A change to 2v2

[RLVG]

In many games that is 2v2, it's pointless and time wasting.

Most of the time, it's 2 town vs 2 Maf / Triad and the town always loses.

Example :
- 2X veterans VS 2 mafia, both Vet is confirmed. Maf doesn't kill, stalemates and wins.



I'd like to suggest this:
- End the game during 2v2 when it's impossible for town to win.



Second, I'd like to suggest having the town win during a 2v2.

At the end, everyone is going to repeatively vote for 2 on that guy and the 2 on the other guy.
This will repeat until day ends and the stalemate occurs: Scum won.

Why do scum win, if they can't defeat the town?
It's just a plain waste of time otherwise : 3 nights, no kills, spam the stalemate and lose.
It's quicker for the town to gamethrow, because they're going to lose anyway.



This doesn't include roles such as the Vigilante, Bus Driver, Jailor, roles that can flip the 2v2 into 2v1.
In situations a Mayor can cause a 2v1, the Mafia is likely to hit the Mayor in order to win if the other isn't a Citizen.

Again repeating, let the game simply end during an impossible situation.

[Sen]

I'd like to suggest having the town win during a 2v2.

Why would Town deserve to win if they were only able to kill 1 Mafia during the whole game (in a standard 9-3-3 game) or no Mafia at all (in a game with Mafia and Triad)?

[RLVG]

Why would Town deserve to win if they were only able to kill 1 Mafia during the whole game (in a standard 9-3-3 game) or no Mafia at all (in a game with Mafia and Triad)?

I'm referring mostly to the Mafia / Triad.

Obviously, the Mafia / Triad should've been able to kill during the time but no the Town prevented them from doing so until the point of stalemate.



Why should the Town do this? What encourages them?
Nothing, they lose and the effort was in vain and complete waste of time.

[Sen]

In my opinion, most custom setups have an overpowered Town, which loses because the players suck.

Hell, most don't even allow Citizens, when there should be at least 3 of them in any game.

I don't think the Town should be rewarded for reaching a stalemate, when it usually starts with a ridiculous ammount of PRs.

[RLVG]

I don't think the Town should be rewarded for reaching a stalemate, when it usually starts with a ridiculous ammount of PRs.

Then why can't the 2v2 simply end instantly detecting an impossible outcome for the town?
The scum have won anyway.

[Sen]

I wasn't discussing that.
If the Town can't win, ending the game sounds like a practical thing to do.

It's up to DR if he feels like going through the trouble of checking all the scenarios where this is true and coding it.

[kyle1234513]

its fine the way it is, because if its 2 docs left, i want to be damn sure that the mafia dont win and instead its a tie where nobody wins, or perhaps it goes to the neutrals like executioner or jester before it "auto ends in favor of mafia" because town can not win.

so overall no change should be made to current tiebreakers.

[louiswill]

I disagree,

2 veteran vs 2 mafias is already a town lose.

thinking how power a veteran is.

If it was friednlyfire that killed town, town should lose not win.

I do agree however, some 2vs 2 should be more interesting instead of trash time.

---thats why I put a jester for jester roulette at the end 2 vs 2

[RLVG]

I disagree,

2 veteran vs 2 mafias is already a town lose.

thinking how power a veteran is.

If it was friednlyfire that killed town, town should lose not win.

What if the Veterans didn't use the alerts and then WIFOM the Mafia so they wouldn't attack, or to get attacked?

Nope.JPG, the Mafia drag out the time by not attacking at all auto-winning by the stalemate.

[ika]

its fine the way it is, because if its 2 docs left, i want to be damn sure that the mafia dont win and instead its a tie where nobody wins, or perhaps it goes to the neutrals like executioner or jester before it "auto ends in favor of mafia" because town can not win.

so overall no change should be made to current tiebreakers.

from the wiki

If the Town outnumbers the Mafia then the Town wins
If the Mafia have equal or greater numbers to the Town then the Mafia Wins

If the Neutral pairings have equal or greater numbers than the Town then the Neutrals will win

For example if there were two Serial Killers and two Escorts left who were continuously blocking the Serial Killers then the Serial Killers would still win.

If one faction outnumbers different Neutrals, then that faction will win.

For example, three Escorts, two Witches and an Arsonist will result in Town win.

(This tie breaker doesn't work in a Serial Killer vs Arsonist vs Mass Murderer if the Serial Killer wins ties over the Arsonist).

in 2v2 town vs mafia mafia alwyas wins if there was jester he would also win but it would not be a jester solo win

[kyle1234513]

inb4 theres a veteran, BG, vigi, jailor, mayor/doc in the mix, because there are certain situations that can be won in a 2v2 for town, it should not be changed.

[RLVG]

because there are certain situations that can be won in a 2v2 for town, it should not be changed.

If it's an impossible situation, it's a 100% guranteed loss to town unless if a mafia member gamethrows or is disconnected from the game. Neither faction can vote majority.
Most likely a reportable offense.

With that said, encouraging gamethrowing?

[Mugy]

This has been suggested before, it cannot be implemented as rev will have to code in every single possible 2v2 situation that is deemed impossible.

[louiswill]

What if the Veterans didn't use the alerts and then WIFOM the Mafia so they wouldn't attack, or to get attacked?

Nope.JPG, the Mafia drag out the time by not attacking at all auto-winning by the stalemate.

if setup is not broken, 6 towns with visiting ability is good enough to defeat 3 mafias fairsquarely.

Even if vet never used alert, town didn't trail and hang in, say 3 days, which is not cool.

If it was not build-in veteran, 2 town killing slots give town more win chances already, therefore, 2 veterans should count as town losing.

[Helz]

I do not support this. It could be 2 mafia on 2 teams or an unconfirmed town. I love 2v2 situations when people are confused. I wouldn't want to see that change to save people a few late game moments. If town wants the game to end and can't win they can suicide to force the game to end.

[cattack]

A better scenario would be like a Escort, blocking the Killer and a non killing town against 2 mafia, 1 of them being a non killing non capable to block the escort. Even if this could actually be implemented easily, which would probably require a lot of time. There are rare situations where this actually happens. It also wouldn't be worth much cause as been said before, if it were really down to 2 mafia/triad vs 2 town. Town already failed by letting it come that far. Most setups town is pretty good, it's the players that makes the mistakes playing it. Take the SotD, now it's 3 triads vs 9 town vs 1 NK and 2 non killing neutrals. Town has the ability to take a few casualties to before resorting to role calling and lynch based on deducing on what and what not is possible if there are no clues available.
What grind my gear more is when people go afk and then don't vote. Example, 4 townies, 1 mafia, 1 arsonist. 4 votes required to lynch, 3 town vote on a evil, 1 is afk and therefor the evil can't get lynched.

[Helz]

A better scenario would be like a Escort, blocking the Killer and a non killing town against 2 mafia, 1 of them being a non killing non capable to block the escort. Even if this could actually be implemented easily, which would probably require a lot of time. There are rare situations where this actually happens. It also wouldn't be worth much cause as been said before, if it were really down to 2 mafia/triad vs 2 town. Town already failed by letting it come that far. Most setups town is pretty good, it's the players that makes the mistakes playing it. Take the SotD, now it's 3 triads vs 9 town vs 1 NK and 2 non killing neutrals. Town has the ability to take a few casualties to before resorting to role calling and lynch based on deducing on what and what not is possible if there are no clues available.
What grind my gear more is when people go afk and then don't vote. Example, 4 townies, 1 mafia, 1 arsonist. 4 votes required to lynch, 3 town vote on a evil, 1 is afk and therefor the evil can't get lynched.

In the roughly 1k games I have played I can think of 2 that came down to a 2v2 situation that lasted a bit.