Resource Forum Games Resources & General Discussion

Epist said:
Hoping this is the right place to post this, here goes....

I really enjoy the game count to ten, but was trying to think of a way to spice it up while not making it too complicated. Here is my first draft of Instructions. I could really use some feedback, thanks in advance!

Count to 20 – Team Battle!
Instructions
Players take turns saying 1-3 numbers starting at 1. Numbers can only increase, not decrease. There will also be a certain order to who says the numbers when which will be announced after sign-ups. The player who says 20 (or is put into a position where they are forced to) is out of the game. Once a player is out, the game continues, but that person can no longer post in the thread.

Players will be divided into two equal teams; Goal is to remove all members of the opposite team from the game. Teams will be interspersed evenly (1-2-1-2 and so on)

After each time a player take their turn, a random number generator will be used by the host to see if any special rules will apply to the next player’s turn:

0 - 59 - No special rules in effect
60 – 69 – Player may count up to 4 numbers
70 – 79 - Player may only count 1 or 2 numbers instead of up to 3
80 – 84 - Player can choose one team member (excluding themselves) to gain immunity against one “20” (not revealed until it happens)
85 - 89 – Order Chaos – After this player’s count, the next player is randomly selected from all other players
90 – 94 – After this player’s count, they will switch teams
95-99 – Player may count up to 5 numbers
100 – Player gains immunity against one “20” and may count up to 5 numbers
Click to expand...

I love your ideas! I'm wondering if maybe they could be split them up into 2 games. One with teams and one with the number generator thing, that way it's not just one game that might be kinda confusing. I've been thinking up new ideas to make ten more interesting which I won't show yet because I haven't finished. Anyway, I definitely think you should try this out some way!

EDIT: What if we did like a ten werewolf edition. 3-4 werewolf and everyone else is town. Obviously town tries to eliminate scum, scum tries to survive and kill off town. What do you think?

Jade
 
Last edited:
@Epist For the instructions, I suggest you look at the first version by DoS and modify it a bit, as his instructions were very clear. As for your game, I actually love all the chaos going around, and almost feel like there should be something else (either more than 2 teams, more special rules, or a higher chance of special rules occurring).

@Jadethepokemontrainer The big thing I'd warn you about is that 10 players with three scum affords town only one mislynch (assuming kills are successful). As a host, that could lead to your game being cut short very early. Four scum is completely pro-scum, as Day 1 would be MYLO.
 
NinjaPenguin said:
@Epist For the instructions, I suggest you look at the first version by DoS and modify it a bit, as his instructions were very clear. As for your game, I actually love all the chaos going around, and almost feel like there should be something else (either more than 2 teams, more special rules, or a higher chance of special rules occurring).

@Jadethepokemontrainer The big thing I'd warn you about is that 10 players with three scum affords town only one mislynch (assuming kills are successful). As a host, that could lead to your game being cut short very early. Four scum is completely pro-scum, as Day 1 would be MYLO.
Click to expand...

Thanks to both of you for your feedback! I too like the chaos, but I also want some stability so the teams can somewhat plan their approach to eliminate the other team. Maybe I will move the chance up from 40% to 50%. I will check out the 1st version as you have noted before I post my final instructions for approval.

Thanks again!
 
NinjaPenguin said:
@Jadethepokemontrainer The big thing I'd warn you about is that 10 players with three scum affords town only one mislynch (assuming kills are successful). As a host, that could lead to your game being cut short very early. Four scum is completely pro-scum, as Day 1 would be MYLO.
Click to expand...
I guess what I meant was number of scum based off of how many players we have.
 
Im thinking of maybe posting a game, but first i want to know what a thread with the "Resource" prefix does?
Is it a game where you can go on the thread, read it, and just play it irl, or somewhere else?
 
Zamuron said:
Im thinking of maybe posting a game, but first i want to know what a thread with the "Resource" prefix does?
Is it a game where you can go on the thread, read it, and just play it irl, or somewhere else?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure resource is for like this thread and one other thread only, where it is used to help you design a good game thread and stuff and not an actual tag for a game to be played.
 
Suggestion for the upcoming Mafia games: Lynch players only after gaining majority.

The inactivity in our Mafia meta is becoming a threatening issue, that may bring Mafia to its end very soon. There are many things that can potentially fix that, but I want to focus on this one:

I think that upcoming games should make it obligatory to reach majority in order to lynch. Up until now, when majority has not been reached, the player with the most votes got lynched. even if they didn't get the required amount of votes. I think that this may have led people to not make the effort of voting, because they know it is not a necessity. There is no need to put your vote, if you know the person will be lynched.
Instead of that, I think that in the case that majority has not been reached, there should be no lynch. This not only encourage people to vote, participate, explaining their vote etc.. but also makes the game more balanced regarding new and older players, as every player relies much more on the next player in order to win.
The "punishment" for not reaching majority should be tested. There can be several options, but I can only think of 2 good ones:
1) No lynch
2) Random lynch

These options are far better in my opinion than the current situation:
- Ignore majority requirement and just lynch the one with most votes. - That solution only increases inactivity, gives no reason for people to vote once there are some votes on their personal target, and leads to an apathetic town.

What do you think?
 
I think that's a great solution to the inactivity issue, scattered! It's one that hadn't crossed my mind, but I would be very interested to see it at least trialed in the next mafia game run on the site :)
 
Would there still be a deadline that the town has to reach a majority lynch else there is a no lynch? I'd imagine no deadline wouldn't really change much, as people wouldn't really have an incentative to not wait around, and it'll cause the game to go longer (which probably is not ideal). It would be interesting to see what happens if there is a deadline! I'm not too sure why people aren't voting though, the solution is definitely targetting the town's urgency, however I'd imagine that the cause of the inactivity issue is wider than that.

Just for background, I haven't been following this recent game, so I don't really know how activity is faring there.
 
bbninjas said:
Would there still be a deadline that the town has to reach a majority lynch else there is a no lynch? I'd imagine no deadline wouldn't really change much, as people wouldn't really have an incentative to not wait around, and it'll cause the game to go longer (which probably is not ideal). It would be interesting to see what happens if there is a deadline! I'm not too sure why people aren't voting though, the solution is definitely targetting the town's urgency, however I'd imagine that the cause of the inactivity issue is wider than that.

Just for background, I haven't been following this recent game, so I don't really know how activity is faring there.
Click to expand...

There would still be a deadline. I don't see why not. I don't think it creates redundancy, because the two things have different purposes, one is to pressure the players to find a candidate, and the other is to avoid having players not voting because of no risk of their target not getting lynched after gaining 2 or 3 votes.
The inactivity issue is wider than that, I agree, but sometimes the simplest things can make big changes over time.

I have more radical solutions, but I think we should try the controversial ones first :)
 
Will there be more Mafia in the foreseeable future on Pokebeach? I had an interesting idea for a set-up recently, and was wondering if or when the next round of applications will be starting.
 
I have another potential radical change: What if the scum team agreed to nightkill the players who are inactive on early nights with no role-based reasons to kill someone (and if there were multiple players with equally good reasons to kill them, they would nightkill the less active one)? I'm not quite sure how this would be implemented, but it could work if players agreed to playing with this strategy. A reason that I think players are inactive is that they want to survive longer in the game, and they think being active will cause them to get killed (but if you're inactive, you're not really even playing the game). It might decrease the scum's win % a bit, but it would encourage nice, high level, active games.
 
NinjaPenguin said:
I have another potential radical change: What if the scum team agreed to nightkill the players who are inactive on early nights with no role-based reasons to kill someone (and if there were multiple players with equally good reasons to kill them, they would nightkill the less active one)? I'm not quite sure how this would be implemented, but it could work if players agreed to playing with this strategy. A reason that I think players are inactive is that they want to survive longer in the game, and they think being active will cause them to get killed (but if you're inactive, you're not really even playing the game). It might decrease the scum's win % a bit, but it would encourage nice, high level, active games.
Click to expand...
It might work, but it could remove some of the competitiveness for the game and is more of an active choice than one that could be reliably implemented and not balanced against scum. A better idea would be reducing the lack of problematic roles and situations that stifle discussion through the types of roles in games. The seer, while a staple in mafia, is an incredibly overpowered ability which can turn entire days into everyone bandwagoning on whoever seered as scum. Removing the role, or greatly limiting its power or easiness to use could lead to more interesting play in the future without handicapping scum and leading to more thorough discussion.
 
quakingpunch73 said:
It might work, but it could remove some of the competitiveness for the game and is more of an active choice than one that could be reliably implemented and not balanced against scum. A better idea would be reducing the lack of problematic roles and situations that stifle discussion through the types of roles in games. The seer, while a staple in mafia, is an incredibly overpowered ability which can turn entire days into everyone bandwagoning on whoever seered as scum. Removing the role, or greatly limiting its power or easiness to use could lead to more interesting play in the future without handicapping scum and leading to more thorough discussion.
Click to expand...
Add Seer Terror? :p

My list of bad roles currently stands at:
Seer that can get results it knows are accurate
Vig
Jailer/Silencer
2 Person QT (Not always, but generally)
Pure Announcer
Vanillizer
Completely Unknown Inventor (the recent Shopping JOAT is questionable, if effects are not given)
2 People Voter
Lynchproof
Survivor (as opposed to a role like SK)
A lot of rogue ones (Jester, Cult, Beloved Princess, etc.)
 
Last edited:
NinjaPenguin said:
Seer that can get results it knows are accurate
Vig
Jailer/Silencer
2 Person QT (Not always, but generally)
Pure Announcer
Vanillizer
Completely Unknown Inventor (the recent Shopping JOAT is questionable, if effects are not given)
2 People Voter
Survivor (as opposed to a role like SK)
A lot of rogue ones (Jester, Cult, Beloved Princess, etc.)
Click to expand...
Do you mind explaining why you feel each role is bad?
 
quakingpunch73 said:
Do you mind explaining why you feel each role is bad?
Click to expand...
Seer that can get results it knows are accurate- Stops discussion and starts FtC
Vig- Kills someone, which limits discussion
Jailer/Silencer- Stops a person from talking, which obviously limits discussion
2 Person QT (Not always, but generally)- Too often has an anti-town. In the current meta, lynching your QT member D1 is always the best action.
Pure Announcer- Close to useless, and almost never utilized in any meaningful way. This doesn't encourage that player to play.
Vanillizer- Makes a player useless, which doesn't encourage them to play.
Completely Unknown Inventor- Completely random what the person chooses, introducing unneeded swing in the game.
2 People Voter- Only has use for scum.
Lynchproof- Lynchproof players will get lynched again on the next day the far majority of the time, which makes its only effect adding a scum nightkill. That makes it actually hurt town when on a townie, and on scum will give the scum an automatic win in LYLO. Neither of those two are balanced. (Permanent Lynchproof encourages a player to play badly, as they know they can't be lynched, which is also bad).
Survivor- Apathetic role, who doesn't need to care about what happens lynch-wise. This hurts discussion.
A lot of rogue ones (Jester, Cult, Beloved Princess, etc.)- They either can't be balanced, or completely throw off the mindset of town. Jester causes people to have doubt in their convictions, which is bad. Cult can't be balanced. BP removes a day, which makes the game more role-based and less discussion based.

P.S. Added lynchproof.
 
Last edited:
NinjaPenguin said:
Completely Unknown Inventor- Completely random what the person chooses, introducing unneeded swing in the game.
Click to expand...
Ah. I feel like swing can be fun in the right scenarios when a person has a vague idea of what ability they're getting.

Mods, it's been a few days and I'm still curious what will happen to Mafia and if new apps will appear soon. Thank you in advance.
 
Sorry about that, quaking! We've decided that it can't hurt to keep going with mafia since there is still enough players, so applications are officially open! We will probably be running a short intermediary game during the submission period. ;)

As per normal, submit your applications to the FG staff: bbninjas, Celever, Vracken. We'll respond to acknowledge your submission within 24 hours. All the important details can be found here, so if you're new to this, check those out! We'll be accepting apps for two weeks as of this post. See this countdown for the exact time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top