Mafia! Mafia! Mafia! Character Role Discussions

[Kleene Onigiri]

I would count the injured one. So with 3 DBs and 1 injured, it would be 1/2 then when frightened.
But if he injured one is frightened.. then... maybe count it so that it would be 1/3 chance then? :V Or make it even fail then, since that injured DB wouldn't count into the "active DBs" D:

[Akonyl]

I would count the injured one. So with 3 DBs and 1 injured, it would be 1/2 then when frightened.
But if he injured one is frightened.. then... maybe count it so that it would be 1/3 chance then? :V Or make it even fail then, since that injured DB wouldn't count into the "active DBs" D:

if you're saying that the 3rd DB being injured means that a frighten on the other two causes a 1/2 chance because the injured DB isn't a part of the identification, then I would say if the injured DB is frightened, the DBs should act as if they weren't frightened at all.

Though, generally the BO will know who's actually injured, so they wouldn't usually frighten someone they've already injured.

[Schillok]

I would count the injured one. So with 3 DBs and 1 injured, it would be 1/2 then when frightened.
But if he injured one is frightened.. then... maybe count it so that it would be 1/3 chance then? :V Or make it even fail then, since that injured DB wouldn't count into the "active DBs" D:

if you're saying that the 3rd DB being injured means that a frighten on the other two causes a 1/2 chance because the injured DB isn't a part of the identification, then I would say if the injured DB is frightened, the DBs should act as if they weren't frightened at all.

Though, generally the BO will know who's actually injured, so they wouldn't usually frighten someone they've already injured.

Why not? Frightening prevents lynch voting, which is the only thing an injured player can do. If the BO is just after reducing the number of voting townies, then targeting the injured one would be a decent decision.
About injured DBs in general: An injured player should not be worse than a dead DB, so it should not effect the chances of the remaining, uninjured DBs. Frighting the injured DBs would have no influence on the identify, since the injured Db can't identify anyway.  Though, when an uninjured is frightened, the injured one will not improve the chance of completing the action as well.

So, if there is 1 injured and 1 uninjured DB:
- 100% identification chance if none is frightened
- 100% identification chance if the injured is frightened
- 0% identification chance if the uninjured is frigtened.


If there is 1 injured and 2 uninjured DBs:
- 100% identification chance if none is frightened
- 100% identification chance if the injured is frightened
- 50% identification chance if one of the uninjured is frightened
- 0%  identification chance if both of the uninjured are frightened (e.g. by a change to allow cover work with frightening)

[Akonyl]

Why not? Frightening prevents lynch voting, which is the only thing an injured player can do. If the BO is just after reducing the number of voting townies, then targeting the injured one would be a decent decision.

it may be a "decent" decision, but it's decidedly worse than frightening someone who isn't injured that still has the possibility of having a day ability to frighten.

and I agree on the %s, which is what I was getting at anyway.

[xpon]

btw, what if  when someone didnt use their ability because of in-activeness, then the GM will chose them to use on random target...

example:

Conia is eisuke, he is active in night 1 till day 2 then he is in active on night 3,  so in night 3, the GM will randomly chose a target of his tricking...

( not applied to one time ability or ability that have penalize like VOR, VOA, Arrest and House search )

i think this is better then just arresting them.

although this will risk tricking a proven allies, it still have a chance to trick Bo and being useful. rather than just arrested because in active.

of course if the player want to not doing anything.. he / she can pm the GM saying he will not do anything.

so this way, in active people will not burden the townie as much as we are now...


remember that BO can always send actions for their in active member.

[Schillok]

btw, what if  when someone didnt use their ability because of in-activeness, then the GM will chose them to use on random target...

example:

Conia is eisuke, he is active in night 1 till day 2 then he is in active on night 3,  so in night 3, the GM will randomly chose a target of his tricking...

( not applied to one time ability or ability that have penalize like VOR, VOA, Arrest and House search )

i think this is better then just arresting them.

although this will risk tricking a proven allies, it still have a chance to trick Bo and being useful. rather than just arrested because in active.

of course if the player want to not doing anything.. he / she can pm the GM saying he will not do anything.

so this way, in active people will not burden the townie as much as we are now...

And what is the use of this? 80% of the town abilities would be useless anyway. What is the use of interrogate, cross-examination, observe, stake-out, etc. if no player gets to read the result? Or could tell it to anyone.
And these are the "easy" abilities, since they need any more options, just a player. What should investigate be used for (a random player and random ability? Getting a "true" result out of this is close to impossible). And Identify?
But again, those results are useless if no one reads the PM.

Also, inactiveness should not be rewarded.

I must admit I was not able to play the past weekends. So I sent Akonyl a list of actions/lynch votes on friday that I wanted to perform. And it worked just fine. (Though, I had Cheesus adjust the orders since we had an alliance and I gave him control to change my actions if he wanted.)
This means more work for the GM though so some might not allow it in future rounds. But for me it worked fine last game...


But if it is about inactive players... you missed the discussion about them in the graveyard. You should have died instead of hiding in prison.
The point was, it was suggested that inactive players will be marked and the GMs of each round should consider to not allow players who were inactive in previous games to not allow them participate on their own round. (Go inactive one game and don't be allowed to play the next round. The player can join the game after that but going inactive again might cost him longer penalties afterwards...)

remember that BO can always send actions for their in active member.

Not really. They won't get the results and unless the BO member allowed the others to take control of their action the BO can do nothing about it. Also, the BO is supposed to act as a group, the town is not. (Yeah, it is more effective if the town works together but they don't start as an "alliance" and they can never be sure if one of them isn't a BO...)



We should leave inactiveness as it is. Just add a penalty to the FUTURE round for inactive players, because obviously they didn't care for the round they went inactive on anyway. 

[Kleene Onigiri]

I wasn't in the graveyard either :x so dunno how much was already said :p

But I agree with that idea. But then there should be rules that clarify when someone is inactive.
Are you inactive if you didn't send in anything for 2 phases? Or 4 phases?
Are you inactive if you just vote? but still send in night actions? Or vice versa?
Does the GM have to PM the player asking if he's still playing first or not?

And what happens if someone forfeits? IMO that's better than people being inactive and not saying anything.
If someone forfeits, the GM can compensate for the loss if he wants too then.


Also a suggestion for lethargy:
Instead of "not being allowed to vote the next day", I'd suggest to change it into: "If you didn't send in a vote, you automatically vote for yourself" :x

[KangarooGirl]

Well, I'm thinking a reasonable indication of who's active/inactive is whether they've been arrested for it. If they're BO, then it's a bit harder to make a call. I'd say 4 phases is fair though. And maybe the next GM has the final say on what's active or not.

@forfeits: I say that's better than being inactive, since people aren't left wondering if they're still playing and possibly wasting their actions on them.
@lethargy: That's an interesting concept, but I don't see how that would help

[xpon]

well... that is true....
but i still hope that everyone who want to play, can play!

[Akonyl]

also just as a clarification to what schillok said: Though it normally isn't done this way, due to the lack of a yumi (and thus a lack of a BO-backstabber), I just posted all the results for the BO in a post on their board so that I didn't have to PM em all individually, so the idea of "inactive BOs don't get their results to the others" thing doesn't really apply (though they were all active enough to have forwarded their actions anyway). So while that normally applies, it didn't during this round.

Also a suggestion for lethargy:
Instead of "not being allowed to vote the next day", I'd suggest to change it into: "If you didn't send in a vote, you automatically vote for yourself" :x

problem with this is that aside from the first day when random voting happens a lot, this wouldn't do anything because it would just add a lot of "1" votes that don't penalize anyone. The issue with the players who are chronically inactive (and not just "oh I got really busy sorry) is that they join games so that they can play when it's convenient to them, so to discourage that you have to inconvenience them when they actually want to play (via doing stuff like arresting them and making them unable to vote on a day they might actually want to). If you only inconvenience them when they're not playing in the first place, it doesn't do much to discourage them.

You shouldn't be counted as inactive if you just vote, because there's certain roles that could be better off not doing their action every night in some circumstances. I was going by 4 night phases of inactivity, but 4 phases total might be good also.

Also for the round after Cheesus's, if Lethargy is still around, I propose to change it to:
- May choose to not vote once without getting lethargy
- If you don't vote, you become lethargic (and remain lethargic forever)
- If you vote while lethargic, your vote is not counted, however your lethargy is removed.

Basically, it's the same thing as current lethargy, but easier to keep track of (doesn't switch on/off every other phase) and it makes sure that inactives will always be penalized at least one phase by it.


Edit:

Also, a change that I was thinking of for Sonoko (but didn't include because she wasn't gonna show up in my round anyway :V): Remove the fact that she learns something about her friend's killer, don't let her befriend Vermouth anymore, and make it so if her friend dies, she doesn't lose the ability.

That way, Sonoko and her BFF are basically the same as the lovers, except they can't protect each other. To compensate for this, they don't die with each other either :V

[Schillok]

also just as a clarification to what schillok said: Though it normally isn't done this way, due to the lack of a yumi (and thus a lack of a BO-backstabber), I just posted all the results for the BO in a post on their board so that I didn't have to PM em all individually, so the idea of "inactive BOs don't get their results to the others" thing doesn't really apply (though they were all active enough to have forwarded their actions anyway). So while that normally applies, it didn't during this round.  

Well, if it is just for the back-stabbing part: Maybe allow the BOs to make the GM give out "fake official results".
So Vodka, madly in love with Araide work together to survive. Unfortunately the BO has decided to kill Araide. So Vodka sends in the secret order "discombobulate Gin", while to everyone else he pretends that he is going to trick someone else. Like... for example Araide. So on the board it would read like this:

Gin: all actions failed
Vodka: Discombobulate Araide - success

The GM will send in the true results to Vodka via PM, without indicating in any way that it was their own "teammate" who stopped the killing and not another town trickster.


Same for every other action. Akemi could for example send to the GM that "I want to pretend to have stolen Glasses from Heiji" while she steals from him, resulting in the GM thinking she got glasses while she actually got some other items that night.
I guess backstabbing would still work. I guess it would be a lot more convenient for the BO to pool their results in one post by the GM - while still allowing the members to manipulate the results.

Also a suggestion for lethargy:
Instead of "not being allowed to vote the next day", I'd suggest to change it into: "If you didn't send in a vote, you automatically vote for yourself" :x

problem with this is that aside from the first day when random voting happens a lot, this wouldn't do anything because it would just add a lot of "1" votes that don't penalize anyone. The issue with the players who are chronically inactive (and not just "oh I got really busy sorry) is that they join games so that they can play when it's convenient to them, so to discourage that you have to inconvenience them when they actually want to play (via doing stuff like arresting them and making them unable to vote on a day they might actually want to). If you only inconvenience them when they're not playing in the first place, it doesn't do much to discourage them.

You shouldn't be counted as inactive if you just vote, because there's certain roles that could be better off not doing their action every night in some circumstances. I was going by 4 night phases of inactivity, but 4 phases total might be good also.

Also for the round after Cheesus's, if Lethargy is still around, I propose to change it to:
- May choose to not vote once without getting lethargy
- If you don't vote, you become lethargic (and remain lethargic forever)
- If you vote while lethargic, your vote is not counted, however your lethargy is removed.

Basically, it's the same thing as current lethargy, but easier to keep track of (doesn't switch on/off every other phase) and it makes sure that inactives will always be penalized at least one phase by it.

Mhh... yeah, sounds reasonable. But it is true, counting the vote against yourself if you are inactive wouldn't really help anything except during "random voting days" in the beginning of the game.

Also, a change that I was thinking of for Sonoko (but didn't include because she wasn't gonna show up in my round anyway :V): Remove the fact that she learns something about her friend's killer, don't let her befriend Vermouth anymore, and make it so if her friend dies, she doesn't lose the ability.

That way, Sonoko and her BFF are basically the same as the lovers, except they can't protect each other. To compensate for this, they don't die with each other either :V

Well, I was thinking about making Sonoko unable to befriend Vermouth as well. It is a very old rule which is left behind from before the BO got the APTX. Back then it could have lead to strange developments. Now it just kills Sonoko within the first day without her having any chance against it.
About the other part... yeah, learning about the identity of the attacker is very strong. But just having her have the ability of her friend forever (even with the friend dead) makes her... well, the same as the role she just copied, just way better. Harder to be found out by the BO even if they know about her ability and starting with an ally. No, I think having her lose the ability once her friend dies is fine. It's just like... well, getting injured. So she is trading the risk of getting injured against starting with an ally. It's already a fine trade-off.
Maybe instead of learning the identity of the attacker she should get a deduction list instead? A bit less powerful and still quite useful. Also Okiya and Yusaku are slightly better protected against APTX that way. As a compensation she might still get the results of her night action the night her BFF dies.

[Vylash]

Ako: What happened to our previous idea of dealing with inactive players? D:

[Akonyl]

Well, if it is just for the back-stabbing part: Maybe allow the BOs to make the GM give out "fake official results".
So Vodka, madly in love with Araide work together to survive. Unfortunately the BO has decided to kill Araide. So Vodka sends in the secret order "discombobulate Gin", while to everyone else he pretends that he is going to trick someone else. Like... for example Araide. So on the board it would read like this:

Gin: all actions failed
Vodka: Discombobulate Araide - success

The GM will send in the true results to Vodka via PM, without indicating in any way that it was their own "teammate" who stopped the killing and not another town trickster.


Same for every other action. Akemi could for example send to the GM that "I want to pretend to have stolen Glasses from Heiji" while she steals from him, resulting in the GM thinking she got glasses while she actually got some other items that night.
I guess backstabbing would still work. I guess it would be a lot more convenient for the BO to pool their results in one post by the GM - while still allowing the members to manipulate the results.

or: Just do it the old way and don't try to make rules around something that the GM did only out of convenience's sake. Adding in fake + real actions would be more complicated than just PMing the people themselves

Well, I was thinking about making Sonoko unable to befriend Vermouth as well. It is a very old rule which is left behind from before the BO got the APTX. Back then it could have lead to strange developments. Now it just kills Sonoko within the first day without her having any chance against it.

to be fair, it cements her death, but not necessarily in the first day. Her friend is likely to show up in her will if they do that

About the other part... yeah, learning about the identity of the attacker is very strong. But just having her have the ability of her friend forever (even with the friend dead) makes her... well, the same as the role she just copied, just way better. Harder to be found out by the BO even if they know about her ability and starting with an ally. No, I think having her lose the ability once her friend dies is fine. It's just like... well, getting injured. So she is trading the risk of getting injured against starting with an ally. It's already a fine trade-off.
Maybe instead of learning the identity of the attacker she should get a deduction list instead? A bit less powerful and still quite useful. Also Okiya and Yusaku are slightly better protected against APTX that way. As a compensation she might still get the results of her night action the night her BFF dies.

So first you say that she's too powerful if she doesn't lose her ability, so you say she should lose her ability to make her not as good, and then say that she should gain an ability that makes her better (deduction list)? I'm not sure I follow :V

Also, though she may be harder to find out to the BO in some ways, she could also be easily found out by having an ability that doesn't make sense with the info they know about her (ex: Deduction list+ panties, or deduction list+ teenager) so I don't think that's a big advantage anyway. As for her being more powerful than the role that she copied because she has an ally, how does that make her more powerful than that role? That role has an ally too, so they're both the same on that front.

Also: I think that people are too easily handing out Special Investigations to roles, which, compounded with deduction lists, is a bit crazy, so I'm not sure we need another automatic deduction list in the game atm.

Ako: What happened to our previous idea of dealing with inactive players? D:

Nothings changed

As I said in the graveyard, it remains a GM's own problem on how to deal with their own round, so if you want to arrest people after one phase, or disallow people from joining a round due to previous histories of inactivity, that's your perogative and you can put it into your own rules. Nothing in here actually has to be taken as the final word.

[xpon]

we need to figure how to minimize the damage from in active people to Current round! let say we have 20 player.

6 bo and 14 town.

the bo kill 6 town and lose 2 bo

then it will be 4 vs 8. but then 3 townie go inactive, arresting them will only seal BO victories!!!

if we dont find out how to solve this, then i bet the earlier lynch will aimed to people who often in active. ( personally i am happy because i am off the hook but still it is not fair )

or... instead of arresting them, can the GM made them as target for night kill? ( it will upset the BO but... for fair game? )

[Schillok]

or: Just do it the old way and don't try to make rules around something that the GM did only out of convenience's sake. Adding in fake + real actions would be more complicated than just PMing the people themselves

Discussion on how to improve the game should be the top priority in this thread and I think it is a good improvement for the BO to have all of their results in one place right away. (Instead of having to wait for the post of all members, scattered across timezones and maybe even forgetting to post the information.
Problem is that this makes "secret backstabbing" impossible.
So there are 3 ways: Accept it having it that way (bad for the lover, good for the BO), allowing a clunky way around it ("fake results") or have it removed (inconvenient).
I think the clunky way is best for when it actually happens, since town-BO lovers with the BO part not following the rest of the BOs suggestions are rare.


Though, there was another reason for PMing the results to the players: To make all BO actually participate. Otherwise we could have one single leader planing and doing verything and the rest being uninterested since they don't want to endanger the success, but have to follow everything passively now. At least they had some form of participation when posting their results...  and could feel a bit more useful (and connected to their role).

Well, I was thinking about making Sonoko unable to befriend Vermouth as well. It is a very old rule which is left behind from before the BO got the APTX. Back then it could have lead to strange developments. Now it just kills Sonoko within the first day without her having any chance against it.

to be fair, it cements her death, but not necessarily in the first day. Her friend is likely to show up in her will if they do that

But her death is guaranteed at some point, even if the BOs waits until Vermouth got lynched. I am not sure it would make for a good game for the Sonoko player and it doesn't do much for the game...

About the other part... yeah, learning about the identity of the attacker is very strong. But just having her have the ability of her friend forever (even with the friend dead) makes her... well, the same as the role she just copied, just way better. Harder to be found out by the BO even if they know about her ability and starting with an ally. No, I think having her lose the ability once her friend dies is fine. It's just like... well, getting injured. So she is trading the risk of getting injured against starting with an ally. It's already a fine trade-off.
Maybe instead of learning the identity of the attacker she should get a deduction list instead? A bit less powerful and still quite useful. Also Okiya and Yusaku are slightly better protected against APTX that way. As a compensation she might still get the results of her night action the night her BFF dies.

So first you say that she's too powerful if she doesn't lose her ability, so you say she should lose her ability to make her not as good, and then say that she should gain an ability that makes her better (deduction list)? I'm not sure I follow :V


Also: I think that people are too easily handing out Special Investigations to roles, which, compounded with deduction lists, is a bit crazy, so I'm not sure we need another automatic deduction list in the game atm.

I wanted to change her the following way: Instead of learning the identity of the attacker like she does now, she instead gets and deduction list for her BFFs killer. And only for her BFFs killer. With less BO it would hurt the BO more if they randomly hit her BFF and there would be nothing they could have done against it.
Otherwise Sonoko could remain the same: Losing her ability once her friend dies.

Also, though she may be harder to find out to the BO in some ways, she could also be easily found out by having an ability that doesn't make sense with the info they know about her (ex: Deduction list+ panties, or deduction list+ teenager) so I don't think that's a big advantage anyway. As for her being more powerful than the role that she copied because she has an ally, how does that make her more powerful than that role? That role has an ally too, so they're both the same on that front.

What makes her more powerful than her BFF: Because Sonoko starts with an ally every game. This is a huge advantage which even made us the DBs, the other town roles that always have an ally, share their ability and only get one action each day together.
Also - right now the BO would not use an observe (or a steal) on a character that they know has deduction... because Yusaku has the same items as Okiya and they are both adults. So for the BO to kill her, they would still have to use one of their abilities on her, and even then they could just end up finding Yusaku/Okiya or get fooled by stealing a schoolbook/headgear from KID or observing Yukiko disguised as teenager (or stealing her panties/other item from current disguise).