Fiasco wrote:Does this mean the SK can say "I want to block the vig-blocker and the cop-blocker, but not the doc-blocker"? I didn't intend it that way, but I could see it working as well.
That's the way I interpreted it, but I can correct it if you like. It would give the SK a bit more flexibility though.
I'd be willing to second a nomination of dethy or double dethy. If somebody wants to do a variation on what actually happened in Twomz's double dethy game (8 cops 2 scum, scum have one shot to recruit a cop on some fixed night) I'd think about nominating that also.
I replaced into Chess Mafia for 6 months, and all I got was a win and this lousy sig.
thok wrote:I'd be willing to second a nomination of dethy or double dethy. If somebody wants to do a variation on what actually happened in Twomz's double dethy game (8 cops 2 scum, scum have one shot to recruit a cop on some fixed night) I'd think about nominating that also.
"It's not a logical inconsistency. B can't be correct because then C would be, but it doesn't go the other way - there's nothing wrong with C being correct. Aside from Twomz saying otherwise." --Mith
I think the idea behind the tweaks you made could have worked; the (valid) complaint people had was that you made the tweaks while the game was in progress. If you had made that part of the initial setup, people wouldn't have minded playing it.
I replaced into Chess Mafia for 6 months, and all I got was a win and this lousy sig.
Yes but I think it would be overpowered if the roleblocker could stop a kill by picking either one of the scum. In this case the roleblocker is part doc, and part cop. He can't confirm someones innocence (unless there's only one scum left) but he can pretty much find a guilty.
Primpod 11:13 pm
chamber can you please come to ukmeet
i would love to finally touch your face
The Mafia RB prevents the pro-town roleblockers from claiming and trying to openly plan their roleblocking together, but the pro-town roleblockers can still try to hit the killing mafiate. At the same time, multiple roleblockers could be a good training exercise for an intermediate mod, but would be a nightmare for a new mod. Hmm....just throwing the idea out. I like Patrick's idea, but I don't think it's suitable for a seven-player setup.
How does a RB stand strength wise? Better/worse than a cop? In the 7 player game at times it might be able to carry out the combined doc/cop roles very well, plus if the RB is forced to claim early, they still have a smallish chance of saving themselves. Slightly higher numbers might be better.
Primpod 11:13 pm
chamber can you please come to ukmeet
i would love to finally touch your face
Obviously, a cop blocker can only block the cop, doc blocker can only block the doc, etc.
If the roleblocker blocks a mafia, the blocking protection is blocked (Meaning, if a cop blocker blocked a cop but was blocked by the roleblocker, the cop would still make his action, unless, of course, the RB was blocked by the RoleBlocker Blocker.)
This will make for an interesting game because the mafia is trying to find who is which role, and may actually protect them once they figure out, with the knowledge that they can just block them until that mafia person happens to die. It stresses the importance of the mafia figuring out which of the town is what.
Would this setup be too hard on scum though? Not sure if the blocking system set in place would even be used by the scum.
This will make for an interesting game because the mafia is trying to find who is which role, and may actually protect them once they figure out, with the knowledge that they can just block them until that mafia person happens to die. It stresses the importance of the mafia figuring out which of the town is what.
Would this setup be too hard on scum though? Not sure if the blocking system set in place would even be used by the scum.
No way, that scum group is powerful. 4/13 and loaded with blockers. If the vig misses once the game can be over before day 3. Scum would definitely use that system or they're stupid, if nothing else they can block the town randomly.
Brutal Assassin wrote:How would you suggest balancing such a setup? Some more townies?
I don't know how effective their blocks would be, especially since it is open setup and the town would be aware that a mass claim is disasterous.
I'd add a few townies at a minimum.
It's true that townies won't want to claim, but the cop and RB collect information that they need to convey somehow. There is strategy on both sides. The cop wants to provide his info without outing himself while the scum are trying to guess who he is.
Even if the scum had no abilities, 4/13 is iffy. The town does have plenty of power roles, but they don't have much room to make mistakes.
Make a "bouncer" who when targetted by any RBer is told that he was targetted by a roleblocker and can himself target someone else to be RBed (town aligned of course). Also a 1shot rezzing townie could even it up a bit, gives the town a guaranteed innocent and a "reset" if something goes wrong.
"It's not a logical inconsistency. B can't be correct because then C would be, but it doesn't go the other way - there's nothing wrong with C being correct. Aside from Twomz saying otherwise." --Mith
I think Gambits needs some work. I don't think either run was very successful in deterring mass claim, or making it likely that scum could fake claim safely.
What you could do, I think, is come up with 20ish pro-town roles, randomly leave out 6 of them, and tell the scum groups which roles were left out specifically. (Probably give 3 to each, so they don't realize which claims are scum claims.) That makes a D1 mass claim less useful, even if you use Gambits 2-style role reveal.
I don't think Bad Idea qualifies as a Normal game...
nominate: Pie C9 except the blocker doesn't work on the cop
Here's another one that might not be normal enough:
Bitter Medicine Mafia
9 pro-town doctors
1 mafia killer
1 mafia doctor
1 serial killer doctor
The mafia killer and serial killer can make a kill attempt each night. Everyone except the mafia killer can make a protection attempt each night. A single protect prevents a nightkill, but
multiple protects are deadly
. Exception: for the serial killer, protects are never deadly, and any positive number of protects prevents a nightkill.
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." - Oliver Cromwell
nominate: Pie C9 except the blocker doesn't work on the cop
What's the motivation behind this? This seems to make the blocker almost useless. Assuming the cop is out but the doc isn't, the blocker is only useful if he hits the doc the same night that the mafia tries to kill the cop; if the blocker misses the doc, the scum lose their kill for the night. I wonder if it wouldn't be better for scum to just try to kill the doc.
I'd been thinking about how to translate the game played in the film Cry_Wolf into an open setup and what rules would work to balance it out (since the numbers in the film were very hopeless for the wolf).
So 7-player Nightless setup
1 wolf 6 townies
Rules:
Instead of a traditional voting process, players may nominate anyone they think is the wolf. However, a player may only nominate one other player during the entire game, so they should use it wisely.
Once a player is nominated - the cases are brought out. Then there is a vote between two people: the nominee and the nominator. One of these two must be voted out.
Only four rounds are played out (leaving an endgame of 2 townies and one wolf). If the wolf isn't voted out by the end of the fourth round, he wins. Going further would be too tough for the wolf to win. So it's assumed the wolf can kill two townies in endgame.
Win condition is to be the person who successfully won the vote when the wolf is lynched. Therefore the winner is the person who either successfully nominated the wolf or be the person who was successfully nominated by the wolf (and later turned the vote around). There is only one winner in the game so playing under the radar won't work for townies.
Perhaps the setup might work better with 6 players but I just thought that would be too small of a game.
I'm concerned that taking signups for multiple open games at once runs the risk of larger games (especially vanilla) stalling there, to the extent that replacements are needed right out of the gate.
"It's not a logical inconsistency. B can't be correct because then C would be, but it doesn't go the other way - there's nothing wrong with C being correct. Aside from Twomz saying otherwise." --Mith
