[SETUP - BROKEN] Vote Cacophony

[ejjinami]

Dumb, overly complicated and prob still unbalanced idea, but screw it
I did everything I could to prevent town from abusing the main lynch mechanic, but it made the setup look like......... this ;-;
Any tips to simplify or balance the setup would be great

General

10 town

:

3 scum

lynch: Plurality and majority

Days: 7 days + the time needed to post 2 additional VCs (the 2’nd VC after deadline = EoD VC)

Nights: 48 hours

Main idea

If a member of the mafia is the last voter on the main wagon at EoD, a "

SCREECH

" will be posted under the VC

Vote Counts

The vote counts will not show the names of the voting players, but only the number of votes.
They might also not include all wagons if there are too many of them

Number of living players = > number of wagons shown in the VCs
13p ~ 11p = > 3 + a summarized one
10p ~ 8p = > 2 + a summarized one
7p and less = > 1 + a summarized one

If there are more wagons than the number allowed, the biggest wagons will have priority in being shown in the VC

Example:

Alive=13 players

Real VC:

XXX- 3 players
YYY- 2 players
ZZZ-2 players
AAA-1 player
BBB-1 player
CCC-1 player
DDD-1 player
Not voting: 2 players

Revealed VC:

XXX- 3 players
YYY- 2 players
ZZZ-2 players
Other: 6 players

If there are multiple wagons of the same size and not all of them can be revealed, it will be RNGd


A new VC may be posted every 36 hours, but only if enough players post after the last VC.
The number of players who need to post before posting a new VC = (T+1)
T=(the number of living townies)

There will be no VCs and no flips before the required time passes and the required number of players post, so a hammer will count only if it’s noticed it when it’s the right time to post a VC.

Voting

The players will have to vote through PMs.
To make sure that there are no mistakes, vote feedback will be sent (“Vote accepted. you’re voting XXX in VC 1.2”)
The mafia may vote in the maf chat and may control the votes of their teammates.
The scum’s unvotes will be always handled first, but their votes will be always handled last.
It is allowed to unvote and vote in the same turn.
The rest of the vote changes will be handled based on the send/edit time stamps.

The vote PMs will not be opened until it’s time to post a VC, so it’s requested to edit the old Vote PMs instead of sending new ones when changing votes.

Other

If there is only 1 living member of the mafia remaining, they may choose their position on the wagon.

The votes will be double checked, but if there is a mistake in the VC because of the host’s fault, it will not be officially corrected.

[callforjudgement]

If scum are on the ball, they can arrange to always hammer (after all, nobody knows which player it is who voted). That means that the town get no information from the mechanic, making things effectively vanilla. So this setup is highly scumsided.

[ejjinami]

I’m not sure what exactly are you talking about, but I don’t think I can agree here
The mafia can’t just quick-hammer whoever they want without giving town info. If they lie about their votes, there will ALWAYS be consequences

Ehh :/
Let me explain my thought process here

In order to win the town will have to claim their votes and make their own VCs based on the claims. The mod won’t givie them that info, so they will have to figure it out by themselves.

Let’s say that this is a VC made based on claims [but no one had a reason to lie yet, so it’s accurate]:
Alive=11p, 8Town+3scum

T1- 3 players

,

claims: [T2, T3, T4]

T2- 2 players,

claims: [T5, T6]

T3-2 players,

claims: [S1, T7]

Other: 4 players,

claims:
S1-1 player [T1]
S2-1 player [S2]
Not voting: 2 players [T8, S3]

Yellow- mod info

Purple- claims

And now let’s assume that the mafia decides to quick-hammer and lie about their votes
The next claimed VC will look like that:
Alive=11p, 8Town+3scum

T1- 6 players,

claims: [T2, T3, T4] + ???????

T2- 2 players,

claims: [T5, T6]

T3-1 player,

claims: [S1, T7] - ??????

Other: 2 players,

claims:
S1-1 player [T1]
S2-1 player [S2]
Not voting: 2 players [T8, S3] -???????

the claims don’t add up, which means that there has to be 1 liar among [T7, S1] and 2 liars among [T1, T8, S2, S3]
town would be gamethrowing if they lied about their votes, so the missing votes are very, very, very likely to be scum
That’s a great amount of info imo, PoEing scum out of this would be pretty darn sweet

This should work every single time anyone decides to lie about their vote.
The more the scum team abuses the mechanics, the more they'll have to pay and the more it'll hurt them later

Of course lying about votes would have lesser consequences if the wagons are big
For example:
Alive=11p, 8Town+3scum

T1- 5 players,

claims: [T2, T3, T4, T5, T6]

T2- 5 players,

claims: [T7, T8, S1, S2, S3]

Not voting: 1 player,

claim:[T8]

after a scum quick-hammer:
Alive=11p, 8Town+3scum

T1- 6 players,

claims: [T2, T3, T4, T5, T6] +1 ????

T2- 4 players,

claims: [T7, T8, S1, S2, S3] -1 ?????

Not voting: 1 player,

claim:[T8]

and this would give town info about at least 1 scum among [T7, T8, S1, S2, S3]

which is admittedly not great, but that’s what town would have to overcome on their own.
Having big wagons is not beneficial for the town, so the townies would have to make sure that the votes are spread out as much as possible.
Additionally, scum votes will be always handled last, so depending on what they townies are aiming for [if they want to aim to get a PoE “SCREECH” scum, or a few “NON-SCREECH”-confirmed townies who voted last], they should carefully pick the players who are on the main wagon.

The scums might want to stop it sometimes, but again, lying will always have consequences.

And even though the PoE info might not be very helpful at the start of the game, it will be gaining more and more value as time passes and as town gets better reads and get some of the players flipped.


Personally I think getting confirmed townies would be more beneficial than getting “SCREECH”-scum, but it would also be way more difficult (because scum would be able to destroy the whole plan easily if at least 1 of them was among the general TRs)
So doing that should be left for late-game, when town has better reads and more info.
And they should focus on having small, spread out wagons with scummy players on it, early in the game.


Does this change your opinion about the setup it a bit?

I mean, tbh I don’t know if it still wouldn’t be scum-sided, but I don’t think it’s THAT bad
:/

[callforjudgement]

I'm not talking about quickhammering, just regular hammering.

You wait until a townie says they're about to hammer (or that they have already hammered), then (if possible) move scum over from the same wagon that that townie was previously on.

[ejjinami]

I'm not talking about quickhammering, just regular hammering.

You wait until a townie says they're about to hammer (or that they have already hammered), then (if possible) move scum over from the same wagon that that townie was previously on.

You mean sth like that?:
Alive=11p, 8Town+3scum

T1

- 5 players

,

claims: [T2, T3, T4,

S1

, T5]

T2- 3 players,

claims: [T6,

T8

,

S2

]

T3-2 players,

claims: [S3, T7]

Other: 1 player,

claims:
S1-1 player [T1]

Townie8

says that he wants to hammer

T1

and PMs the mod with a vote

Scum2

, who was previously on the same wagon as

T8

, quietly votes

T1

as well

The next wagon would be a “NON-SCREECH” one, because “scum votes are always handled last”, so

S2

’s vote wouldn’t even count.


It would have been worse if the

Scum1

, who was on

T1

the whole time, decided to quietly

UNVOTE:

and

VOTE: T1

[again]
Scum unvotes are handed first, town votes- 2’nd and scum votes- last, so the next VC would look like that:
Alive=11p, 8Town+3scum

T1

- 6 players, HAMMER!

,

SCREECH!

claims: [T2, T3, T4, T5,

T8

,

S1

]

T2- 2 players,

claims: [T6,

S2

]

T3-2 players,

claims: [S3, T7]

Other: 1 player,

claims:
S1-1 player [T1]

This would give town info that there is at least 1 scum among: [T2, T3, T4, T5,

T8

,

S1

], which is not that good

But again, the right strategy in this setup should be to make sure that the votes are spread out and the right people are on the main wagon, so that the PoE the town gets is as useful as possible

[callforjudgement]

Oh, I interpreted "scum votes are handled last" as the exact opposite (i.e. both votes would count, but the scum ended up last on the wagon).

This setup's now in the "clearly scumsided unless broken" category, but depending on how exactly you define small wagons that aren't worth a precise count, there may well be breaks. (Without the "small wagon rule" you could just force everyone to vote for a distinct player in the vote count before hammering, then once you've verified the vote count, have half the players move their votes at once; you can spot scum by the fact that their votes haven't moved, ignoring the screech mechanic altogether.)

A break that seems like it still works is to decide on a wagon in advance, have everyone unvote altogether, then have a number of players equal to the lynch threshold vote for the lynch target in the next voting period. If you get no screech, they were all town. If you do get a screech (or a failure to reach the lynch threshold), there's scum in the set. Scum can interfere with this via parking their vote (unclaimed) on someone else and then unvoting if an attempt is made to see if a townie is unable to vote again (making it impossible to tell who was responsible for the deviation from plan), but because that involves an unvote, town can probably take advantage of the situation to leave everyone with no votes.

[ejjinami]

(Without the "small wagon rule" you could just force everyone to vote for a distinct player in the vote count before hammering, then once you've verified the vote count, have half the players move their votes at once; you can spot scum by the fact that their votes haven't moved, ignoring the screech mechanic altogether.)

You mean, sth like this?:

1. create a L-1wagon

Alive=11p, 8Town+3scum

T1

- 5 players

,

claims: [T2, T3, T4, S1, T5]

T2- 3 players,

claims: [T6, T8, S2]

T3-2 players,

claims: [S3, T7]

Other: 1 player,

claims:
S1-1 player [T1]

2. have a player hammer and before the mod posts the EoD VC and ends the day, make half of the players switch votes

So
Let’s say that T8 was supposed to hammer T1 and then
T6 – vote: T4
S2 – vote: T4
S3 – vote: T5
T7 – unvote
T1 – vote: T5

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa xd
You’re right

T1

- 5 players, HAMMER!

,

claims: [T2, T3, T4, S1, T5, T8]

T4- 1 player,

claims: [T6, S2] -1 ????????

T5-1 player,

claims: [S3, T7] -1 ????????

Other: 3 players,

claims:
Not voting-1 player [T7]

Both S2’s and S3’s votes would remain where they were before…

Tbh that’s also really easy to avoid because: “scum’s unvotes will be always handled first”, so if there’s even 1 scum on the wagon, they could unvote and re-vote later to let their teammates swith votes

But then again, the town could just agree to make another townie OFF wagon double-hammer

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa xd

It would work the same even if there were 2 scum on the main wagon… the town would just need 2 additional hammerers

Ok, you broke it xd
I admit defeat

[ejjinami]

the setup is now officially broken
xd

seems the "scum vote last" was not a good idea after all

[ejjinami]

GJ

/cry