vote Scene

I thought about a backup Anarchist, for an even number of players >9. But that won't be necessary since we have a quantum-mechanically uncertain player with Catte. If the number of other players is even, he'll be a player. If the number of other players is odd, he'll be backup. And for strengthening the Anarchist I might give him one or two shots of investigation (investigation result: Heir yes/no), depending on the total number of players.

Free bump

Thanks!

Anyone else? We have enough players to play, but I would be happy if more join us. I'll leave this open until Sunday and start the game thread some time Sunday evening oder Monday morning.

"7 Players is likely more balanced than 9 players as it gives the kingdoms a better chance of victory and historically this game has most often been won by the Anarchist"

MafiaScum Wiki agrees with me 100% about the anarchist.

Also I got the impression that the kills the heirs and anarchist have are usable both during the day and the night. Is that how you were planning to handle them?

just an observer for now, please?

I understood it like this, that in the 7 player game is deemed most balanced even though the Anarchist has won it more often than the other factions. While the 9 player setup favours the kingdoms. However, upon re-reading one can also read it the other way round that the 7 player game gives the kingdoms a better chance... however, why would the larger setup be better for the lone wolf?

As for the kill power being available during the Day, that is a necessity because it is a Nightless game. There are no faction chats and no Night-powers. So it's just voting until a lynch occurs and then the voting already starts again (if the game isn't over).

Although we might have to implement some pressure to get the voting actually done, otherwise the game will probably stall (knowing that this community is very adverse to lynching without time pressure).

What do you think?

The anarchist is well off because nobody knows who they are. The guards will try to not give away their heir but they'll never/rarely do a perfect job of it and it'll be much easier to find the heirs than the anarchist even if more people are willing to vote out the anarchist.

You could use plurality voting with random results for ties at day end if no one was hammered in time maybe.

Also what are you planning to do if someone dayvigs someone who has a vote on the wagon that gets hammered and you can't tell whether the dayvig or hammer happened first?

What does dayvig mean?
From context I assume ''Anarchist bombs'' ?

Also - Posts don't have minute timestamps, but I guess in such serious cases the players themselves could note the time.

The Anarchist will have to send in their kills via PM. PMs have minute time stamps and at least if I am online at the time within the first hour after hammer, I can check how many minutes ago that was. Otherwise, I'll have to guess. Or, as suggested, hammerers could write a time stamp into their post.

As for voting enforcement, plurality vote at certain deadlines is one way. But I had not so good experience with that because it slowed down the voting even more. Everyone was content if their favourite lynch was the leading wagon and no one felt the need to add votes.

The other way would be a random kill after a certain period without hammer. That kill would be guaranteed not to be the anarchist (so he would be interested in no-lynch happening, which again would be a way of him to accidentally reveal himself). But everyone else is fair game, including the heirs. Which would give the guards an incentive to rather vote than risk the death of their heir.

Exemption: as long as one heir is the leading wagon, his guards would of course prefer a no-lynch over that wagon coming to hammer. Which again gives everyone some behaviour to analyze.

So, what do you think? First round of voting on the mechanics:
Option 1: enforce votes by making lynching a plurality vote at fixed deadlines, unless a lynch occurs first
Option 2: enforce votes by enacting random kills at fixed deadlines, unless a lynch occurs first
Option 3: don't enforce votes and risk stalling the game

What do you all think?

I would go for option 3.
Just how long would people be willing to stall the game? A lynch has to happen eventually. Plus, the Anarchist/Saboteur is also bound to make a daykill sooner or later before a lynch.

Another thing is -- time does not flow fast in the forum mafia world, does it?
No need to rush decisions. This also makes it harder for the lone scum.

If the stalling does indeed become to ridiculous though -- a rule change would still be possible, no?

Both the anarchist and the heirs have a limited shot day killing ability.

People could easily stall the game for quite awhile. I Would prefer either option 1 or 2.

I Also need to check something else- Since the anarchist loses a shot every time a heir dies, do they consume both shots if they hit? I Would assume not?

Hmm, I think that the setup (few players, some of whom are linked to each other with no way to coordinate) doesn't lend itself for options 1 & 2; too many things/roles might be revealed if you start chopping off heads at random, and kill the game prematurely?

Since it's the first time we play this setup, I'd like to see it play out naturally, and if things get bogged down, we could reassess things down the road or for a future game?

Oh, indeed! I somehow missed that heirs can kill too!


The dynamic in this kind of setup is indeed fascinating.
Unlikely, but very possible scenario - everyone shoots before even 1 lynch has happened, misses and the game is over with just Tesla, Edison and the Saboteur remaining.

Really really weird setup and am already excited how it will play out, regardless of rules. =)

Wouldn't that be glorious?