Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[liopoil]

well I don't really think vig VS. Mafia should be a scum win. Maybe all kills happen simultaneously, except for SK kills which happen first.

[Voltgloss]

But that gets a bit weird if you have the SK happening to target a mafia killer early in the game.  That inadvertently stops mafia's kill on the town... something the SK probably doesn't want!

[mail-mi]

But that gets a bit weird if you have the SK happening to target a mafia killer early in the game.  That inadvertently stops mafia's kill on the town... something the SK probably doesn't want!

I would say that kills take place simultaneously unless something that would result in everyone dead would take place. Like mafia vs. SK.

[ashersky]

in that case, if a mafia shoots a vig, does the vig get to shoot or not? I think avoiding that is the reason kills have been simultaneous previously.

I would say that kills take place simultaneously unless something that would result in everyone dead would take place. Like mafia vs. SK.

See the mod QT for LOTR2 where Galz and I discussed this at length.

We believe that any and all actions that are the same resolve simultaneously.  So all kills happen at the same time, etc.

We also decided that the game checks for win conditions being met BEFORE the game phase shifts -- so at the end of night, BEFORE day, we see if anyone has won, then day begins.  This came into play due to Jimmmmm's role switching.

[yuma]

But that gets a bit weird if you have the SK happening to target a mafia killer early in the game.  That inadvertently stops mafia's kill on the town... something the SK probably doesn't want!

Ah. I didn't think of that scenario. Although I think you could create a game balanced around that mechanism... I would be interested to see a game that introduced that concept, but that is beside the point.

[theorel]

A lot just depends on what you want.  I think the best way to handle it is to use simple win-cons and specify end-game.  Like this:
Town: You win when all threats to town are eliminated and at least 1 town remains.
Mafia: You win when you control all the town, or nothing can prevent it.
Serial Killer: You win when you are last alive, or nothing can prevent it.
Survivor: You win when if you're alive at the end of the game.

End-Game: If all factions are eliminated the last eliminated factions draw.

[theorel]

Or
End-Game: If all factions are eliminated, SK wins.
End-Game: If all factions are eliminated, town wins.

etc.

[sudgy]

Mafia: You win when you control all the town, or nothing can prevent it.

I'm guessing if mafia have a majority but town still can win that means mafia don't control the town, right?

[theorel]

"control all the town", means all players are mafia. to me...but probably easier to say (for all factions):

You win when all remaining players are {your faction} or neutral, or nothing can prevent that from happening.

Town doesn't technically need the "nothing can prevent" clause.

[EFHW]

Several people have pointed out that "mafia wins when they control half of town or nothing can prevent that from happening" doesn't actually make sense.  Either they do or they don't control half of town.  If there are two mafia, a vig and VT then they do not control 1/2 of town, so you don't need the "or".  Literally, the phrase means that mafia do not control half of town (maybe it's 3:2) but are about to.  I think the instances of mafia being ABOUT to inevitably control half of town are pretty rare and go by fast enough that the game doesn't need to be ended there.

The reason control 1/2 of town is there is because when they DO control half of town, their winning is evitable.  This of course, assumes best play - no missed night actions, accidental self-hammers, etc. 

What seems to be meant but not stated correctly is that a non-town faction wins when they are the only ones left alive or nothing can stop that from happening.

[EFHW]

So two questions -

1. Do we want to assume best play will happen and end games at 1/2 mafia, 1/2 VT?

2.  Does anyone want to take on the question of how survivors fit into the counting of who controls town?

[ashersky]

So two questions -

1. Do we want to assume best play will happen and end games at 1/2 mafia, 1/2 VT?

2.  Does anyone want to take on the question of how survivors fit into the counting of who controls town?

We answered #2 in LOTR2 when Jimmmmm won with the Hobbits.

[Jimmmmm]

So two questions -

1. Do we want to assume best play will happen and end games at 1/2 mafia, 1/2 VT?

2.  Does anyone want to take on the question of how survivors fit into the counting of who controls town?

We answered #2 in LOTR2 when Jimmmmm won with the Hobbits.

A Survivor basically counts as a Townie right? If Town wins they are not considered a "threat to Town", and if scum wins they count towards the half of the Town that scum do not control.

[theorel]

Yes...I think anyone not 100% known to scum (regardless of their alignment) would be considered part of town for end-game conditions, because as long as they're alive they might lynch scum (or scum might lynch / NK them), and that is "a thing which can prevent them from being all of the town".

We've had a couple cases of mafia-aligned players that were unknown to the mafia...and that's how I'd play that as well (just like survivor).

Basically the question is: Could town now or ever lynch scum based on the information scum has?  If the answer is yes, then scum is prevented from being all of the town.
This covers everything from double-voting town v. mafia to survivor to doctor/vig.

I think that's what it means to say "nothing can prevent this from happening"  It means that there is no way (save known self-killing) that the faction can lose.

[ashersky]

Galz and I determined that a Survivor counts in the whole number when calculating win conditions.

That is, if there are 2 scum, 3 town, and 1 survivor, the survivor doesn't give the scum faction the win.

If there are 2 scum, 2 town, and 1 survivor, still no winner.

2 scum, 1 town, 1 surivor, scum wins with the survivor unless scum bussed for some reason, which doesn't happen.  That's an endgame situation where you call the game for scum.

[theorel]

1. Do we want to assume best play will happen and end games at 1/2 mafia, 1/2 VT?

I was kind of responding to this one without quoting it above.  But basically, we don't need to assume "best play" necessarily...just that a faction won't knowingly kill itself when it doesn't have to.  That way you can end with 1/2 mafia 1/2 non-killing single-voting roles.

So, you could say:
Mafia win-con: you win when it becomes impossible for a member of your faction to die without your consent.

[sudgy]

1. Do we want to assume best play will happen and end games at 1/2 mafia, 1/2 VT?

I was kind of responding to this one without quoting it above.  But basically, we don't need to assume "best play" necessarily...just that a faction won't knowingly kill itself when it doesn't have to.  That way you can end with 1/2 mafia 1/2 non-killing single-voting roles.

So, you could say:
Mafia win-con: you win when it becomes impossible for a member of your faction to die without your consent.

If there was two mafia and a vig, mafia would win, but one of them would still die.

[theorel]

1. Do we want to assume best play will happen and end games at 1/2 mafia, 1/2 VT?

I was kind of responding to this one without quoting it above.  But basically, we don't need to assume "best play" necessarily...just that a faction won't knowingly kill itself when it doesn't have to.  That way you can end with 1/2 mafia 1/2 non-killing single-voting roles.

So, you could say:
Mafia win-con: you win when it becomes impossible for a member of your faction to die without your consent.

If there was two mafia and a vig, mafia would win, but one of them would still die.

True.  And if it were during the day mafia could just lynch the vig.
But, if it were a 1-shot bulletproof vig, mafia would not necessarily win.  (assuming still bulletproof that night)

So, I think the win-con should always be stated as: Mafia wins when all town-members are mafia or nothing can prevent this.
So, what can prevent it?
1. If non-mafia has at least 1 more player than mafia, under normal rules, they can lynch mafia, and mafia can only kill one of them.  After a sequence of 1-for-1 trades non-mafia has a player left, and mafia does not, mafia loses. 

2. If non-mafia has equal players to mafia, and some means of killing a mafia player, then they can kill mafia and mafia can only kill one of them.  After a sequence of 1-for-1 trades both factions are eliminated, and there is a draw.  (or if town kill has priority (such as a double-vote would give, town wins)

3. If non-mafia has LESS players than mafia, and some means of killing one more mafia player than town player, then after a sequence of un-answered kills on mafia, we would be in one of the preceding 2 situations.

For 3, this includes any combination of: killing role + protective role or multiple killing roles.
In all cases non-mafia means anyone who is not part of the informed majority, regardless of win conditions.

So, in any of the above cases, assuming the win-con for mafia is "be all of town, or nothing can prevent", then those are the situations where "something can prevent" and the game should continue.

There are certainly cases where mafia has sufficient power that 2 or 3 are still mafia wins.  At some point that crosses over into "assuming optimal play", which we should probably not assume?
example: goon+roleblocker v. VT+vig
mafia should shoot one, block the other.  Either they block the vig and go 2mafia v. vig, or kill the vig and go 1mafia v. VT.  I think it would be relatively safe to assume they do this, but you could make them submit the Night-action.
example2: 2goons+roleblocker v. 2VT+vig.
if mafia shoots or blocks vig, they win clearly.  If they shoot and block the VT, AND vig shoots the roleblocker, you go to 2goons v. VT+vig.  They blocked the VT, so they know the other is vig.  They thus shoot the vig and go to goon v. VT, then win.  I'm not sure how safe this is to assume.  I think I'd play out the first night at least (they could obvi-win at that point anyways).