Open Setup Certification Group

[Adel]

/n (Because do any of the inned people actually bplay open set ups any more? Do they know what the open players want? Do they know the awesomeness that is carbon?)

yes. maybe. what is this "carbon" you speak of?

[Empking's Alt]

Are you in any at the moment?

Carbon-14.

[mith]

Yos, my initial goal is to go through the setups that have already been played, to get a starting set of certified setups that way. I'm sure we have plenty of setups already that work and that players like; we can add more as we go.

I'm still trying to figure out the best way to handle nominations/signups. The goal of the Open Queue originally was to give the players themselves an opportunity to choose the setup they were going to play. I think in practice, a lot of people have nominated setups without playing, and most of the players don't even read the setup discussion (much less post or nominate). Adel suggested just having all certified setups available for signups, but I feel that would be too confusing (particularly for newer players who just want to /in for the next game) and too much work on farside, if we had 20 setups (for example) available.

Perhaps a middle ground would be to break the setups into loose categories, with games from each category cycling in and out; for example, you might put Pie E7, California, Double Cop, etc. in a set of "7 Player Fully Open Setups" (which, narrow though it is, could probably be a set on its own given how many attempts have been made to fix the original newbie setup). You might lump together Vanillas of various sizes with any other setups that don't have investigative roles. There could be a set of Semi-Open games (C9, C9ths, Two-of-Four, Carbon-14, etc.). And so on.

But before we could do that, we need a list of setups to start with. I'm going to start going through them myself this afternoon (assuming this stupid cold eases up enough that I can think).

[Empking's Alt]

Carbon-14 isn't fully open (it as good is but not completely).

[mith]

Fixed. Just examples anyway, I don't know which of those setups we might want to certify.

[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."

[PokerFace]

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.

[Empking's Alt]

So you think other people won't try to purposely find flaws?

[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.

[Empking's Alt]

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

[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.

[mith]

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.

This is what I meant above; I probably wasn't very clear.

[Empking's Alt]

Too long to get a game.

[Mr. Flay]

So you think other people won't try to purposely find flaws?

They should have been, but they weren't. So there should be someone who at least

says

they will.

Who are you, again?

[Korts]

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.

If JDodge could be drawn into this this would be the perfect role for him.

or what shaft.ed said.

[Lord Gurgi]

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.

If JDodge could be drawn into this this would be the perfect role for him.

[Adel]

Are you in any at the moment?

no. I am alive in two games, and both are mini normals. 3 of my last 9 games were open games.

Carbon-14

Yes, I am familiar with it.


Are you really JDodge's alt?

[mith]

Ok, here's a start at going through completed games; this is from the list in the old thread, up to Open 43. I'll work on it some more later (feel free to add to it yourselves).

Tiny

Pie E7 (1, 11, 20)
California (4)
Vengeful (7, 8, 14, 15, 26, 49, 58, 64, 75, 77, 92, 123)
C9 (10)
Double Cop (13)
C9+2 (18, 29, 43) - IMO, F11 is an improvement over this (very similar setups)
Roleblocker C9 (22)
Bird C9 (27, 98, 117)
Two of Four a7 (67, 101)
Two of Four b7 (68)
Two of Four a9 (69)
Two of Four b9 (70, 121)
Trendy and Subversive C9 (90, 91, 94)
Carbon-14 (96, 107)
Lovers Nightless (97, 102, 113)
Even/Odd C9 (103)
Lovers 2:5 (109)
Gurgi EC8 (112)

Mini

Basic Twelve Player (3, 9, 54)
Masons and Monks (12, 23, 56)
Strawberry (17, 46, 62)
Friends and Enemies (21, 42)
Quack Mafia (28, 57)
Pick Your Poison (32)
Twofold (44)
3:3:6 Nightless (48)
Daytalk Vanilla (59)
2:2:8 Vanilla (61, 72)
Friends and Enemies + Dayvig (63)
Mini Love (65)
Quack Multiball (66)
C/9ths (74)
Polygamist (76, 83, 88)
2:2:3:5 Friends and Enemies (78)
Mayo Clinic (99)
Friends, Enemies, and that Other Guy (100)
Impotence (106)
Weak M.D. (108) - I find the balance of this one... questionable.
Unclean (110)
Tread Carefully (115)
Follow The Cop... Or Not (118)

Large

Near-Vanilla (14, 53, 93, 122)
Big Love (35)
Picking Simplicity (36)
Lovers Multiball (86)
Double Day 3:13 (80)
The New C9 (50, 60, 81, 104)
Immunity (111)

Variable

Vanilla (2, 55)
Nightless Vanilla (6, 19, 41, 79)

Less Normal

Jester Mafia (25, 71, 85)
Fire and Ice (30, 84)
dethy (34)
Jester Mafia 12 (38)
Medical Mafia (40)
Assassins in the Palace (73, 73.5, 89)
Paris (114)
Masons and Mafia (119)
Rebels in the Palace (120)

Issues?

Switch (5) - see Yos comment
Crush (33, 105)
Crush Nightless (37, 39, 47) - weren't there some issues with endgames in Crush and Crush Nightless?
Baby Too Much Scum (45, 87) - Having an FBI Agent when the SK is already weaker than the Mafia group doesn't make much sense.

Broken

Texas Justice (24, 51, 52, 82)
Yoguraimee C9 (31) - reasonably sure that having the cops claim D1 is still a breaking strategy here
Don't Cut the Red Wire! (116)

Can't Find!

Open 95

[Xylthixlm]

Meh.

/in since JDodge isn't.

[Lord Gurgi]

An overhaul of the Open Games section of the wiki would be a good place to start.

[shaft.ed]

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

[Yosarian2]

Switch (5)

I don't know if it was changed later, but the origional switch mafia, the one I modded (Open 5, viewtopic.php?t=4229&start=0) was pretty heavily balanced against the town, IMHO, even with a slight modification I as mod made to try to make it a little closer to balance.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

/in

[Adel]

If I had the time right now this post would be a list of the open games in numerical order, with a link to each game, name of the setup, number of players, ect...

or I would edit this page on the wiki to contain that information.

the page for Open 5 http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Open_5
is pretty awesome. Should it be the model for other open games?

Am I alone in thinking that we should do the setup's wiki page (w/ links to examples) as well as each specific game page (w/ link to setup page) before we certify any?