What's wrong with percentage?

[Ythan]

Random cop.

[Trojan Horse]

Thought experiment: in a setup with two scum left and no other town power, what's the difference between a 50% cop and a tracker?

I'm assuming that the 50% cop is "50% chance of getting a result, 50% chance of no result". Given that:

1. The tracker is weaker in the sense that, if the scum choose to no-kill, the tracker's investigation that night is useless. The 50% cop always has a chance of finding scum, no matter what scum do.

2. The tracker is weaker because, as long as both scum are alive, the tracker can't clear any vanilla townies. The 50% cop can.

3. If the two scum are under unequal amounts of suspicion, then the tracker becomes weaker; the scum will have their less-suspicious member make the kill.

4. If one of the scum is lynched, then the tracker becomes stronger; the tracker is almost as strong as a full cop at that point. (Almost, but not quite, because of #1.)

5. Tracker is a decent role. 50% Cop isn't.

Did I miss anything?

[Antihero]

Random cop.

then the whole argument of "i want everyone to have a night action every night" falls apart b/c you're effectively a vt.

[Ythan]

Bad roles exist.

[Ümläüt]

Well, I already said I wasn't going to argue the point about whether straight-up percentage roles were a good idea any more. But I can't resist answering this one.

Literally all your arguments are invalid unless you can prove to me how the hell the above is fair.

Smartass answer: It's fair because each side has an equal chance of winning

[Ythan]

Then it'd be fair if the whole game was a coinflip, and just as fun.

[VysePresident]

It sounds to me like you're trying to replace the problems with a Cop screwing over scum by turning it into a role that's either somewhat unfun, or outright screwing over the Town. Even the 80% Cop is a bit on the bastard side.

There are other ways of weakening a Cop (or replacing them with a different investigative) that don't have nearly as many issues. I'd recommend looking into other alternatives.

[kuribo]

Percentages institute something into the game that cannot be controlled by any player.

Therefore, it is inherently bad design.

[BBmolla]

A setup where a mafia chooses if a cop's result is sane or insane every night is interesting as fuck tho

[vonflare]

RANDOM ROLES ARE BAD

DON'T USE THEM

[zMuffinMan]

people focusing on cops and doctors as examples of why random modifiers are bad are probably thinking about it the wrong way - they are bad with swingy roles, yes, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad with every role

also thinking about randomness in pure terms of percent chance of failure OR success is probably also thinking about it the wrong way (though i suppose that's a by-product of thinking about it mostly in terms of cops/docs)

just don't use percentage modifiers with something that could swing balance in a major way (even if it doesn't have a huge chance of doing so) - i think others have said it, but there are better ways to gate swingy roles if that is your goal, and if that isn't your goal, then expect complaints about balance if you ever run a percent-based swingy role

[BBmolla]

If it's like a fruit vendor that gives 50% oranges or 50% bananas

im okay with that

[vonflare]

If it has the potential to win or lose the game with a roll of the dice don't do it.

[zMuffinMan]

If it's like a fruit vendor that gives 50% oranges or 50% bananas

im okay with that

there are plenty of ways to be creative with percentages without any real imbalance and still maintain a level of enjoyment

e.g. during the day, pick two players - send me the name of someone you wish to send a message to at night (player A) and the name of someone you wish to be in a neighbourhood with at night (player B). 5/9 chance of sending message to player A, 3/9 chance of opening a neighbourhood with player B, 1/9 chance of opening a neighbourhood with both. neighbourhoods last a single night phase. can be used each day

or something simple like a random chance between being loved, hated and a double-voter up until day X (where day X is determined by player list size and how early lylo can potentially be)

or some combination of the above. or some combination of other roles that aren't necessarily swingy

the only limitations you have are balance (don't be stupid and this is fine) and your own creativity

[zMuffinMan]

also, mechanics like in zoraster's event card mafia (which was essentially a "percentage"-based mechanic) are OK with me, too. they add *some* swing, but (as long as you're careful) it's not so much that it can break a game (and zoraster's idea of being about to veto a relatively harmful card was an ok counter-measure against possible swinginess)

[zMuffinMan]

"vi's cry_wolf" from that game was also interesting and partially related to the subject of randomness and cops

i mean, there's a ton of ways to be creative with randomness

[Kagami]

I've used Dreaming Gods myself. If the role is low impact, then randomness/unpredictability is obviously ok.

Even in those cases, I think the mod should pre-determine all random rolls and whatnot during the game design phase.

[Ümläüt]

If it's like a fruit vendor that gives 50% oranges or 50% bananas

im okay with that

What if you reach LyLo and need an orange to win the game? You might roll banana and lose. The game would be decided by a coin flip just as in your other example. Why is this any better?

[Kagami]

Either you're deliberately being contrarian, or you're missing the point that pretty much everyone has consistently stated.

tl;dr of this thread: Don't make a setup where the outcome of the game can be determined by a truly random element.

[Antihero]

Smartass answer: It's fair because each side has an equal chance of winning

balancing isn't JUST "equal chance of winning"

it should also mean "the better team wins"

the players should be playing against each other. not the setup.

[Antihero]

If it's like a fruit vendor that gives 50% oranges or 50% bananas

im okay with that

there are plenty of ways to be creative with percentages without any real imbalance and still maintain a level of enjoyment

e.g. during the day, pick two players - send me the name of someone you wish to send a message to at night (player A) and the name of someone you wish to be in a neighbourhood with at night (player B). 5/9 chance of sending message to player A, 3/9 chance of opening a neighbourhood with player B, 1/9 chance of opening a neighbourhood with both. neighbourhoods last a single night phase. can be used each day

or something simple like a random chance between being loved, hated and a double-voter up until day X (where day X is determined by player list size and how early lylo can potentially be)

or some combination of the above. or some combination of other roles that aren't necessarily swingy

the only limitations you have are balance (don't be stupid and this is fine) and your own creativity

ok yeah that makes sense

the problem isn't so much PERCENTAGES ARE BAD /FROTH AT THE MOUTH.

it's if you do percentages in some really stupid way. a way that nullifies the strategic value a night action has. like... i don't know, something where you target someone and have a 50/50 chance of doc'ing them or vigging them. those actions drastically change WHO you would target so there is no real way to optimally play this role. other than to not use it and act like a vt. is your hope as a game designer that people who get pr's act like vt's? how messed up is that?

[kuribo]

I've used Dreaming Gods myself. If the role is low impact, then randomness/unpredictability is obviously ok.

Even in those cases, I think the mod should pre-determine all random rolls and whatnot during the game design phase.

I still want to do an all-dreaming god setup

[Ümläüt]

Either you're deliberately being contrarian, or you're missing the point that pretty much everyone has consistently stated.

tl;dr of this thread: Don't make a setup where the outcome of the game can be determined by a truly random element.

Hey, I

got

the point. Don't use randomness, because it pisses everyone off when the random elements decide the outcome. I said as much on the first page, but everyone is still trying to convince me anyway.

I don't see how my last post is missing the point at all. Any mechanic has the potential to decide the outcome of the game, or else it's completely meaningless. So in particular any random element has the potential to decide the outcome of the game. If this is unacceptable, then the only solution is to never use any random elements ever. So why would someone say "It would be horrible if a random element decided the outcome of the game," and then follow up by saying "Some randomness might be OK"?

[Ümläüt]

Um. Never mind, just looked up "Fruit Vendor" and figured out what BBmolla was talking about. Now I know why that's not the same thing.

[Sajin]

I'm starting to think focusing on 50% really obscures the issue. Say we have, like, an 80% cop instead. Then the chance of failing three nights in a row, is only 0.8%. That's not impossible, but it's less likely than (say) the town lynching the only Mafia power role right out of the gate by choosing someone randomly. On the other hand, the choice of succeeding three nights in a row is about 51%, but this isn't a major imbalance if it happens since the role is balanced for a high chance of success already.

That said, Kagami, your point about how investigative roles actually play is well-received. If all percentage will do is make players angry or sad, it doesn't matter that much if it's actually 'fair' in some broader sense. I'm not going to argue the point about simply modifying roles with a percentage anymore. It doesn't sound like anyone will enjoy playing it.

I'm intrigued by your idea, Iecerint. Something like: choose between 100% chance of learning alignment, or

x

% chance of learning full role? (Where the value of

x

is something I'd want to choose so that the expected value of the two options is about the same.) Is that what you had in mind?

Alright.... well setup design usually does not like swing. Swing that you cannot get rid of is fine but random elements to roles add swing you can get rid of.

Even if you want a 80 percent cop I would make a cop that cannot act on night 3. It would effectively be the same amount of power but take out the swinginess.

Mafia innately has swing...but reducing it is generally considered good design because people like the core of the game (identifying scum) to matter more than chance. Roles add more strategy and depth to the game but also add swing which should be reduced as much as possible...which random roles don't do. If the power needs to be limited, then limit it in the role or in the setup. A cop with a cop enabler in the game is also swingy but it puts counterplay in the players hands (the enabler can play to not get killed, can claim and be protected, etc) rather than leaving it to chance.