that is well known and simple".

I'm not sure how adding a roleblocker keeps this setup any different from all the other cop+doc/RB setups.

It has 12 players

OK so I don't mean to distract with a fundamental question, but is our purpose to decide which games WILL be played or which games CAN be played? My understanding was that we were to determine:
1) Is a game broken?
2) Can it be fixed?

If yes then fix it. If no then reject it for all time.

[shaft.ed]

Yes so it appears this is broken.

Do we reject it or fix it?

[shaft.ed]

I'd say reject it and kick it back to open setup discussion for a fix.

Sounds good.

OK what about the set ups you flagged Xyl?

[shaft.ed]

Those are

Bird C9

2 scum
1 cop
1 doc that can't protect the cop
3 townies

and

Trendy and Subversive C9

1 goon
1 mafia RB (can RB and kill simultaneously)
1 of Cop/Nurse
1 of Doc/Deputy
3 townies

[shaft.ed]

I prefer the Cop/Nurse version.

We could just certify both. Rename one Trendy and the other Subversive.

[shaft.ed]

I personally don't think it needs a name change. I don't think most people playing know what the C9 is about anyway.

Korts has a good point on the Cop/Doc never existing together. But does the scum need the Roleblocker in such a set up? It seems this tilts more towards scum with the RB in place.

What about Cop/Doc set up runs with just two goons while the Cop/Nurse set up runs with a goon, RB pair?

[shaft.ed]

What is this, "Gradually change every setup until it becomes F11"?

hahah

[shaft.ed]

What is this, "Gradually change every setup until it becomes F11"?

Curses. I've been uncovered.

Seriously though, what's the problem with the cop or doc version?

As I said I support both. You may lodge your votes as you fit.

Vote: Certify Trendy and Subversive C9 Cop/Doc and Trendy and Subversive C9 Cop/Nurse

[shaft.ed]

Bird C9 (27, 98, 117)

(flagged by Xyl)

Trendy and Subversive C9 (90, 91, 94)

(flagged by Xyl)

Basic Twelve Player (3, 9, 54)

(flagged by Lord Gurgi)

Masons and Monks (12, 23, 56)

(flagged by Adel)

Strawberry (17, 46, 62)

(flagged by Adel)

Polygamist (76, 83, 88)

(flagged by Adel)

The New C9 (50, 60, 81, 104)

(flagged by Adel)

Nightless Vanilla (6, 19, 41, 79)

(flagged by Xyl)

OK the remaining flagged set ups have been flagged by Adel. I think starting with Strawberry makes sense because it is the simplest.

3 mafia
1 cop
8 townies

Not broken so the issue must be balance. Seems mafia friendly if given random lynches. Adding one town gives the town an extra lynch attempt given straight mislynches.

[shaft.ed]

I suggest we just certify Bird C9 as Bird and change the role name to what I had above.

Yes let's certify it. We could put up a poll thread on what to call it if you want. But I'm happy with Bird

[shaft.ed]

I actually think that this is town favoured.

How so? Is it if the cop lives through three nights of killing, and none of his investigations die he ought to have cleared enough innocents to win.

Is there an optimal strategy I'm missing? Like No Lynch, or No Lynch + hypocop?

[shaft.ed]

I tried to calculate EV's for 3:9 but realized I fail at math

life

I do not support putting through anything that requires a fix like forced lynches just because Cop and Doc are classic roles.

[shaft.ed]

Re: Strawberry, again I don't think we're here to say if a set up is interesting. We are here to say if it is broken and reasonably balanced.

[shaft.ed]

I kind of like this bring in the creator and have them explain their though process thing.

Yes I like this as well.

Also

Macho Bird

? or

Macho Cop

for new Bird C9 game?

[shaft.ed]

I don't see any more issues being raised Re: Trendy & Subversive. Could people please state which of the two set ups (or both or neither) they wish to approve?

Strawberry fixes proposed:
3 v cop + 9
or
3 v cop +9 w/ cop head start

I don't really know how much more impact a cop head start is going to have. I think it does have the potential to turn the game into "cop tries to live through X innocent investigations and claims," but that's low probability because their investigations have to survivie to that point. I think they'd have one throw away out of the number needed.

The New C9 is rather large and thus complicated, Masons and Monks is a 2 v 2 v 8 which I'd like to discuss with the other 2 v 2 v 8's that have run.

That leaves Polygamist Mafia which is a doubled Lovers Mafia
a 4 Lover scum team vs 4 town lover pairs

Scum must direct 2 mislynches without getting any member of their team lynched. Believe this is about a 40/60 EV if I remember correctly. Should be harder than Lovers due to the greater number of interactions that can be picked up on.

[shaft.ed]

OK guys we're talking about Polygamist Mafia.

Anything anyone sees trouble with. For the record of three games, town has won 2 and scum 1.

It's essentially Lovers doubled. A 4 man scum team may be a bit too easy for the town to notice. A possible "fix" would be reducing the scum team to 3. But on the other hand a 4 player voting block is much more powerful than a 3. It also makes end game come a lynch earlier, which significantly changes the EV.

Essentially I don't such much point in altering it. So it's either approve or disprove from what I can tell.

I move to certify Polygamist

[shaft.ed]

I think I'm missing something with Shaft.ed's 3-person scumgroup. If each townie has a lover, then a mass loverclaim breaks the game; if the townies are all independent, then they get many extra lynches.

Yeah it was a stupid typing without thinking moment.

[shaft.ed]

I'll more thoroughly consider Polygamist tomorrow, but Ether's argument seems convincing--it's just Lovers with every player being replaced with a lover pair, and I don't see why this is a better way to go than simply allowing hydras in Lovers sign-ups.

Let me reiterate, we aren't looking for the best mafia game, we're looking for is the game balanced, and is it broken? Lovers Hydra would be yet another possible set up that can be added to the Discussion thread.

[shaft.ed]

Meh, thinking about it, I do think Polygamist is a different beast than Lovers. In Lovers, since only the mafia are lover paired, traditional "lover tells" are essentially scum tells. In Polygamist this is somewhat negated by making everyone a lover pair, thus "lover tells" can be demonstrated by scum and town alike.

[shaft.ed]

IIRC, in 3/3 polygamist games everyone claimed pretty early day 1, but arguing about whether or not to massclaim gets day 1 going and ends the random stage quickly.

well if it's going on that frequently would it be considered a breaking strategy?

[shaft.ed]

IIRC, in 3/3 polygamist games everyone claimed pretty early day 1, but arguing about whether or not to massclaim gets day 1 going and ends the random stage quickly.

well if it's going on that frequently would it be considered a breaking strategy?

by massclaim, I simply meant that everyone claimed who their lover is. all four scum are lovers, so they have to decide which pairs they will claim, but that is rather simple.

Yeah I understand that, but if that's making the game more "effecient" it seems retarded to play that set-up (and is why everyone suggested hydra'ing it but I was oblivious to the point of said conversation). Is it really optimal for town to claim their pairs?

[shaft.ed]

shaft.ed, even if it is optimal to claim your lover every single game in polygamist that doesn't make it a bad setup. i am unsure why you would think this. it doesn't "break the game."

I was asking for opinions of people who played it. I've never been in any lover game.

On the surface it looks like holding back on the claims might be beneficial. When you force scum into pairs, you might notice cross tells within the scum lover group, no?

I also like Guardians argument in favor of lover assignments being random and not decided by the players.

[shaft.ed]

Also I think the discussion clearly indicates Polygamist is a different beast than Lovers,

so I move for it to be certified

.

Back to Strawberry. This seems at a bit of an impass. I think it'd be best to vote on it:

Please either
vote: Kill Strawberry
or
vote: Keep Strawberry with fix (either 3 v 9+1 or 3 v 9+1+cop headstart)

I vote: Keep Strawberry with fix

[shaft.ed]

OK Strawberrie's Dead.

Next up either:

The New C9

or

2 v 2 v 8's

[shaft.ed]

You can find it in New York

I think it's

1 Godfather
3 Goons
1 SK
0-2 Cops
0-2 Docs
0 or 2 Town Masons
0-1 Vig
8-15 Townies

[shaft.ed]

Just wanted to point out there have been a few requests for large games in the Open Queue.

But yes that is...messy

[shaft.ed]

Explain why it is balanced in less than 500 characters.

it's not, it needs to die.

[shaft.ed]

Can town win a 1 v 1 v 1?

No Lynch, then cross kill?

Scum's going to lose (draw) if he lynches the townie. He can only win lynching the other scum, but the townie isn't going to let him do that. Scum doesn't want to look like the other scum, so he might push a No Lynch for WIFOMy puroposes going into the night phase.

I think as long as the win condition is clear that scorched earth is the draw scenario it shouldn't happen right?

[shaft.ed]

I'm not saying there will be a crosskill, but that it's the only way a townie can win, so it's the move the townie would make. Thus if scum are still attempting to avoid being crosskilled for an outright win, they should also push for a no Lynch.

[shaft.ed]

Yeah I agree with good scum play being better than random for crosskills. The mafia are trying to get rid of the other faction.

Is 25/25/50 what we should be after? Wouldn't something closer to 33/33/33 be more desiralbe?

[shaft.ed]

How about 2 v 2 v 10 for vanilla or limited scum abilities, and 2 v 2 v 9 for anything with town sided power roles?

[shaft.ed]

The townie should just claim townie and no lynch, usually with a "fuck, you're both scum" in there for good measure.

Which makes this a really nice play for scum who wants to No Lynch and cross kill the other scum

I really think a scorched earth win (actually loss) condition the way to avoid kingmaker situations.

[shaft.ed]

Moved over to the numbers thread. If my numbers are correct and I'm not missing anything, I've shown that the strategy up to 1-1-5 is either to NL or to sac a townie. I suppose it's still Mafia (you still want to be posting in such a way as to look townie, only now you're trying to persuade the scum not to shoot you, rather than the town not to lynch you).

You broke it This will be even more of an issue when you add power roles to the town.

[shaft.ed]

it is worth noting; however, that not all games progress to 1-1-X easily.

[shaft.ed]

Actually, I suspect it would be less of an issue with power roles. The reason for the NL/sac strategies in vanilla is that the best thing for the town to do sometimes is to reduce the options and hope the scum kill each other. With power roles (particularly information roles), there are other ways of catching scum, and of eliminating possibilities. Hard to say for sure, though.

Don't most information gathering roles also benefit from a No Lynch strategy since their lifetimes are increased and they have more nights to gather info? It seems adding a Cop would just double down on the motivation for town to No Lynch.

[shaft.ed]

I think we're getting to a point that we can say that games with multiple, symmetrical scum groups may not be the best idea.

But they're generally enjoyable no? It seems players are generally happy with having played them after the fact.

[shaft.ed]

I may be biased. I was scum and I won

[shaft.ed]

Can a game where the scum is a single person and thus has no connections be called mafia? I'm not entirely convinced of that. Based on this I'm leaning no on 1:4.

ditto.

Meh, it's still an informed minority vs. uninformed majority. I have no problem with it.

[shaft.ed]

OK so we've certified 2 v 2 v 9 presumably vanilla.

Should we discuss power roles?

2v2v8 power roles were: (for simplicity I'm labeling one mafia group A and the other B).

Masons and Monks: 2 non-A masons and 2 non-B masons
Freinds and Enemies and Enemies: 3 non-mafia masons
Quack Multiball: 2 Docs, 6 Quacks (please no)
Twofold Mafia: 1 Doc, 1 A-Cop, 1 B-Cop


I think there were more, but I don't have time to dig right now.

[shaft.ed]

I tried running 1:4 mountainous for marathon day. It lasted three minutes.

I'm not sure if that's a minus or a plus.

both

[shaft.ed]

Propose we cerify 2:2:9

What games are 2:2:9??

Think this is just the vanilla version. We haven't done the power roles yet. This takes the place of any 2:2:8 set up in the name department.

[shaft.ed]

Sorry I'm slacking on this

[shaft.ed]

If you're aiming for 50-50, 2:2:13 is probably about right.

So why are we always playing games at 3:9?

[shaft.ed]

Seriously, would we run a 2:13 vanilla game even? Why are these set ups so heavily towned?

[shaft.ed]

I believe Friends and Enemies' original conception was something about forcing the scum to identify masons or they would get their asses endgamed. While I'm all for 2:2 versions, I don't think the larger versions with fewer masons capture that well.

This

[shaft.ed]

how does two bus drivers resolve in Wheels on C9?

[shaft.ed]

certify Jungle Republic

[shaft.ed]

sorry for repeatedly failing at life

[shaft.ed]

I have totally not been paying attention to this thread, what setups are currently being debated?

^This, not sure I will have time to keep up, suppposed to be very busy right now.

[shaft.ed]

what about semi-open?

Bodyguard would make for a really interesting role to play IMHO.