Topic: This thread is to determine standard mafia rule suggestions.

[BeautifulShy]

Alright. How do you propose we fix the tie problem?

[Plugabugz]

I guess you could say, Mario Kart Mafia is really the prototype of this kind of a tiebreak. That's how the last day was resolved. You may want to consider that game and day to decide whether this is a strategy worth pursuing since that tiebreak pretty much decided the game. But this is the best solution I've been able to come up with after thinking about the matter.

I put quite a lot of thought into the tie-break system before i announced the game coz i knew the tie would have stalled it dead. I based the death of that day on whoever had the least points, but it didn't fix what would happen if both had equal points. But given the way how the game worked out, and the smaller teams, it's unlikely that two people would have equal points and both voted out.

In "normal" games i think night actions should be used to tie it all up.

[nickmitch]

Whose night actions?

[that Baby guy]

What you propose, Khush, I think works great.  Since the mafia has most to gain from night actions, the townies don't want a tie.   While I love the idea of sudden death with a deadline extension, that favors the players on right then.  Because of that, it doesn't work best for everyone, at least not as well as your plan.  If the townies don't want a tie, they can vote to avoid it.

So in that sense, I definitely agree with Khush on this one.

[vudu]

Why not just say that the first (or last) person to achieve the number of votes that caused the tie dies?  In order to defeat a bandwagon you can't just meet it--you have to beat it.

[that Baby guy]

I don't like that one.  I could say the same thing about the bandwagon:  In order for a bandwagon to work, you have to beat the other votes, not just meet them.  Just because you accumulated your votes second (or first) doesn't mean you should be punished.  The way I feel, is that either all tied players die or no tied players die.

[vudu]

Both of your options hurt the townies far more than they hurt the mafia.

[nickmitch]

But doesn't yours?  Bandwagons usually shift towards a player who is found out.  So, a random bandwagon that would likely a townie would have to be beaten by the one more likely to be against a mafia member.

[vudu]

Your point only stands if we assume people don't change their vote throughout the course of the day.  When new information is presented players are going to update their vote accordingly.  Ties only occur when there are two factions who believe different things.  If anything, the second faction is more likely to consist of mafia members trying to save a teammate who was named in the first bandwagon.

[that Baby guy]

Hardly.  Ties occur a lot in mafia just because there's two bandwagons.  Take a look at the last mafia game, when the mafia believes someone is found, they typically begin to point fingers at the found player, so they look like townies.

The idea is to keep recommendations simple and justifiable.  I don't see how your method is either.  The problem is to determine what is fair for everyone in the event of a tie.  Killing one of the tied players and not the other is not fair, and even less fair when it is not by random chance.  The point of the vote is to select who the townies believe is a mafia member.  Your scenario nullifies half of the voters, but not the other half.  If you're going to nullify votes, either nullify all or none.

The problem with killing extra players with ties is that it benefits the mafia.  If a mafia member is voted out as part of the tie, he gets to choose a player and take that player down, just like the townie does.  Unless the townies are well informed, the odds are, the townie will also choose a townie.  When voting out the mafia and reaching a tie, the townies that are correct are placed in danger, just because they found the right player to vote out.

Not to mention, if we add in a standard way to avoid lynching, there are other benefits, such as situations where voting out a member at all may not be in the best interest of players (a situation with three townies and one mafia member, for example).  I am particularly fond of Khush's idea.  It's simple, to begin with, it provides incentive for the townies not to allow a tie, while it doesn't punish the tie too much.  There's no punishment to the townies that find a mafia member when they play with uncooperative players, and if the tie does occur, the mafia benefits, but only in a marginal way.

I don't understand your logic, Vudu.  Yes, I understand we can learn new things, and yes, I understand that the person with new information is going to try to rally people, but most of the time when this occurs, there's not a tie.  Most of the time, there's ties when there's two sides with very little information, so the decision on who to vote out isn't unanimous.  That doesn't typically make one bandwagon more right than the other.

[vudu]

Tie goes to the runner.

[Spak-Spang]

I like the idea of both players dying with the tie...and then either extended time...or an ability to switch the votes. 

I have always felt that added more strategy for both townies and mafia. 

The idea that if a tie goes to the mafia or random player killed...or a random player that did not vote doesn't add strategy to the game...just adds a penalty for not voting.

[vudu]

But asking players to stick around until 11:00 (or whatever time) is unfair to those either go to bed early or live on the other side of the world.  My option isn't entirely time-sensitive and everyone knows exactly who is going to be voted out at any given moment given the current votes.

[Spak-Spang]

Well, true...but the game is a strategy game, and time is an element of that strategy.

If you aren't going to be on, then you need to do your planning and scheming while you are on.

I don't like deadline extensions...I would rather an ability in the game be present to manipulate the vote...but what happens if that player or players die, then that is also part of the strategy.

But I like the idea that ties kill both players..it gives the townies a means to formulate a plan to kill 2 mafia perhaps...and the mafia that same plan.  It adds another element to the game. 

I don't like the idea of the mafia being able to pick on a tie, because that benefits the mafia more and they can rig ties to benefit themselves.  At the same time, to kill a random person that did not vote doesn't seem fair either, because a NO VOTE is a valid strategic move, that the townies should have at their disposal.

[that Baby guy]

Well, what if we make things this way:  "We suggest that either all tied players die, or none do.  Please consider there are other possibilities, and we encourage you to decide what you believe fits best."

Now, as far as "NO VOTE" goes, I think it's something we should encourage in the game.  My reasoning?  There's a scenario at the end of the game when there's one mafia member and three townies where the "NO VOTE" works to give the townies better odds at the end of the next day, rather than losing right away if they vote out a townie player on that day.  The stipulation is that I believe a bold "No Vote" should be a vote not to lynch, that way, the mafia can't sweep in at the very last minute, make a vote, and win the game.

Or, perhaps we should include this in a "possibilities" list, just to serve as a reminder that a host can allow it?

[Spak-Spang]

thatguy:  actually, that is the risk of the No Vote.  I think for games that if you don't vote you die...the threat of not voting is death...and there is no need to actually write No Vote for your vote.

However, for games without a vote or die clause then I think writing No Vote in bold is a good idea so people know who is playing...and just choosing not to vote.

However, sense a no vote is not actually a vote...if a mafia member decides to sweep in and effect steal the No Vote with a single vote...that should be allowed.  In your situation yes that would mean the townies lose because they didn't take a gamble...but it also in the beginning of the games...allows for some strategy plan...for instance, if all the townies voted No Vote and mafia came in and voted someone out...that mafia member could be found out easily.

There has to risk to the No Vote, otherwise, why wouldn't the townies no vote every night...until their detective is dead...or until their detective builds a large enough alliance of confirmed townies? 

[Mario]

I've got an idea.

All tied players send to the host a list of what roles they think everyone has. Whoever guesses the most roles wins and the rest die. And now the game is turned on its head with the winner having some subtle confirmations of roles and they'll die pretty soon anyway from a mafia hit or something!

[vudu]

All tied players send to the host a list of what roles they think everyone has. Whoever guesses the most roles wins and the rest die.

This rule would tend to favor a mafia player since he would obviously know the identities of his teammates.

[Spak-Spang]

True, and if you made it you have to know the roles of the opposite team...then the player that survives knows they have a good list of who is who...and can start acting on that list with less doubt. 

[that Baby guy]

That sounds like something interesting.  How does it sound to list several of these as tie-breaker solutions in the thread?

What else?  What have we missed?  How about a guideline to suggest giving the killer and the suicide bomber a pathway to victory?  I don't have much experience with the bomber, so I don't know what to say there.  With the Killer, the ability to steal the powers from those he kills, or grant him weapons after a certain number of kills are good methods, but what else?

[Mario]

I disagree vudu, the winner of the tie is more likely to die with that rule because they'll be suspicious so it doesn't help them.

[nickmitch]

I like the idea of giving the killer just a one time use of every role he takes.

[Spak-Spang]

My idea with the bomber is very different than any other. 

Before the end of the first day, the Bomber must choose a side to be win.  Like a gamble.  Then to win the game, he must EXPLODE.  If that means he gets to pick 1 to 2 people to die, then he can do that...if that means people vote for him and 2 or 3 random people die then that is what happens.

I know the flaw in this is that if he chooses the mafia to win his actions will much easier lead to a win because he can find the mafia and play on their terms...BUT, a suicide bomber that does not blow up to me...is not playing the role properly.

Another means for the bomber to win...more like have a special achievement...is that the suicide Bomber can take on an assignment to kill a special role in the game.  For instance...the bomber could be assigned to kill the Detective or the Godfather...and if he kills them via blowing up or getting lucky with the voting...then he wins the Bomber achievement...and in that way, he blows up (good for the game) and he is still mostly neutral. 

As for the Killer I like the killer having to be the last one standing to win...and if there are two players left Killer and Mafia...tie goes to the Killer.