- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,894
- Reaction score
- 10,026
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- They/Them
The point here is that I believe the player should have that information, they need to know what the worst outcome can be if it is game-ending after today.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's kinda my point. -Lo announcements give players mod-confirmed information. The hosting guides themselves say that mods should avoid giving mod-confirmed information. And I completely agree with it.The point here is that I believe the player should have that information, they need to know what the worst outcome can be if it is game-ending after today.
But it's the kind of information I believe should be given to the town for the sake of fairness. They should have the right to know if they can safely No Lynch at any time just like in those first old simple open setup games, that's how I believe the game is supposed to be played.That's kinda my point. -Lo announcements give players mod-confirmed information. The hosting guides themselves say that mods should avoid giving mod-confirmed information. And I completely agree with it.
Instead, players should simply be told the game can end soon, and figure the rest out for themselves.
How about stating it's there, but not who has it?So, people intended to mention it here when the game was over, but it looks like no-one has, so it's question time!
Do you think that vote modifiers (e.g. Hated, Double Voter, etc.) should be shown in the vote tallies or not?
Personally I can understand the argument from both sides. On one hand, showing those modifiers practically host-confirms a player's role right off the bat, and since vote modifiers are rare for mafia team, you've basically just host-confirmed someone's alignment. On the other hand, by not showing those modifiers, you're effectively lying to your players by telling them game relevant information that you know to be false, very easily getting the game called as bastard for it, and causing the players to make bad outcomes that they would've tried to avoid if they knew.
Given that I've never actually hosted a game where all rulings were determined by me, I have no idea which way I'd actually go if I included such roles, but I'm interested to see peoples' thoughts on it.
How about stating it's there, but not who has it?
I'd support the idea of them being counted in the list but not showing which user had the modification.
I don't really like vote modifiers as individual roles, personally. The games I've seen them in have had 1-2x usage and had to be specially activated.
Depends on the game mode. Bastard games, no. Non-bastard, Yes.Do you think that vote modifiers (e.g. Hated, Double Voter, etc.) should be shown in the vote tallies or not?
That's not how I look at it. When I post a vote count as a host, I show the amount of people voting for a player, not the amount of votes put on a player. So it's not a lie and not bastard, it's just that most players assume that each player has one vote because that's how it regularly works. This is how HYPER-MAJORITY would get decided as well, especially in some games with lots of strange voting powers (Baccano! comes to mind first). An interesting case that I had to debate over with ME was when a Voteless Jester could decide HYPER-MAJORITY or not by whether they'd vote or not, even though the vote itself is worth 0.On the other hand, by not showing those modifiers, you're effectively lying to your players by telling them game relevant information that you know to be false, very easily getting the game called as bastard for it, and causing the players to make bad outcomes that they would've tried to avoid if they knew.
Why am I being voted?!Darthwolf 3: AussieEevee, Elieson
But more likely than not, thye don't want to work around the votals. Instead they want to use them to confirm themselves. So such a way to show VC can be very pro-town in some setups.I think it's good for a player with an active voting role to try and work around the votals and not get caught. I usually show them.
It is still very easy to cheat around that system. If someone claims Voteless, you just have them vote someone alone and see if it will show 0.Agreed. That's why the method I suggested doesn't show which player has the modifier.
I don't think that's the real reason Double Voters are most often town. By that argument, Roleblocker should've been most often town too (since it is frequent enough in the town and the argument of town having most players still/always applies), but it's certainly a mafia staple. This is because setups are not made by RNG (with some exceptions like Chaos/Bonanza etc.) It is the host that decides if a role should be town or mafia, and when a regularly town role appears in the mafia there's almost certainly a reason the host put it there, and vice-versa.The argument of double voters most often being town is valid, since town usually has the most players so the most chance of having a double voting role.
That's not the way to do setups imo, at any time you're hosting something you look at what is good now, not in future games. When you will end up hosting that future game in which you'll give mafia a double voter, you can consider this argument; but it will be then, and by then you should've made a decision on how to show votes, which is something you need to decide now.However, that only means it's easier for mafia to fool town once they get the power.
That was indeed a bad call assumption, but this role is different than Double Voter in three major ways; for one, it was related to a Pretend You're Xyzzy black (mafia) card, which should give people a hint. Two, the entire game had a weird assortment of roles that would make one paranoid anyway. And three, it was designed to actually become weaker as the game goes on exactly so it wouldn't lead to such an -YLOIt's bad to assume alignment with any given role, for example the quadruple voter I had as mafia a while ago or PR giver as tosn in WvM.