Open Setup Certification Group

Lord Gurgi · Post Post #75 (ISO) » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:48 pm

I wasn't aware. I'm not a wikiwizard.

Adel · Post Post #76 (ISO) » Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:18 pm

no worries. A cool thing about the wiki software is that it makes it really easy for each person contribute what they can or feel like, and for others to follow along and build upon that work.

open games found on page 4 of little italy:

a "*" means that each link on the line are "good" (point to an existing page)
a "¬" means that there is a known issue with one or more link on that line.

I could use some help verifying these, and identifying which links are broken and why.

Adel · Post Post #77 (ISO) » Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:51 pm

open games found on page 3 of little italy

open games found on page 2 of little italy

ISO · Post Post #78 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:56 am

Alright, I've picked a group of five to start with. Anyone not picked, please do feel free to contribute! The main reason for limiting the numbers is to keep the number with mod rights on this topic managable. We may adjust the numbers/membership later, though.

I'll give the group editing rights for this and the sticky thread shortly.

Korts · Post Post #79 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:51 am

As a starting point I suggest we review the following setups:

Two of Four (a7/b7/a9/b9?)
Vengeful (does it need a review at all?)
Crush
Friends and Enemies (and Enemies (and That Other Guy))
Carbon-14
Variations on C9?

These are all based on fairly simple concepts. I'll post my thoughts on each setup/variations when I get home or tomorrow.

Eventually we should probably review all the open setups that have been played, starting with the list in mith's post 43 and Adel's 76-77.

ISO · Post Post #80 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:43 am

I'm going through Adel's posts now to update the list in post 43. I think while some of us work on wiki'ing the games, others can work on the setups themselves. (Setups that have been used will give us a starting point, and then at some point we can start going through the discussion threads for others that have been suggested.)

ISO · Post Post #81 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:05 am

Ok, my list is updated through Open 87. Going to take a shower now, will try to finish before I leave this afternoon (though I've got some other things to get done...).

ISO · Post Post #82 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:34 am

Members of the group should now have mod rights in this thread and the sticky. Test by editing this post, please.

ISO · Post Post #83 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:23 am

The list in post 43 is now updated through Open 123 (except I can't find Open 95 anywhere... did it get skipped, or am I just blind?).

Leaving pretty soon, but a couple quick comments:

A first step in sorting through these should be to group variants together; for example, there are four different Two of Four setups, and we have several options as far as certifying them:

1. Don't.
2. Certify (some of/all of) them separately.
3. Certify (some of/all of) them as a group (so a Two of Four setup might be run about as often as C9, but each individual variant only half/a fourth as often).

There's also some on the list that are combinations of more basic ideas... Polygamist is really just a combination of the 6 player Lovers Nightless (2 Mafia Lovers and 4 Townies) and the Hydra concept (double the normal number of players, paired) seen in Lovers Multiball. It may be worth picking out some of these more basic ideas that pop up in various setups (or could potentially be applied to a variety) for classification purposes (Nightless, Hydra, Double Day, etc.).

Adel · Post Post #84 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:37 am

mith wrote:Members of the group should now have mod rights in this thread and the sticky. Test by editing this post, please.

I can't edit it.

Korts · Post Post #85 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:20 am

mith wrote:Members of the group should now have mod rights in this thread and the sticky. Test by editing this post, please.

Seems I can't yet.

Adel · Post Post #86 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:19 pm

Korts wrote:As a starting point I suggest we review the following setups:

Two of Four (a7/b7/a9/b9?)
Vengeful (does it need a review at all?)
Crush
Friends and Enemies (and Enemies (and That Other Guy))
Carbon-14
Variations on C9?

These are all based on fairly simple concepts. I'll post my thoughts on each setup/variations when I get home or tomorrow.

Eventually we should probably review all the open setups that have been played, starting with the list in mith's post 43 and Adel's 76-77.

could you give me about 10 days to finish compiling information? Having all of the links handy will probably help with the reviews.

I like the idea of sorting setups into group by characteristics.. and I think shaft.ed background in genetics might help us come up with a sensible classification system. Should we sort the setups before we review them?

Lord Gurgi · Post Post #87 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:25 pm

I'm in limbo at the moment, so I won't be able to talk, really. Would it be wise or feasible for us to get together on AIM to discuss this?

Anyway, I'd like to start this thing and make some suggestions. I'm going to start with the tiny setups.

Vengeful. Either the five player or seven player version or both of Vengeful should be certified. It's a solid setup.
California. This seems like a solid setup to me. I'd like to recommend it for certification.
Carbon-14. Not a bad setup, IMHO. It has a following, even though it's not my cup of tea, I think it's balanced.
Lovers Mafia. This needs to be certified, even if it's not my favourite.
Gurgi EC8. Can we look at this? At least to satisfy my ego, at most because I think it's a good setup.

Just a start.

Adel · Post Post #88 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:35 pm

Lord Gurgi wrote: Would it be wise or feasible for us to get together on AIM to discuss this?

Tuesday or Wednesday.

Lord Gurgi · Post Post #89 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:04 pm

Adel wrote:
Lord Gurgi wrote: Would it be wise or feasible for us to get together on AIM to discuss this?
Tuesday or Wednesday.

I'm fine with either, you guys? Korts is also a consideration, timezone being an element.

ISO · Post Post #90 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:21 pm

I have two ideas why you can't edit... one of which I can fix (but probably not until tomorrow at the earliest), the other I'll have to talk to jeep about. Anyway, should have that fixed in the next few days, and it shouldn't slow us down.

Lord Gurgi · Post Post #91 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:30 pm

Great!

Korts · Post Post #92 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:06 pm

Lord Gurgi wrote:
Adel wrote:
Lord Gurgi wrote: Would it be wise or feasible for us to get together on AIM to discuss this?
Tuesday or Wednesday.
I'm fine with either, you guys? Korts is also a consideration, timezone being an element.

I could stay up late Wednesday, depending on what time approximately you intend to be up. I can be until 2-3 AM GMT+1 (8-9 PM East Coast Time, 5-6 PM West Coast Time I think) tops.

Lord Gurgi · Post Post #93 (ISO) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:10 pm

Korts wrote:
Lord Gurgi wrote:
Adel wrote:
Lord Gurgi wrote: Would it be wise or feasible for us to get together on AIM to discuss this?
Tuesday or Wednesday.
I'm fine with either, you guys? Korts is also a consideration, timezone being an element.
I could stay up late Wednesday, depending on what time approximately you intend to be up. I can be until 2-3 AM GMT+1 (8-9 PM East Coast Time) tops.

I get home at maybe 4 PM PST, that gives us 2 hours maximum window.

Xylthixlm · Post Post #94 (ISO) » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:42 pm

Lord Gurgi wrote:
Korts wrote:
Lord Gurgi wrote:
Adel wrote:
Lord Gurgi wrote: Would it be wise or feasible for us to get together on AIM to discuss this?
Tuesday or Wednesday.
I'm fine with either, you guys? Korts is also a consideration, timezone being an element.
I could stay up late Wednesday, depending on what time approximately you intend to be up. I can be until 2-3 AM GMT+1 (8-9 PM East Coast Time) tops.
I get home at maybe 4 PM PST, that gives us 2 hours maximum window.

I get home at 7 PM PST, and I can only use AIM from home. So... probably not going to work.

Xylthixlm · Post Post #95 (ISO) » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:57 pm

Before we charge into certifying setups, maybe we should do some thinking about what sort of stuff to look for.

* Breaking strategies - there are a few of these that pop up over and over. It would be good to make a checklist to consider. Pairing, circling, hypocop, having a certain role always claim immediately (usually with doc)... what else?

* EV - games which have very high or low EVs under random lynches tend to be broken, but what's "very high" or "very low"?

* Degenerate endgames - kingmaker situations, happily ever after, any others? Even if these don't disqualify the setup we should decide what would happen if they come up.

* Game length - sometimes the game can end very quickly due to night actions. Should that be considered? Should it ever be disqualifying by itself?

* Night vs day game - how much of a game can be decided by correct night choices?

Adel · Post Post #96 (ISO) » Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:24 pm

Xylthixlm wrote:Before we charge into certifying setups, maybe we should do some thinking about what sort of stuff to look for.

* Breaking strategies - there are a few of these that pop up over and over. It would be good to make a checklist to consider. Pairing, circling, hypocop, having a certain role always claim immediately (usually with doc)... what else?

I agree, but with the prevision that a breaking strategy for a given setup should be realized before it acts as a disqualifier. Texas Justice and Assassins in the Palace have been broken, for example, but Carbon 14 only has a theoretical breaking tactic that has not been proven or used in a game. SensFan says that he has a breaking tactic for Lovers as mafia, but has not used that tactic yet. I think that attempting to break setups is a part of the game that we should not suppress. "Obviously Broken" games (like 2 goons vs. 4 sane cops) should be discarded, but when a game falls in a gray area (I think most of them will) I want to accept the risk a certified setup being broken in the future. Kudos to the player that breaks it!

* EV - games which have very high or low EVs under random lynches tend to be broken, but what's "very high" or "very low"?

I think the band should be wide. SK is a popular role, showing that EV isn't everything. For one scum faction, 35% to 60% should be fine. Setups that are near one extreme or another will either have redeeming characteristics, or we will discard them. Setups outside of that band would be so obviously broken that we would discard them before calculating EV.

* Degenerate endgames - kingmaker situations, happily ever after, any others? Even if these don't disqualify the setup we should decide what would happen if they come up.

Carefully worded role PMs can fix many of these problems, but these problems do need to be identified first.

* Game length - sometimes the game can end very quickly due to night actions. Should that be considered? Should it ever be disqualifying by itself?

I am of the opinion that as player time investment increases, tolerance for "swingyness" decreases. Games being too quick isn't a problem that I am aware of.

* Night vs day game - how much of a game can be decided by correct night choices?

This is a case where I think diversity is good.

I was thinking about this before you posted.
I would like to look at the setups that have run, and identify two groups:
A. those setups that are obviously good (like Pie E7 and C9)
B. those setups that are obviously bad (like Yoguraimee C9 and Texas Justice)

Fast tracking games from A for quick certification is probably a good idea.

Looking at B will help us identify which attributes should disqualify other setups.

Since we are essentially constructing a canon I think we should be aware of criticisms of canons from other fields:
- repression of diversity
- lack of accountability of those that determine the canon to those who are subjected to the canon

Lord Gurgi · Post Post #97 (ISO) » Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:21 pm

I don't plan on repressing diversity, just stupidity. If people want to try a setup that we think shouldn't be certified, they can run it separately in the mini theme or mini normal. I don't think this will actually happen.

I think that the A's should definitely be fast-tracked.

On the subject of EV's, I think it really depends upon the game. I don't really want to set finite boundaries of what is and is not acceptable, because I can guarantee there will be games that do not follow an arbitrary rule.

I think that if we plan to improve the PMs, we should create the role PMs as well. There have been problems as a result of PMs in the past.

shaft.ed · Post Post #98 (ISO) » Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:51 pm

If PM's and rulesets are going to be handed to the mods, I do not think that Open Games should be applicable for New Mod experience.

Lord Gurgi · Post Post #99 (ISO) » Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:54 pm

shaft.ed wrote:If PM's and rulesets are going to be handed to the mods, I do not think that Open Games should be applicable for New Mod experience.

Who said anything about rulesets? Besides, writing a role PM is

hardly

all that the experience gives you. The most valuable aspect of moderation experience is the upkeep, because that's when it matters if they fold.