Jesters and Cults are both fucking terrible and have no place in a game unless it's otherwise stated they could exist.

And even then they shouldn't exist because they're terrible.

 

Admittedly, non game ending Jesters with conditional obligations are not terrible, but otherwise I completely agree?

 

A player winning and leaving the game, but not ending it, is fine.

Certain types of hitman, etc.

 

How do you balance between having more power for town and still making the game behavioral/post-based? Like on our home-site it's obviously power role based so that causes the balance. But on this site it's a lot more about textual analysis, and town is a lot weaker to compensate for what seems to be stronger town players. So what do you think would balance that out?

Ex: A cult leader that is immune to lynch D1, 1-2 neutrals (Jester, Witch), A few investigatives + a vigilante + mason leader with charges, converted neutrals retain power to some degree? And then have like a 12-15 player game?

@Riley

I'm actually quite interested in that game you mentioned. I've played a lot of multi-faction games on my homesite, but the playstyle is very different there and I'm really curious how those kind of games would translate to such a different community

---------- Post automerged at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

Even a game developed around the idea of a cult, rather than a mafia? Obviously explicitly stated. I like the idea of mod-given alignment switching (as opposed to open win conditions such as survive with either town or mafia) in a serious game, but I'm not sure how feasible that is without something like a cult mechanic. I've found it fun in the past to watch players try to justify changing opinions/stances etc., and it seems to make it a differently styled game.

 

Multi scum faction games have typically not gone well here. Amongst other things they have a tendency to implode on each other and town reaps the benefits.

The issue I have with faction changes is that feeling of being on the winning team and dragged to a losing team or when you have to intentionally fuck over people you were previously working with. It's cool but finding the balance where it doesn't ruin someone's game for them is hard.

 

the example it not half bad for a start.

there are sevral ways to "nerf" town so they cant just be "follow pr game"
-limit them to even/oddnights
-make them X-shot (charges as we call it)
-make roles negative utility (athetic, compulsive, miller-like, weak)

you could also make a few very strong powers (Joat Format) roles where theres like 1 or 2 of them so they have to play more safely and cant out themself due to the risk factor of cult.

if we did 12-15ish i would do

Cult leader (max 3 members, includes self)
Cult
SK
-immune to cult
-can not kill witch (will be informed targeted witch)
-immune to witching
Mason leader
-2-3 charges
-hitting cult (non-leader) will kill them
-hitting cit will recuit them
-hitting cult leader cause both to die in a fight
-attempting to be recuited by cult will inform you of player, cult leader will not
Witch
-if culted becomes witch doc
-if attacked by sk becomes cult immune
-can be recruited by mason leader
-if targets sk, will learn the identity
PR
PR
PR/cit
PR/cit
cit
cit
cit
-------
13) cit
14) Jester (sc2 variation)
15) PR/cit

if you want to contiune along these lines but keep it hidden pm me.

if you want to go more pr heavy i would weaken them or make them low power
if you go less pr heavey i would make them more powerful

I would think sk would better only b/c needs to ight against 2 factions (cult/town) but can still get with the witch

the main ones that have abilities are for more dynaimc of the roles, each role is somewhat independent of each other so the system will give them a way to try to connect with each ohter.

the witch being recuited also is a means to fight back building up a 3-4 player masonry and just have a giant town block

if you want to use this you can, if you want more ideas but dont want ti to be open 100% pm me

 

Anything that changes the faction of a player is hard to balance, and IMO shouldn't be included except in extremely specific situations in role madness games. (Example: In a game I played we had a "vampire" SK who could choose to kill or try and convert, with the conversion taking several nights and losing the ability after success.)

Cults have their own issues. The setup of mafia is such that the Town is strong early, with the mafia gradually gaining power through deaths/mislynchs. The cult is an extreme version of this, and thus needs to start very small (meaning the game could end in the early stages) and will grow exponentially (which quickly fucks with balance in any reasonable format).

Jester is a unfun role, even if they just leave the game. It is very little fun to play, and basically costs the town a lynch.

 

/reminder to self to post here later

 

Alignment switches just suck the fun out of things, though.

Like, you get your role. And it's who you are for that game. You are town. After investing hours upon hours into playing and trying to help town win, you suddenly want town to lose? It just goes against some of the core principles of mafia, and I'm not a fan.

A mechanic I've used before is a mason recruitment ring, but your alignment doesn't change. Cult-ish, but not a cult.

 

So.

I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a requirement on mods to have a substitute mod/co-host available in order to host a game, in the event of emergencies/can't check thread/etc. Especially in games where there are instant/day actions.

The only downside is the co-host may not know answers to questions, but that's still a strictly better position for everyone involved than just the main host.

Hosts could always ask for a co-host in their signups if they don't have one, and I guess if they couldn't find one/noone volunteers we could deal with it on a case-by-case basis?

But like there have been 2 games in recent history now where the mod has been unavailable during games to an extent where if they were a player it might have even brought up issues.

 

im goign to somwhat play devil's adovcate on the issue here cus i have been on both sides of this problem (hosting/co-modding/and player)

hosting: this is somewhat of my preference when i do it is that i prefer solo hosting b/c i know i am mostly around and usually let people know when I am here and not. If i do have/use a co-host i would use them for VC only.

The dilemma: Since its soley me, it does become dependent on time for me to be around to resolve a day-action, in our recent game we did have such problems where there were about 24 hrs wait to see something.

On sloth point: there is a difference in what you are complaining about.

The toph role says "day ends, no dicussion/twilight"

a dayvig has the same kind of thing where a player should be quiet but at the same time it can be a gambit or faked. so there is a key difference. as already stated its like twilight where players can talk until the real flip happens

co-modding: i never mind being a co-mod to a person more or less ot the fact that it gives me stuff to do, i personally dislike having one unless they are there for VCs. A lot of problems can arise when a quesiton is asked that needs an immediate response b/c what the mod might say vs what the co-mod might say can be sometimes consiquencal and inadvertly break a game (if mod does it falts on them, if co-mod does it thats a problem imo)

the delemma: its already stated as above, but a copmod should not be doing much more then just doing VCs or maybe a few day actions (even then im weary) only if they have exact (maybe not exact per say) instuctions on what to say/reslove it

player: this has been a problem with all of us, and the recent game is no exception. when i was waiting for night to end at 12:30 i was extremely tired and had work in 6 hrs when it didn't open by 1 i feel asleep and was slightly annoyed.

so overall yes its a problem and i agree that there needs to be at least one player who is informed of the setup (roles, alignemnts, ect) to step in if something is to come up but other then that should not be a huge influence on the game (ie answering questions about a role/mechanic) unless if they explicitly state that this is not final (unless main mod give them an ok to make what they say final)

many times i have seen setups go awol/break due to different answers of what should of been said/happen

onto cirtus

this i agree to an extent, if there is going to be day actions, there should TRY to be another person, i dont think its a huge "OMG GAMEBREAKER" thing if a dayvig goes off and a player makes more post while we wait, but on the other hand there shouldn't be a huge timeframe gap (24hrs)

thats my entire delmmea with co-hosts, some questions are like "NEED ANSWER NOW" and you feel obligated to answer so when the co-host comes posting a VC players get all up in arms about quesitons not being answered

i think is is a mixture of both, if we (the players) know the host is going to mayeb have problems with being solo they need to have one to help out. but if the host is going to be around for a while and can do it solo then it should be a problem.

we could also have the dead players participate in helping with VC/day actions

and thats what we are talking about

 

I think a host should have a co-host who can take over. I totally understand that Lexi has a REAL LIFE and kudos to her for it so no shade but I also really liked seeing Delphine (monochrome) do the vote counts and if she was co-host she could have helped Lexi deal with some of the stuff.

Two people also makes it so a game doesn't die if one person has an emergency. Also helps when dealing with like strange issues.

On cults, I don't know what it means practically but it sounds fun like a cult seems less evil then mafia at least they're converting not killing.

I would like stricter rules against lurkers because that makes it hard to play sometimes and sadness.

 

+1 to co-hosts.

Would also recommend clearer rules about what constitutes discussion of ongoing games (like this mafiascum thread).

 

+2 on co-hosts.

There were several instances where we just NEEDED someone around to take care of quick things this game, or at least someone to place the game on hold if worst came to worst:

-When Rubicon got dayvigged, he really should have been made to stop talking immediately, not several hours after the fact. He's supposedly getting killed in order to silence him as much as get rid of a Town/Scum player.

-When a hammer is reached, there should be news fairly quick, even for early lynches.

-...look, the Battle thing with Zenzao should have been over in 30 minutes at the most. Instead Town lost a day and a HALF doing nothing with no one to guide them

There were also other issues, such as the fact that there wasn't a single Day that started at anything that would resemble 'on time,' so the players that are actually punctual end up sitting around waiting for the start, which isn't really fair.

So yeah all for more involved co-mods, please.

---------- Post automerged at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

Also, maybe take a look at the voting mechanism? I didn't like what Lyrium did while on her phone - posting in color one second and then suddenly unable to post bold. She ended up not being scum, but that was...eh.

For the record,
[*B]YOU POST IN BOLD BY HAVING THE DESIRED TEXT BE FLANKED BY A B IN BETWEEN BRACKETS AND FINISHED BY THE SAME, BUT WITH A FORWARD SLASH(/) BEFORE THE B.[*/B]
^As seen here, but removing the Star(*).

GOT IT?

 

I have something I need to say. I tend to take a fairly easy going moderation style with this subforum. It's pretty much self moderated and I'd like to keep it that way.

But something I want to stamp out now is the assertion, joking or not, that previous games drama will carry over into future games. If you don't like someone, don't play with them. But saying stuff like "/in to lynch Luckylee day 1" effects how the game is played and is not fair to the mod, or the other players. It's impossible to eliminate all bias from games, but this is the second time I've had to comment on this specific issue. So, I'm going to say this once: Be respectful of the mod who put in the time to make a game for your enjoyment, and the other players who sign up for it. It's a game where sometimes people can get angry, but it needs to stay within the context of the game. I will keep my policy of not effecting ongoing games, but at the end of games, if people are bringing outside issues into games, I'm going to have to consider sanctions. Specifically, I don't mean meta, and I don't mean getting angry, and I don't even mean the two in combination. I mean specifically entering a game with the purpose of maliciously ruining it by targetting another player with no other basis than it being that player.

Thank you for your consideration and time.

 

So while we're waiting for Kalas thing to pick up some steam and some extra players, what shall we do?

 

Did the whole murdering someone thing fall through or is that still a go?

 

That's like a night's worth of entertainment at the most. I'm thinking more long-term - we might be waiting a while.

 

There are plenty of people to go around.

 

I assume this is the thread for discussing minigames now?

Anyway, this is the setup I was recommending. It has more players then I recall, but that could probably be altered.

I'm willing to host if we need someone for a quickie.