Fujiwara wrote:First off, is it 45% for each informant (if there's more than 1), or 45% for any informant?
The problem with this option is that it's very similar to the orginal version, so the point of contention is: What happens when the detective is out of the game? At this point everyone can post their lists and for every list that doesn't contain the detective, we’ll know that it contains either the spy or the informant (or both).
So the probablilities P(spy) and P(informant) are actually quite a bit higher than 45% and 35% respectively on these lists, since the combined probability P(spy or informant) has to be 100%. In fact, even the base probabilities of 55/45/35 are not the actual probabilites, since the redraws to ensure at least one special role is on the list increases each of these probabilities. I’m not sure how to calculate the actual probabilities in this case – maybe someone else knows? If not I'll research the matter and get back to you later.
shinichi'sapprentice wrote:dumytru hasn't acted very 'evil-like', but that's his specialty though...
Fujiwara wrote:Personally, I think this version could work out well. In the previous rounds, people were tempted to play bingo with their lists, as someone formulated it, and I don't think that's what the game should be all about. Without the lists to help us, we'll have to actually deduce the identity of the spy based on what people are saying as well as the spy's actions. The most important function of the lists will be that they can help us protect the detective: There's a higher chance of voting out the detective if we vote from the lists, so we should preferably vote for someone not on our list instead. Conversely, we'll get no hints about the spy's identity through voting, but the spy might be able to narrow down the potential detectives through the voting results.
One thing we should consider with this variation is that it gives the spy an advantage over before. If we also include the new ability 'assassinate,' the spy side might get so strong if there are too many informants - the 3 informants you mentioned sound like a quite a lot. Let's not forget that due to Conan-chandesune's early demise in round 2, we've never actually played a round with more than 1 informant, so if we suddenly get no real information through the votes, a new informant ability and 2 or more informants, it might not be very balanced either ... but, well, I guess testing these things out in practice should give us a good idea.
Togop wrote:The reason I didn't suggest the detective to be always on the list, but on 65% of the lists was that I'm a little concerned about being able to automatically know that a bunch of players are definitely not the detective. But since you probably wouldn't want to share it, it wouldn't be a big problem.
Anyway, there's one more problem that needs to be addressed. Currently, once the detective has investigated the spy, it's basically certain that the town wins. I don't think that was desirable, considering the results of Investigate can't be mentioned as such. However, as someone mentioned, detectives could go "Arrest me and the ***" for a certain win. As such, I think we should modify investigate to only be able to confirm non-spies, not detect the spy. Two possibilities:
1) When investigate returns "Non-spy" that means non-spy. When it returns "suspicious" that may be a spy or a non-spy. The chance that a non-spy is reported as suspicious should be abou 20% (I'm assuming the detective will do about five investigates based on games so far).
2) The detective gives a list of three names, and the GM reports back with one non-spy from the list. Additionally, you can't include the same player more than thrice (because if you consistently use the same name and don't get it back, it's probably spy).
Togop wrote:The lists shouldn't contain info on the spy. Suppose they do. Then if we post all lists on prep phase, the detective will be found out, but we'll have three days to arrest the spy. The spy/infmant would post fake lists adding noise. However, they won't be able to organize befored ay 1. So if the spy appears on 3 or more lists than most civillians, we'd be able to deduce who that is (or at least limit to three suspects, assuming some statistical anomalies). If not, then the information on the spy wouldn't be statistically significant anyway, especially considering how much of the list info is lost when people die or get arrested.
So I think the list shouldn't have any information ont he spy at all. If they do, it'll have to be statistically iignificant, and will only cause arguments about math and statistics.
Jd- wrote:New List Proposal: Detective-Only Lists
With this proposal, all civilian lists will feature 7-8 players. One of those players listed will be the Detective. Unlike previous incarnations, the Spy will not be factored in to eligibility on a given list. What civilian players will know is that somewhere amongst their list is the Detective player. Lists will also be fully shareable in the game topic, if for some reason that is desirable. The Spy and any Informants would be included in lists just as a normal civilian would be, with no special treatment or consideration given as a result of them being a non-Detective role.
Togop wrote:Anyway, there's one more problem that needs to be addressed. Currently, once the detective has investigated the spy, it's basically certain that the town wins. I don't think that was desirable, considering the results of Investigate can't be mentioned as such. However, as someone mentioned, detectives could go "Arrest me and the ***" for a certain win. As such, I think we should modify investigate to only be able to confirm non-spies, not detect the spy. Two possibilities:
1) When investigate returns "Non-spy" that means non-spy. When it returns "suspicious" that may be a spy or a non-spy. The chance that a non-spy is reported as suspicious should be about 20% (I'm assuming the detective will do about five investigates based on games so far).
2) The detective gives a list of three names, and the GM reports back with one non-spy from the list. Additionally, you can't include the same player more than thrice (because if you consistently use the same name and don't get it back, it's probably spy).
Jd- wrote:Yeah, I see what you mean now. It's definitely usable and one to consider as a frontrunner. I was going for removing the GM's control of it, but I think that way could be quite good.
Togop wrote:You will need organized civillian effort to protect the detective. This a large part of the point, it would promote dialogue and get the game going.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests