Just as an FYI, I'm not available for anything until after August 14th.

did you remember to check your "request to receive PMs"? ya ugly ole bastard

Dis guy is supposed to handle things. Watta mook!

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_mafia_signup_game_54

tell your friends!

The risk in a mod doing it is they may share info about the game inadvertently, or a player may get caught in wondering if the mod, omniscient as they are, is implying something about the current game.

Plus there are some mods who just want to mod, and don't really want to babysit and/or mentor. Or just imagine the variance based on who they got...

That's part of the draw of semi-open. But yeah, that's the problem with outlandish claims. It's pretty much always true that, no matter what crazy frakked up smurf someone claims, an actual game here has at some point featured something weirder and it seems we're all just out to out-weird each other.

That's one way - matrices are another option that's a little more precise. That's what a lot of MU games run off, and I used a modified version of this matrix: https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Matrix6 in the smurf game. But yes, you could also just list 10 possible roles (VT, mafia goon, Town Cop, yada yada) and announce at the start that some/all of those, and only those, are present in the setup.

If I were to run a second Battlestar game, chances are reasonable that I'd provide a list of potential characters and roles.

One of the ideas I had in the nunnery game (which I never quite finished) was a twist on semi-open that I was thinking of as "quasi-open." Each nun would have a partial list of the roles in the game, and could share/not share/lie about what they knew about the existence of other roles.

Kind of like the asylum game the main question I was trying to get at was how you get D1 moving, considering how much D1 can lag in a standard game since scum don't really want to share, typically, and VT really have nothing TO share since they know nothing about the game.

But that's probably overly complicated and you could accomplish the same effect with a standard semi-open approach. ;)

Triggered by the discussion about simple majority lynch vs. absolute majority lynch I just had an idea. Both have some drawbacks. But I may have an idea how to circumvent these.

absolute majority: Danger of no-lynch (may be good or bad). Hasty voting before the Deadline, scum can very nicely hide behind 'hey, better anyone than a no-lynch!' since townies do the same.

simple majority: no push to actually vote. Game will be decided by the active players. Scum can try to lurk without ever showing their hand. Especially if they are known non-voters.


So, how about simple majority with enforced voting? Everyone votes by default - on himself. To not vote yourself, you have to vote someone else or explicitly vote no-lynch. At deadline, the person(s) with the most votes on them die(s). Yes, that means that two or more people can die if they share the 'most votes' slot. Of course, one could turn this around to introduce the danger of accidental no-lynch again. That would be: if there is no clear 'most votes' candidate, no one is lynched. But I like the 'everyone dies' option more.

I even have a setup idea where this kind of voting structure would fit.

So put me somewhere in the host list for a test-run of this mechanic!

I like it. having the vote on oneself helps D1 for sure. But in endgame this makes the winner whoever is first to pilevote at start of the last day, right? :(
Also I imagine what might happen if no one votes in that setup. -> everyone dies + game over in draw? lol
not happening I know but a fun thought...

I thought about this (but with "everyone votes by default on the next person").

Of course, on the last day, e.g. when 3 people TTM are left, the game quickly changes into "wake first before the mafioso wakes and hammers".

To remove that speedhammer danger, one could say that the votes are only counted at fixed times. Say, once per (real time) day. So that everyone has the chance to remove the default-self vote by doing something.

But you'd still have to vote someone, if that someone happened to be town then scum can still speed lynch and win.

Better to say that it's only in play for a certain length of time, like only for the first day or the first two or three days (or based on numbers, but that may give away a definite size of the mafia squad)

I think Lift mentioned you're allowed to unvote. So on the last day (or in any LYLO situation), first order of business is to unvote.

Regardless, it might be an unnecessary annoyance for town to remember that. D1 is really the only day where you'll need to use this mechanic. Maybe D2 too. On subsequent days lynching should occur naturally anyway.

But only to vote No Lynch, if everyone does it then you'd get No Lynch... If you can just unvote then the mechanic is pointless.

Ah, you're right.

None of this would be an issue anyway if everyone followed ZFR's example and just votes everytime and everywhere, even if through random.org

♫♫ "I'm a Townie and I'm okay, I sleep all night and I vote all day." ♫♫