Matrix6 BP fix

[Toto]

Fn6 = BP -> Friendly Neighbour

FN will always target someone at night. At the start of D2 you can ask everyone to claim if they were visited by the FN or not. If no one was visited then tracker can claim because there is no FN, which means there is a doctor. If tracker doesn't claim then you are in Column A or rows 1 or 2.

Basically the same problem, except no BP, and happens at the start of D2 and not D1.

[Toto]

Like, they don't have to say who is the FN, only they were visited.

[Toto]

I guess that can backfire if the FN visited the NK, but maybe that's a good thing?

[Gamma Emerald]

What if the FN is roleblocked?

[Toto]

What if the FN is roleblocked?

If he is RB there is no tracker = column A

[mhsmith0]

Basically player X, if visited by a FN, announces that he was visited by the FN without saying who the FN is. The problem with it is that, once again, you're in a situation that potentially incentivizes early claiming (in this case, it'd be day 2 where the tracker is incentivized to claim if there's proof of no FN [other than the low chance the FN visited the person who died] ). I think that if we're trying to create better standards of play, it's good to have setups that punish and de-incentivize early claiming.

The idea of backup6 does this fairly nicely for a tracker; if there's a backup, then tracker gets shot with zero protection and there's no investigation that night, which means that a true backup claim is explicitly antitown in row 3, which means that scum are rewarded and town punished for a claim situation, as it should be (actually, even a "backup or doc" claim would then just get shot and die in goon-goon, which I think is also fine).

In column A, you get more town power compared to the JK/BP/RB setup, and you basically have a situation where it's super swingy on whether the roleblocker gets lynched early or not (just like cop-doc, since follow the cop is nearly a mechanically locked win for town given a d1 roleblocker lynch). And I think that's also fine, because it forces a game state to be highly incentivized on whether town can catch or scum can protect the roleblocker, which is kind of a normal outcome for any game with a key scum role (roleblocker, godfather, etc).

[Toto]

I have to do the math but I'm not 100% convinced that is is anti town for the backup to claim early either.

[Ircher]

Fn6 = BP -> Friendly Neighbour

FN will always target someone at night. At the start of D2 you can ask everyone to claim if they were visited by the FN or not. If no one was visited then tracker can claim because there is no FN, which means there is a doctor. If tracker doesn't claim then you are in Column A or rows 1 or 2.

Basically the same problem, except no BP, and happens at the start of D2 and not D1.

One issue: what if they FN's target was NK'd.

[Toto]

Fn6 = BP -> Friendly Neighbour

FN will always target someone at night. At the start of D2 you can ask everyone to claim if they were visited by the FN or not. If no one was visited then tracker can claim because there is no FN, which means there is a doctor. If tracker doesn't claim then you are in Column A or rows 1 or 2.

Basically the same problem, except no BP, and happens at the start of D2 and not D1.

One issue: what if they FN's target was NK'd.

Yes, that's one risk. I guess (1) the FN always tries to target people unlikely to get NKed. (2) If that happens the FN needs to claim immediately to avoid outing the tracker.

So the strategy probably has positive EV and would still be used.

[mhsmith0]

I have to do the math but I'm not 100% convinced that is is anti town for the backup to claim early either.

In row 3, backup just dies night 1, which is obviously very bad for town (having a living tracker late is very good, and that makes 1 or 2 PRs dead).

In column A, jailkeeper is then forced to choose between using the JK defensively (preventing any implied guilty possibilities) or offensively (leaving the backup vulnerable to death). It also enables scum to narrow down the POE of who is jailkeeper (both from the claim directly and possibly via interactions with the claim), and it enables them to know it's not cop-doc, which helps them plan night actions a bit more effectively. It also means that if the jailkeeper is ever outed, it's basically a big turkey shoot for scum as long as the RB survives.

[Toto]

Yes, but, two things

(1) The primary PR only needs to survive 3 nights at most. By claiming you are drawing the NK to you, which means the primary only really needs to survive 2 nights at most.

(2) The strategy increases the EV for the OTHER scenarios, enables follow-the-tracker and limits the fake-claiming options for scum.

[Toto]

I guess one workaround is to say BP -> 50%/50% FN/BU

That way the lack of existence of a BU doesn't mean anything and the lack of FN visit doesn't mean anything. So the strategy would not give extra info when there is no positive claim, and naked positive claims are probably bad in both cases.

[Gamma Emerald]

That's 8 setups

[Toto]

That's 8 setups

7

[Toto]

Oh wait, bad math.

[Toto]

That's 8 setups

It's that so bad though? at least it solves the problem (discourages the early claim strategy) and we can test both options (FN & BU) for balance&fun and adjust if needed over time.

[Gamma Emerald]

I think that might work
And we can call it Matrix8.

[Toto]

Actually BU/FN doesn't work either.

sigh

[Gamma Emerald]

What's the issue?

[Toto]

D1: BU / not BU
D2: FN visit / not visit.

Can we make the Backup unknown? As in, you don't if you are a backup?

[mhsmith0]

Why would you want to make the setup more complicated? Is there an actual gain here? Is JK/UB/RB or Tracker/UB/goon somehow unbalanced or unhealthy? Because FN is a pretty weak role, to the point where I pretty strongly suspect that it'd lead to a meta where the two setups with FN (instead of BP) have the lowest town win rates by a decent margin, and I'd think some weird blend of FN/UB adds to the complication without creating any actual gain in terms of utility or fun.

[Toto]

Would you change BP for an IC? I'm claiming BU is very close to an IC in terms of utility, and if you use this strategy always, even when there is no BU, then you increase the EV for town in non-BU rows and columns.

So it should not discourage the use of the early claim strategy IMHO.

BUT, if you make the BU hidden, then it should not be possible to early claim. (forget the FN)

[mhsmith0]

Discouraging the early claim strategy is literally the whole point of the excercise. So if you're not discouraging it, then why bother?

[MarioManiac4]

tracker/ub/goon still seems kinda gross tbh if scum gets lynched early
jk/ub/rb kills scum if rb gets lynched d1 i think

[mhsmith0]

Tracker UB is less gross than doc tracker tho I think, since if scum can hit tracker then UB, there are no investigative results. Agreed on rb day 1 lynch but a scum team who loses rb day one deserves to lose so I don't mind locking that result in even harder.