I've been using ore vanillas recently. Role madness can be fun, but a common pitfall of mine is that in trying to give everyone a role I end up making town way overpowered. Vanillas are dying out and we need to bring them back more IMOwhat methods do you all have for balancing your games?
Personally, I'd define a faction as a group of players who share a win-condition. This means Town and Mafia are our two basic factions, this also makes the Cult a faction, since they share the wincon "Live until you've got parity, don't let leader die". I suppose this'd technically make 2 Survivors in one game a faction, but eh.1. About Cult as a faction and its win condition.
First of all, what do we define a faction? One or more players, allied with just themselves. But what is their win condition? We have town and mafia where this is clear; eliminate all other opposing factions. Does that mean there can be a non-opposing faction? Non-factional independents are a thing, so how would be a non-opposing faction be different?
This is where Cult comes in. ME pointed out that in Fruit Bowl Mafia II (where I took the Cult Leader role from for TWR Season '17 Mafia) the Cult's win condition is to achieve parity with town and mafia combined in the game. When that would happen, town and mafia would lose. However, I didn't follow this win condition; because there actually existed scenarios where said parity would be achieve but mafia, with a single nightkill on the leader, could still eliminate the entire faction immediately. So as long as there is a mafia member left, nothing like parity or majority of the sort should guarantee a Cult victory. ME claimed that this makes it very hard for the Cult to win, even though I balanced with that in mind. What do you all think?
My opinion on this is that a faction always has to be a separate entity whose sole wincon is eliminating all other factions, everything else should be balanced around it. This does guarantee that all the time, only a single faction out of all of the game's factions can win (unless we have a tie).
Personally I'd take it on a case-by-case basis. If they're only out for a few days, then definitely put them on lowest priority, since they'll probably come back before you can get the subs in. The rest is a more iffy case, since there's a lot of things to consider. To stop players from seeing through your actions, I'd say never do it quite the same way twice. Yes you want important slots to get the subs they need first, but you really don't want the especially pragmatic players getting info they shouldn't.2. About order of subbing people out.
Let's take an hypothetical example; players A, B and C all requested to sub out in this order; A is mafia, B is Vanilla town, C is Cop. You get one person willing to sub in, and later you get another one. Which slots do you assign the subs to and why?
Two ways we can go with this; first one, whoever asks for a sub first gets subbed out first; A -> B -> C
second one, done in a way that lets the game proceed as smoothly as possible despite the inactivity; in this case it would be totally unfair to town to let 2 of theirs stay inactive and get a sub for the mafia, that's going from a +1 vote advantage for the mafia to a +3. Similarly, letting a Cop idle for several nights because the slot needs a sub is bad, so the correct order here is either C - A - B or C - B - A, because when it's down to just mafia and Vanilla, it's again debatable over who you should sub in next; giving town 2 and mafia 0 might be anti-scum, and mafia is more important to the game than a Vanilla.
What if one of the three only requested a sub because they'll be gone for like 3 days, and you can tell that you're most likely not going to find enough subs by then anyway, meaning they can resume their role? Let them in or not?
Another problem with the second method is that the players could use this as a hint of who's got power roles or isn't mafia and so on. So, which method is more fair?
Wanted to respond to this the whole game, but didn't want to incriminate myself.ME- If you’re scum you have the strangest play style I’ve ever seen, they say it’s a possibility but for now I believe you.
Now contains links to the rules in question.
Phase shortening is made more flexible and not related to -LO/HYPER-MAJ/anything that had to do with Rule 9.2. Day phases will last 48 hours and Night phases will last 24 hours, but may be shortened at the hosts' discretion if the length is redundant. Votes and actions will be locked as soon as the deadline for each phase passes. Votes/actions at :00 count, those at :01 don't. If the host(s) are sure that they won't be able to update, they may extend the phase in question straight from the beginning.
All mentions of phase shortening are taken away from this rule and solely squeezed into 2.9. -LO day phases (in which town's lynch decision may lead to them losing the game before the next day phase begins) will be announced. Details on the nature of the -LO state will be given in the Day phase update.
The standard is now NOC because it seems to be more popular among hosts other than me.10. Outside communication (that is, communication that occurs outside of this thread) is not permitted.
The rule is more flexible; in meaningful occasions, more than one deadpost can be OK. But in general you should only stick to one.11. After dying in the game, you may post more but said posts may not contain game-relevant information. Please avoid posting more than once or posting pointlessly.
Covers all stalemate cases at once without the need for arbitrary phase limits.12. If the game has reached a stalemate state either by accident or by players intentionally idling kills, it will end as a tie for the parties involved.