Open Setup Certification Group

[Xylthixlm]

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

[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.

[Adel]

from the numbers thread:

You are the King! To win you must lynch enough rebels that you and your loyal guards outnumber them. You lose if you are lynched.

That role PM is wrong. The original post with the setup specifically says "the king and guards win when they

equal or outnumber

the rebels".

in my mind there is a clear need for role pm's.

I am not sure about entire rulesets. I think prescribing special rules in some cases is a good idea (I'm thinking of how Polygamist Multiball was broken by the players realizing that the daytalking threads were started for the scum first, and the mod felt that since he did not have a rule against it he shouldn't stop it. ) and perhaps having a list of suggested basic rules could be a good way.

I don't want to multiply our scope too much... but does anyone want to draft a list of the abandoned/ruined games with their proximate causes?

[Lord Gurgi]

I'm of the opinion that open PMs should be segmented. The flavour PM that is designed by the mod would be put in addition to the standard role PM set by this group.

[Adel]

I'm of the opinion that open PMs should be segmented. The flavour PM that is designed by the mod would be put in addition to the standard role PM set by this group.

sure, flavor is a personal thing, after all.

Do we all agree that the operational part of each role PM should be set in stone? shaft.ed?

[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

[Xylthixlm]

We should borrow Tarhalindur's format.

Then the crunchy bits can be predone as part of the setup, and the actual mod can write the flavor.

A few paragraphs of italicized flavor text or a relevant quote.

Welcome to [GAME NAME],

[PLAYERNAME]

. You are

[ROLE NAME] (from [POINT OF ORIGIN])

. [Flavor text justifying that role name's presence and abilities in the game.]

You are a

[FACTION AND ROLE CLASS]

. [BASE FACTIONAL ABILITIES, IF NECESSARY]. [In addition to your abilities as a a member of FACTION,] You have the following special abilities:

Factional Abilities [NON-TOWN ONLY]:

[ABILITY 1 NAME]

- [ABILITY 1 EFFECT].

(Reminder text if necessary.)

(note: almost always a falseclaim ability)
[OTHER FACTIONAL ABILITIES, IF ANY, GO HERE]

Passive Abilities [IF APPLICABLE]:

[ABILITY 2 NAME]

- [ABILITY 2 EFFECT].

(Reminder text if necessary.)

[OTHER PASSIVE ABILITIES, IF ANY, GO HERE]

Active Abilities [IF APPLICABLE]:

ABILITY 3 NAME

- [ABILITY 3 EFFECT].

(Reminder text if necessary.)

[OTHER ACTIVE ABILITIES, IF ANY, GO HERE]

Please note that you may only use one active ability per day. [CHANGE IF ROLE ALLOWS MULTIPLE ABILITY USES OR HAS FURTHER RESTRICTIONS]

[WIN CONDITION] (Note: Usually "You win when all other factions have left the game, or nothing can prevent the same.")

Please confirm via [CONFIRMATION METHOD].

[Ether]

Assassins in the Palace have been broken,

Wait, it has?

Not a part of this group, but I really don't see the point of regulating open role PMs: I think most newbmods basically know what they're doing, at least in that regard. With the Rebels in the Palace confusion

(by the way I have no idea how that setup ever got to Little Italy)

, I think missing the 50% clause is an innocent lapse and the result of being used to games with nightkills where deadlocks aren't so relevant.

And endgame situations like that seem like the only thing that might cause confusion--what other problems have come up?

Offering templates as a reference is all right, though it feels overcomplicated.

[Yosarian2]

Assassins in the Palace have been broken,

Really? How? Where?

[Xylthixlm]

Well... let's start by certifying some setups, and then we can work on role PMs if we run out of other things to do

I'm pretty sure we can safely certify C9 and vengeful without any major changes.

[Adel]

I don't have time to dig through the 137 pages from the old thread:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... start=3300


I hope it wasn't a memory failure.

[Xylthixlm]

Rebels in the Palace confusion

(by the way I have no idea how that setup ever got to Little Italy)

It has an uninformed majority, an informed minority, and lynches. Why shouldn't it go in Little Italy?

[Yosarian2]

I don't have time to dig through the 137 pages from the old thread:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... start=3300


I hope it wasn't a memory failure.

Hmmm...Open 89 viewtopic.php?t=9142&start=0 was a AITP game; it ended in a town loss, and after a quick glance through it I don't see any breaking stratagies. I think that's the most recent AITP game...

[Lord Gurgi]

Well... let's start by certifying some setups, and then we can work on role PMs if we run out of other things to do

I'm pretty sure we can safely certify C9 and vengeful without any major changes.

Lovers, too, no?

Anyway, I don't see why the role PMs aren't designed and submitted by the designer in the first place, if not by this group. (shrug)

[Ether]

Adel: I think Flay or someone expressed the sentiment that an AitP win boils down to bandwagoning anyone who doesn't look kingly enough without any discussion. Is that what you were referring to? I don't think that's true, though; the uninformed assassin can still force the town to react to odd situations and derive information out of that. (Actually, I suspect that the assassin has an advantage.)

Xyl: RitP seems like less a branch of AitP and more a branch of 4:8 Nightless. (Technically, I don't think AitP is mafia at all, normal or not, while 4:8 Nightless is, but anyway.) 4:8 Nightless is already town-sided; RitP is that with a dramatically weakened mafia. In practice, I doubt the guards can ever win.

Gurgi: I don't see why they should be.

[Lord Gurgi]

The JDodge problem was enabled by such a mistake.

[Ether]

That doesn't need to extend to streamlined role PMs; just to working out all cases beforehand.

EDIT: I don't have a problem with requiring setup-designers to write sample PMs, but this doesn't necessarily cover all cases as you're implying--for example, whether a roleblocker or a gaoler would get priority. And it shouldn't keep newbmods from typing up their own PMs as long as they're functionally the same.

[Yosarian2]

Adel: I think Flay or someone expressed the sentiment that an AitP win boils down to bandwagoning anyone who doesn't look kingly enough without any discussion. Is that what you were referring to? I don't think that's true, though; the uninformed assassin can still force the town to react to odd situations and derive information out of that.

Yeah, it's a lot more complicated then that. Town has to actually lynch the scum ASAP in order to win, so town does have to gather SOME information; if town mislynches too many guards, town still loses. Town just has to do that without giving scum certain types of information, and while preserving disinformation. I don't think there's any real breaking stratagy, at all; it's just that the standard stratagy is quite different then in a normal mafia game.

[Adel]

ok, there are five of us, so if we each submit a list of ~ 7 games for the "A" group, any game that appears on the lists of four people should be "obviously balanced" right? (all of these numbers are mutable)

[Xylthixlm]

That doesn't need to extend to streamlined role PMs; just to working out all cases beforehand.

EDIT: I don't have a problem with requiring setup-designers to write sample PMs, but this doesn't necessarily cover all cases as you're implying--for example, whether a roleblocker or a gaoler would get priority. And it shouldn't keep newbmods from typing up their own PMs as long as they're functionally the same.

I think the problem is that newbmods may not know which differences are functional.

[Xylthixlm]

I think anything that's run 3 times without problems is safe enough. Going by mith's list those would be

C9
F11
Pie E7 (1, 11, 20)
Vengeful (7, 8, 14, 15, 26, 49, 58, 64, 75, 77, 92, 123)

Bird C9 (27, 98, 117)

(flagged by Xyl)

Trendy and Subversive C9 (90, 91, 94)

(flagged by Xyl)

Lovers Nightless (97, 102, 113)

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)

Near-Vanilla (14, 53, 93, 122)

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

(flagged by Adel)

Nightless Vanilla (6, 19, 41, 79)

(flagged by Xyl)

If anyone wants more discussion any of those setups, speak up and we'll flag that setup for the next pass. Then we can approve the rest by acclamation.

[Xylthixlm]

I'll flag Bird C9, Trendy and Subversive C9, and Nightless Vanilla as needing some discussion.

[Lord Gurgi]

Flag Basic Twelve, please.

[Korts]

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.

Running an Open Setup gives insight to balance and lets the New Mod gain experience in the technical aspects of modding--regular vote counts, prodding, replacement, night action resolution.

I support stock Role PMs with a seperate part for flavor, as well as a sample ruleset.

Borrowing Tarhalindur's format for Role PMs is a good idea.

Assassins in the Palace have been broken,

Really? How? Where?

I seem to recall something along the lines of post no relevant comments, wagon randomly, and the first person to get two or three votes is lynched because they more or less can't be king. This prevents the assassin from getting any clues regarding the king's identity while the town still can find the assassin.

Post 8 by armlx from the link that Yos posted explains it nicely:

Just so everyone knows how this works:

No discussion is optimal. Discussion strongly favors the uninformed group in a game, in this case the assassin.

If someone votes the king, do not vote that player automatically in response. Doing so is the best way to lose the game.

If at any point someone has more then 1 vote, they are to be policy lynched as they more or less can NOT be the king.

If no one has more then 1 vote, vote anyone you want, and I mean anyone. That includes the king.

Well... let's start by certifying some setups, and then we can work on role PMs if we run out of other things to do

I'm pretty sure we can safely certify C9 and vengeful without any major changes.

Which C9? Cop, Doc, Mafia RB is the regular one, right?

[Ether]

That doesn't need to extend to streamlined role PMs; just to working out all cases beforehand.

EDIT: I don't have a problem with requiring setup-designers to write sample PMs, but this doesn't necessarily cover all cases as you're implying--for example, whether a roleblocker or a gaoler would get priority. And it shouldn't keep newbmods from typing up their own PMs as long as they're functionally the same.

I think the problem is that newbmods may not know which differences are functional.

I don't think that's true, beyond innocent forgetfulness (like a 50%/outnumber split). If there's a canon role PM to check back on, I don't think an early correction can really affect the game. (A group that approves rulesets and roles as normal could be useful, not just for the open queue.) I think the segmented PMs are ridiculously bloated and difficult to appreciate aesthetically--they're informative if you've never seen a role before, but for a vanilla PM, I'd rather just read a small paragraph.

Armlx's strategy is intriguing--but the mafia won that game, with Armlx lynched Day 1. We haven't actually seen it succeed. And I can still see ways mafia could tamper with it, though the town would probably be able to detect them. Eh. I don't think it's dead yet. (Reading in a bit, someone points out that the cut-off point should be 3 votes instead of 2. Yes, it should.)

(Wow, Aegor's and Rishi's artificial rules about not claiming king are ridiculous. Bossing your guards around in the open is too awesome to ban.)

By the way, tacking the C9 suffix onto 7-player setups indiscriminantly is a pet peeve of mine. C9 is a game in which there are two separate binary decisions made independently to determine the setup pregame. Bird C9, for example, is not a true C9. You should start calling it Bird E7 or something. (For some reason, New C9 doesn't bug me as much.)