In post 3541, PJ. wrote:Neighborhood is a mastina pet role,she wants to normalize neighborhoods and normalize fake claiming mason so her playstyle becomes meta instead of game ruining. That's actually part of why I was like"oh neighborhood is 100% real" cause..its a mastinaset up.
I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way reviews work if you're of the belief that a reviewer has this strong of a pull in terms of setup design where a reviewer will introduce a fundamental mechanic of the setup that was absent from the design--
We don't.
The only way a neighborhood is introduced by me is if I was the designer of the setup, and notably, it's been at least two years since I've designed a setup; I am, exclusively, a setup reviewer.
A reviewer may may may
may
, under very specific circumstances, suggest a neighborizer, if that role fits with the already-generated setup.
A reviewer may suggest turning masons into neighbors, if masons provide the town with too much power.
But mostly, a reviewer will, if anything, take neighborhoods out of setups--not insert them in.
Thus, if you see a neighborhood in a Normal, or for that matter if you see a Neighborizer in a Normal--it was almost certainly design intent from the setup creator. Who in this game was Umlaut, not me.
Also, as an aside: reviewers also should not let their personal playstyle philosophies/beliefs influence their reviews. If my beliefs were to influence my review, then I'd have axed the traitor due to my hatred of that role. But I didn't, because that's overstepping my boundaries as a reviewer; my job is to take what the designer gives me and fine-tune it into passable form, not fundamentally change core aspects of the setup.
In post 3535, callforjudgement wrote:It was intended that town would confirm at least one player from setup clues. We weren't entirely sure which (it depends a lot on who dies first and who targets who), but it's the sort of interaction that typically exists in Normals and helps to balance them. (One of the things I look for when checking for setup balance is that there's neither too little, nor too much, of this sort of thing in the setup.)
I should note that I'm not confident in my ability to balance traitor setups, and pretty much said as much in the review. In retrospect, the setup might have been a little scumsided. The players seemed to think it was townsided during the game itself, although I'm not sure how much of that sentiment was genuine and how much was scum blowing smoke in order to cast doubt on the Jailkeeper's claim.
Pretty much this. Town roles leading to the confirmation of other town roles is pretty commonplace in Normals, to the point of being borderline-standard, as it is one of the main ways to give the town a needed boost to their chances, so long as it is in moderation.
I, personally, do not like traitors as a role, and they are pretty hard to balance and even harder to maintain the integrity of being fun in the generated setup (because they are, inherently, a role that reduces the amount of fun for at least one faction, possibly two if the town has to witch hunt when they see the traitor). The original setup was definitely scumsided, and we balanced it to be closer to balanced, although in hindsight we might not have done enough, in spite of the player sentiment of the game being townsided. We did also miss the jk-bptraitor interaction, which, while a fringe case that's statistically an anomaly, when it happens gives incredibly strong swing towards a scum win.
