Theory - 100 players - Impossible

[Max]

In theory 100 player games are an extremly long game but to make it even you would need a large mafia or several small mafias

but it would take a very long time to get a majority so would you make it only 1/3 req to lynch a person

or make it everyone has 3 votes to place on different people to make a majority the 51.

but with all the mafias wouldn't the game need enough docs to cover the kills and even then cross kills would be the main factor for town win.

But cults that would be impossible they would need several recruits a night

The mod would struggle greatly as they would need to split up nights into hours and put all choices in the notes.

But If a game ran this size what sort of changes would it need

[Yosarian2]

Um...I would say plurality voting, with the top 5 vote-getters getting lynched every day, even if they only have 1 vote a piece, and days with very strict timetables.

But yeah, I think 100 players is probably impossible. That "5 lynches a day" is something I came up with when thinking about a 50 player game, which I think might be just barely possible (I still think Civil War Mafia could have been made to work...)

[Kelly Chen]

but with all the mafias wouldn't the game need enough docs to cover the kills and even then cross kills would be the main factor for town win.

I'd leave the docs out if you're trying to speed the game up. I think the crossfire would go far to balance things towards the town. If not, you just need a lower scum:town ratio.

But cults that would be impossible they would need several recruits a night

Hmm, only if they're unusually likely to lose their recruitment ability. Otherwise even 1 recruit per night would make it very hard for the town to stamp out the cult.

But If a game ran this size what sort of changes would it need

Instant modkill if you don't post in a given week. Probably put days on a set schedule, with a deadline lynch rule.

I don't think it would be impossible to

run

a 100p game, but I think it would be pretty impossible for pro-town players to find scum in it.

[Drummer]

Impossible: By no means.

Stupid: Yeah, probably.

I'd do multiple kills day and night. Plenty of day-vigs and other such nutty things to speed the pace up. Set deadlines every day as well. Sure there'd be plenty of conversation, but it would be too much to take in.

[Coron]

Heck no, it'd be impossible to pick out one person as scum, and your opinion would be lost in all the chatter, it would just suck.

I thought of this a while back and said "impossible", the best solution to this is something like, quagmire ran, where there were 3 towns that after a while got condensed to 1 even 3 towns leaves you with rather large groups.

[Adele]

I dunno... it might work, even with a standard format. You'd just have to be careful in the balancing stage and manage to find 100 players you could trust to be reasonably vigilant in a game that could take years to run. It'd be a somewhat new experience... hopefully people would self-organise into "cliques" - American high schools pick out their prom queen somehow, remember. I, for one, would be willing to make that commitment (even though I won't sign up for standard large games anyome), to be part of the history and all that.

However, since there are currently less than seventy people with over 1000 posts (although including alts would change that slightly), I do think it'd be a vastly impracticable move at this stage. As the site continues growing, though... who knows what may be feasible in five, ten years?

edit: If I, for one, were running this game, though, I certainly wouldn't have "normal" sign-ups. In order to weed out the casuals, I'd have several stages to the application procedure (sign-up, followed by an application essay 1 week later requiring return within 48 hours, followed by a quiz of mafia set-ups or whatever another week on), to only get people with the necessary commitment. At the end of the day, I doubt even Mith, MeMe and Jeep put together have enough kudos and affiliations to round up 100 people with sufficient commitment atm.

[Frozen Atlantic]

Mafia with 100 people would be boring and stupid. No way to find scum from their actions, the bad guys would blend with the crowd. It would be almost entirely random. Votes would be for no reason. Debate would be swallowed, drowned out. Nobody would laugh at my jokes. NO FUN.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

I'd say the game is completely random from the start of the game to 30 people left, then the game will get interesting. So basically there is no point in the 100 player game until its down to about 30, and that's probably why most big games today max out at around 30.

[Yosarian2]

Neah, not completly random. People will make scum tells and get lynched. I agree there's not likely to be any detailed vote analysis early on in a 100 person game, though, unless someone has absolutly no life.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

if it was kingmaker with strict deadlines I can see it working.

Heck even deny posting priviledges to certain number of players or have separate threads for the different "classes".

[Fiasco]

I like big games, but before beginning to take the possibility of a 100 player game seriously, we should first get a 40-50 player game to run well. (There's no way I'd want to commit myself to play in a game for years, but maybe such a game needn't last quite that long. Example: 3 kills per night, 2 lynches per day, 1 week (on average!) per day means 20 weeks for a 100 player game.)

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Why just 3 kills? 5 kills a night, 3 lynches a day, 2 daykills a day = done in 10 weeks.

[Fiasco]

Yeah, I guess. But keep in mind that we're talking about average, not maximum, kill rates.

Anyone for Mafia vs Werewolves vs Aliens vs Demons vs Robots vs Orcs vs Pirates vs Apes vs Zombies vs Holograms vs Dinosaurs vs Terrorists vs Klingons vs Mutants vs Nazis vs Trolls vs Ninjas vs Vampires vs Dragons vs Barbarians?

(Yeah, I know, Klingons are aliens, but these are more like Greys or like Alien aliens.)

[Blackberry]

Yeah, I guess. But keep in mind that we're talking about average, not maximum, kill rates.

Anyone for Mafia vs Werewolves vs Aliens vs Demons vs Robots vs Orcs vs Pirates vs Apes vs Zombies vs Holograms vs Dinosaurs vs Terrorists vs Klingons vs Mutants vs Nazis vs Trolls vs Ninjas vs Vampires vs Dragons vs Barbarians?

(Yeah, I know, Klingons are aliens, but these are more like Greys or like Alien aliens.)

O_O

[Max]

if it was kingmaker with strict deadlines I can see it working.

Heck even deny posting priviledges to certain number of players or have separate threads for the different "classes".

The only problem with kingmaker it then goes to electing mayors

Maybe it could be jury mafia where a small amount of people decide between themselves who to lynch. The jury are in a set order like it could be

player 2
player 6
player 7
player 87
player 17

between them they lynch a player

electorial mafia is good:

as it's ballots if someone doesn't get a vote they are safe from being lynched

[Fiasco]

O_O

I forgot Cherries. My bad.

[Fiasco]

I could see a 50 player game being a lot of fun if run as a high-profile invitational or semi-invitational with some universally-liked theme (or without theme). People would be selected for whether they could be trusted not to lurk; hopefully everyone would be more motivated because of the Big Event factor.

[Blackberry]

O_O

I forgot Cherries. My bad.

*claps*

[MrBuddyLee]

If you gave groups of people post restrictions it'd be fun to try and group them up and track them down that way. Wouldn't be nearly as random.

[Max]

If it was post restriction I would send them all messages like this

you do not have a post resriction to blend in with the crowd I suggest you come up with one.

That would go to everyone It would save me a lot of time with coming with post resrictions

[Yosarian2]

I don't really think a 100 person kingmaker would go well. From our normal sized kingmaker game we're playing now, I've come to the conclusion that the fact that no one else but the king needs to vote encourages inactivity, which would of course be bad in a game that big.

In a "top 5 vote-getters each day get lynched" situation, though, one vote could make a big difference even in a 100 player game, so I think that would encourage activity.

[Fiasco]

I like that idea, but it might make people afraid to stand out. For any big dispute there are going to be people who disagree strongly with both sides, and it seems like it'd be very easy to land in the top 5 just by taking a strong stand on anything.

[Yosarian2]

Well, could be. But I know that if I was a good guy in a game like that, I'd try to make sure at least a lurker or two was lynched every day.

[Mr. Flay]

I wonder how top-X would change the scum's chances of winning/necessary scum ratio. A lot of times scum can avoid lynches by foisting it off on someone not-their-team, with top X that might be a little harder. Hmmm...interesting idea though, and I think it'd be worth trying in a game of that size.

Or set a number of votes needed for lynch (like 25%), and a set length of Day (2 weeks?). Anyone who reaches that number of votes is lynched, and day continues until the timer runs out. Not sure if you'd want to allow votes to be reset/roles revealed midday, or just have them all hung in a line at the end of the Day...

[SpamWise]

I'd take part, just to see if I could live to the end. That would be a feat in itself.