Role-constraints based off other roles spawning

[yzb25]

I think it'd be nice to make role-constraints based off the spawning of other roles customizable. The only examples I can think of to describe this is the fact Mason Leader cannot spawn unless there is a citizen or cult in the save already. What I'm suggesting is the ability to control things like this.

This would be good for ensuring, if there are doctors in my save, that no bodyguards will spawn. Or ensuring that if a jailor spawns a kidnapper spawns too to balance out the jailor.

I'm not 100% sure how this would look in the custom game setup interface, but what I imagined was something like 2 drop down boxes appearing below every role when it is clicked in the custom game setup interface. And from these drop down boxes roles can be selected to guarantee that if X role spawns, Y role must spawn too. Or that if X role can spawn, Y role cannot.

Something like this:

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

Sheriff

Randomizer: 0-----------10

Description: -----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Detects mafia/triad: on/off
Detects arsonists: on/off

___________
[____framer__] - Guaranteed if this role spawns
___________
[__sheriff____] - Excluded if this role spawns

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

Oh, and another thing, this would stop certain role duplication problems too. As shown in the example if you only want 1 sheriff / 1 sheriff spawning randomly, then that is possible to do with this system. But stopping role dupes should be used sparingly as it limits potential false claims that can be made.

It would make it much easier to balance saves with a lot of random-ness in them, too. e.g. if I add 3 town protectives I can be confident they won't all end up being escorts or something silly. Or if you wanted to stop double jailor-opness but still have the possibility of 1 jailor and another town killing safely.

You could add these settings into the rolecard too, so it could allow for much more clever deduction in-game e.g. "I know doctors and BGs can't coincide in this save. So considering X doctor died 3 days ago, Y's BG claim must be false. But I know jester must spawn with disguisers. I know there is a disguiser in this game because 2 days ago a disguiser triggered his ability on a night mafia were shooting too. So even though I know Y's BG claim is false, I must be wary of jesters."

This would have a lot of possibilities, but I imagine it would be a nightmare to implement.

EDIT: Some people seem to think that using this confirms the existence / lack of existence of some roles immediately. Not necessarily. This has been talked about to greater detail below. But basically, the easiest way to explain this effect is if a randomly spawning cult forces a vigilante to spawn, the vigilante may not necessarily know about the cult, but the cult knows about the vigilante.

EDIT 2: I've made a change to this system so that it only applies to roles that existed as a result of randoms. In the example above, if your save has forced a sheriff in, and the spawning of sheriffs forces the existence of framers, the forced-framer will only trigger if a second sheriff spawns in randomly. The first sheriff that is forced in will not force a framer too, because the system only applies to roles that exist as of a result of randoms. This also means in the example above a second sheriff CAN spawn but no more than 2. because one spawned deliberately and only one can spawn randomly.

[Cryptonic]

While I do agree it's kind of interesting for customability, I think a lot of If, then shit like this and no duplicate roles would make games nearly impossible for scum roles to false claim anything. It'll be super hard for non-town to win.

How many roles can a GF claim and get away with? If none of those roles could be duplicated, then it could prevent him from making any safe claim and he'll have to make up something like a lookout last will (and be wrong 99% of the time, causing a lynch anyways). While it does help the balance of the game (ie: the game would be balanced if none of these options were known by anybody), structuring the roles list actually hurts the balance more. Might as well just stop using random town and put in a confirmed role for every single slot.

[yzb25]

While I do agree it's kind of interesting for customability, I think a lot of If, then shit like this and no duplicate roles would make games nearly impossible for scum roles to false claim anything. It'll be super hard for non-town to win.

How many roles can a GF claim and get away with? If none of those roles could be duplicated, then it could prevent him from making any safe claim and he'll have to make up something like a lookout last will (and be wrong 99% of the time, causing a lynch anyways). While it does help the balance of the game (ie: the game would be balanced if none of these options were known by anybody), structuring the roles list actually hurts the balance more. Might as well just stop using random town and put in a confirmed role for every single slot.

Though I agree in excess this could damage the game by resulting in NOT ENOUGH OPTIONS, many things in excess in a save could damage a mafia game. To the average joe who just wants to build a standard 9-3-3 setup quickly, I think them adding a few constraints here and there to make the game run a little smoother doesn't totally destroy the game.

And though I see what you mean with insane people doing 50 constraints and adding a variety of rules to make their save perfect every time, I have the following things to say:

1)People could, as you said, always screw up the game in this manner by making every slot a guaranteed role. For example, forcing there to be 2 doctors, 2 sheriffs, 1 jailor, 1 mayor, 1 godfather, exc. because they are that determined to make sure their save has no random BS.

It seems to me that there is a balance here that needs to be maintained - a peace. A balance between too much random making a save imbalanced and a balance between too little random taking variety from the save and making it harder to false role-claim within the parameters of your save.

2)If you are this intricate and detailed with your saves, then you are likely to second guess yourself and moderate the save appropriately before using it in public games. Of course, adding this will result in rather slow individuals not using this feature effectively and creating terribad saves, as is what results from adding ANYTHING to mafia.

But hey, there always were and always will be terribad hosts with terribad saves, this will just add MORE ways to make a terribad save, rather than increase the chances of a terribad save, if you ask me. A terribad host was always gonna make a terribad save, if you ask me. Focus on how this feature can IMPROVE saves, not WORSEN them, if you ask me.

[SpiritFryer]

Let me propose what I think would be a good solution.

Each role will get two new parameters:

Configurable minimum and maximum role spawn count, with the option to set "no limit".

These values should be present in the rolecards of each role in the list at the top of the screen.

Done.

The idea of "if X spawns then Y must spawn too" is not too bad, but I don't think it's really necessary.

1. It's just extra work for devs.
2. With this min and max spawn count option added, hosts should already have enough control over the setup.
3. It gives unfair advantage to certain roles as they would already know that another role must be in the setup, too.

[Dazrix]

This used to occur with a coroner - janitor. A coroner couldn't be spawned without a janitor having spawned.

[yzb25]

Let me propose what I think would be a good solution.

Each role will get two new parameters:

Configurable minimum and maximum role spawn count, with the option to set "no limit".

These values should be present in the rolecards of each role in the list at the top of the screen.

Done.

The idea of "if X spawns then Y must spawn too" is not too bad, but I don't think it's really necessary.

1. It's just extra work for devs.
2. With this min and max spawn count option added, hosts should already have enough control over the setup.
3. It gives unfair advantage to certain roles as they would already know that another role must be in the setup, too.

I do kinda like that idea, but I still prefer mine =P. I will refer to the original "pro"s of my idea and the "pro"s you gave for your idea to explain why I prefer my idea more.

1) Clever deduction. My idea results in more chaotic and complex scenarios than "looks at the rolecard, limited to 2 BGs, looks at graveyard, 2 BGs dead, therefore 3rd BG not possible." Cross-related roles mean you will end up checking multiple role-cards to work out whether something is possible / definite. And the confirmation of one new role can totally change your outlook on the other roles (assuming the host added THAT many role-constraints.) Plus, even if the role an evil chooses is impossible, just because of the difficulty in thinking to check the sheriff role-card to see if investigator is possible or checking the auditor role card to see if BG is guaranteed somewhere makes it easier to get away with a lie in a 30 second trial / survive an extra day or two.

2) Possibilities. I think my suggestion allows for more possibilities in a save. The only limitation my idea has is that you can only limit something to 1, while in yours you can limit something to 2, 3 or 4. But my idea allows for more outcomes / scenarios in a save while still staying balanced. I can ensure a kidnapper always spawns with a jailor and a doctor will only spawn in a save where some of the neut evils have become neut killings. But I don't need to make sure they're DEFINITELY added. I can make sure they're added only when they're NEEDED.

There are other possibilities my save has over yours too. If I wanna make unusual saves I can ensure a mayor always spawns with a marshal and masons never spawn with cult for the lulz. There's way more stuff my idea can do than stuff it can't do. I'd definitely trade the ability to make sure I don't have 3 sheriffs but can still have 2 for my idea!

3) "It gives unfair advantage to certain roles as they would already know that another role must be in the setup, too." Now, I'd like to specify a possible misconception about this system: X can know Y exists, but that doesn't mean Y knows X exists. The auditor may know the Bodyguard exists, but this doesn't mean the bodyguard knows the auditor exists. "Bodyguard" is a very common role, for all the Bodyguard knows, the Bodyguard probably just spawned randomly - not because an auditor spawned too.

I don't think it really imbalances the game in the grand scheme of things. An evil must prepare for as many threats as possible. Knowing, for example, that there is a bodyguard tells you nothing more than "Be careful when trying to audit someone and a BG can block your audit" which was what you would have thought anyway. The truth is that no matter who you are you have to try and prepare for as much as possible. Sure, now you may prioritize some things - A cultist now knows no matter what he can't pretend to be jester until at least one vigilante dies, while he might get away with a doctor claim. But this is still very situational. And for the little bit it buffs the evils, it also buffs the town a little too. Town probably won't know which evils are in the game until the mid-late game. By the mid-late game, the BG could be dead anyway! And small deductions like "there must be a BG" or "no doctors are possible by now" have always been possible via the roles list. So I think the deductions, though existent and interesting, wouldn't have an impact on the game worthy of the title "game-breaking".

4) My idea is better for making it easier to balance a save.

Most of the imbalance in saves with a lot of "random-ness" in them doesn't come from the same role being spammed 3 times but rather certain specific combinations screwing an alignment over - The opness is in the variety. (which your idea doesn't stop.)

Take Neutral Killing, for example: If there are 2 NK in a save and they're both the same, you can use the same strategy to deal with both - heal key roles to deal with double SK, stay away from attention seekers with double MM, exc. The same NK twice is definitely solid but not the strongest. If you cross over the NKs, though, how are you supposed to deal with them then? do you try to heal key roles as doctor or not if there is an MM and an SK? There are many more examples I could give but this is already essay-length.

Sometimes multiple of the same role is a gamebreaking combination. But in most of these scenarios it is as a result of 2 of the same role, not 3 or 4 of the same role. e.g. double jailor, double doctor, exc.

A lack of another role is also what causes imbalance. It was the lack of BGs to stop the auditors that resulted in all the crucial townies being demoted, while it was the fact there was only one town investigative in the save that made the framer an essentially worthless mafia deception.

Specific combinations imbalance games, not necessarily dupes.

5) "It's just extra work for devs." I will concede that my idea is likely far harder to implement.

P.S. your "guarantee X role no matter what" is essentially exactly the same as literally adding the role. I may as well remove a town protective and add a doctor if I make sure 1 doctor is guaranteed. And I may as well remove my 2 Neut evils and add two witches if two witches is guaranteed - it's pointless!

[SpiritFryer]

Heh. I was half-way through a post on an idea which would combine both of our ideas, but then I realized that it would end up being just a more complicated way to pick what the roles list is going to be.

Lol.