Game Style Discussion: Plurality Voting & Nightless


  • mod

    So what would the feedback be like on a secret ballot mechanic with plurality voting rules instead of majority?

    Discuss in the open, vote in PM, publish people's actual votes at end of day

    Or instead of publishing actual votes, publish anonymous counts. So you can tell someone lied but not who


  • mod

    That would require either a new bot, or a significant overhaul of the MafiaBot code. Right now, most mafiabot commands check the thread ID where the command was issued and use that as a query parameter to get a usable response. This is a good system, because it would theoretically allow one bot to handle multiple simultaneous games, and players could even participate in simultaneous games if they wanted (though I'm not sure how you could pull that part off).

    If you were to incorporate your idea into the existing bot code, the system would either need to accept a thread ID parameter on the commands, or each PM would need to be registered as part of a specific game. That's a good amount of tweaking that would need to be done.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @abarker said:

    or a significant overhaul of the MafiaBot code

    We do have one planned to make most commands take either a name or an ID, or default to the thread it was issued in.



  • @abarker said:

    each PM would need to be registered as part of a specific game. That's a good amount of tweaking that would need to be done.

    You could also give the bot the role PMs ahead of time to send out when the game is started. I was wondering if it was worth having a look at the code and trying to do something along those lines but figured it was best to wait until after migration given how close we must be getting to nodebb now...



  • @Weng said:

    So what would the feedback be like on a secret ballot mechanic

    Veering away from the implementation details...

    Secret or delayed ballots might take away a lot of information, particularly in the early days when there have been few night-time investigations. I'm not sure that would be a good thing - there's enough floundering and hot air as it is.

    Plurality voting could be interesting.

    Where do you see the benefits?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Implementation is easy. Plurality voting means the day always ends at a fixed time, at which point the mods can just collate them manually as with night actions.

    The bot can still be run as a player aid on the public side.

    I'm thinking combine this with nightless (so no night kills and move all other antics to daytime) and it removes a lot of the pressure and requires the mafia to resort to guile in order to reduce townie numbers.


  • mod

    It does sound like an interesting setup.



  • 27 days later than what, Discourse?


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @abarker said:

    system would either need to accept a thread ID parameter on the commands

    I think part of the Anonymizer code could be used for this, that detects the target thread from a quote syntax.



  • @abarker said:

    That would require either a new bot, or a significant overhaul of the MafiaBot code.

    The vote-at-end-of-day variation doesn't require a bot at all, really.

    Not sure how I feel about the mechanic. If you publish the votes at the end of day, the town will just enforce calling out votes as they go, and drag any discrepancies under lynch-all-liars, so you effectively get an open ballot. If you don't publish the votes at all, it'll drive the game into a no-lynch hell since you'll usually have two to three suspects in the day and the votes will end up split between them.

    So anonymous and published seems like the only viable option, but it really makes your game dependent on investigative roles, since the town has fuckall to analyze when the scum can drive the case against one of their own without having to vote for them.


  • mod

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Not sure how I feel about the mechanic. If you publish the votes at the end of day, the town will just enforce calling out votes as they go, and drag any discrepancies under lynch-all-liars, so you effectively get an open ballot.

    That's only if they can identify who lied. @Weng is talking about publishing an anonymized vote tally, so you'd be able to see someone lied, but not necessarily who.



  • @abarker said:

    That's only if they can identify who lied. @Weng is talking about publishing an anonimyzed vote tally, so you'd be able to see someone lied, but not necessarily who.

    At the end of day, or as they go? If as they go, see the other paragraph. If at the end of the day, you're still dragging the game heavily into happily-ever-after territory.

    Either way you take away a huge disadvantage of playing scum - that they need to keep their vote record straight. You're effectively letting them be almost as pro-town as they want if they keep in mind to run two cases in parallel - hell, even against their own people. And then the town wakes up with a no-lynch because none of those loudmouths actually voted.

    Might be worth experimenting with, but it has a potential to be a very unfun game.



  • That's where the plurality lynch makes things interesting.



  • So basically enforce a lynch unless people vote no-lynch explicitly? That... could maybe work, although my money is on scum having very heavy control over the lynchings then.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    having very heavy control over the lynchings then.

    Almost total control unless they can't talk in private, as all they need to do is vote all on the same target.



  • @Sentenryu said:

    unless they can't talk in private

    Arguably, then you're no longer playing Mafia.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    then you're no longer playing Mafia.

    can't the same be said about a nightless setup?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.