Remove the - on voting when silenced.

[Mentar]

Silencing was recently changed so that when a person is silenced there is no chat notification of them voting. The point was to combat the issue of people vote-spamming to let people know that they're silenced.

Except that the - still appears next to your name, so people can still see that you're voting.

Now here's the issue.
It allows you to confirm absolutely 100% that you've been silenced. a voting "-" next to your name and no chat message saying that you've voted confirms someone has been legitimately silenced every time. its impossible to fake.

The current mechanism is actually worse than how it used to be. Every single person you silence is immediately confirmed as being not mafia as soon as they vote in the day.

When chat messages appeared it was always possible for it to be an evil person faking silenced. But now it's impossible to fake it because no-one but a legit silenced person can make the vote - appear next to their name without having a chat message also appear.

My suggestion is relatively simple: In addition to not having a message in the chat when you vote, you also don't have the "-" appear next to your name to indicate that you have voted. Naturally your vote still gets counted as normal so people can see that someone has voted, but they won't know who is doing it and thus can't automatically confirm people as non-mafia by virtue of silencing.

[Helz]

I support this idea if it can be coded. I get the feeling it would be a pain though.

[Slaol]

I also support this change.

[Slaol]

I've taken this to the man in charge of updates.
I've suggested we either
1: remove the -
2: put the chat message back in
3: prevent blackmailed players from voting

[Mentar]

They'll never go for #3. blocking people from voting potentially alters game balance too drastically. Ideally we can do #1, but if helz is right and it's a bitch to code we might have to settle for #2.

For me, the issue is that it can't be faked anymore.
In the past you could reveal being silenced by votespamming, but there was some doubt about it because anyone could do it whether silenced or not. The change was well intended but all it's really done is make silencing unfakeable and anyone who votes with a - but no chat message is confirmed not mafia.

[Cryptonic]

Lol I used to like people spamming votes to fake blackmailed.
Never found vote spamming to be a problem because it doesn't confirm they're blackmailed.

Also, I agree that preventing voting is just too powerful. Can allow Mafia to insta-win 3v2 scenarios without worrying about the lynch. Blackmailer would be best role lol

[Slaol]

They'll never go for #3. blocking people from voting potentially alters game balance too drastically. Ideally we can do #1, but if helz is right and it's a bitch to code we might have to settle for #2.

For me, the issue is that it can't be faked anymore.
In the past you could reveal being silenced by votespamming, but there was some doubt about it because anyone could do it whether silenced or not. The change was well intended but all it's really done is make silencing unfakeable and anyone who votes with a - but no chat message is confirmed not mafia.

Funny enough, 3 was chosen.

[Slaol]

Also, I agree that preventing voting is just too powerful. Can allow Mafia to insta-win 3v2 scenarios without worrying about the lynch. Blackmailer would be best role lol

I disagree that it would be best. Without even making a real case it's easy to see that any and every role that has killing powers or immunity to killing is worth more than blackmailer.

Also it takes to get to that case for Blackmailer to become broken, and i'd figure Mafia would win most games if they got to that situation without this. Then it also falls into potential night actions, where a role like Consort would be equally impactful potentially. It just depends on the role the Town has. If they have an Escort that blocks the Mafia kill then the tiebreaker would end with a Town win for example. Vigilante, Veteran, Bodyguard, Doctors on point, Mayor, there are plenty of ways that can change.

[Cryptonic]

I disagree that it would be best. Without even making a real case it's easy to see that any and every role that has killing powers or immunity to killing is worth more than blackmailer.

Also it takes to get to that case for Blackmailer to become broken, and i'd figure Mafia would win most games if they got to that situation without this. Then it also falls into potential night actions, where a role like Consort would be equally impactful potentially. It just depends on the role the Town has. If they have an Escort that blocks the Mafia kill then the tiebreaker would end with a Town win for example. Vigilante, Veteran, Bodyguard, Doctors on point, Mayor, there are plenty of ways that can change.

I disagree. With a blackmailer in a game, it basically makes a 3-3-9 save become a 3-3-8 save. That's a pretty large advantage. It also prevents that share of information and keeps a player alive who would take up Town night actions. This combined is far stronger than a single kill via Disguiser, ect.

While it may be true that Mafia would win most games that got to that situation, this change solidifies it and guarentees their win. Even if Town had a Vigilante or a Mayor, it's still over.

Godfather (immune to kills & rb is normal) + Blackmailer vs Mayor + Vigilante + Non-game changing role (Sheriff)

Best case scenario, blackmailer would get shot by Vigilante & Mayor gets killed/blackmailer and another role gets killed/blackmailed.
That would become a 2:1 situation where one of the town can't vote and then Mafia just kills again the following night.

Escort would be the only effective counter to this, and even then they'd have to have deducted the Mafia's identities and correct roles to win.



Plus, imagine how many people would rage quit after being blackmailed 3 days in a row with 0 ability to participate in day chat lol.

[Brendan]

Blackmailer sucks, this vote change I like. Or you could just fix it and make the vote thing an option. I want to silence a mayor. Should be a new achievement.

[Slaol]

A 3-3-9 setup with a Blackmailer makes Day 2 basically 3-3-7, if a Kill hits a Town and the Blackmail silences a Town.
A 3-3-9 setup with a Disguiser makes Day 2 LITERALLY 3-3-7, if a Kill hits a Town a the Disguiser takes a Town.

but in the case of the Blackmailer the player can still act if they are a Power Role (99% of the time), and either they are something like Vigilante or Escort with noticable feelable actions, or they are like a Sheriff that might have just gotten a free ride to not being killed for a while. Last Wills: On, and bingo.

Disguiser > Blackmailer

---

It does not solidify the win, your situation that it is a Godfather left standing is reasonable, but even in that case a Vigilante has a 50% chance of taking out the Blackmailer. Then the 2 Town left can vote the Godfather. Blackmailer follows the kill, so even in that scenario it comes down to a 50/50, no second silent day needed.

Of course there are plenty of other roles Town could have in the 3v2 situation, but there are equally infinite combinations of ways for a game to go that would never even get to this result especially since Blackmailer isn't as survivable of a role as something like Framer or Disguiser. 1/1,000,000 games isn't a problem.

---

People might rage quit, but fuck them, if we did all things we did with 'players suck' in mind, we'd have never done anything.

[Mentar]

I disagree. With a blackmailer in a game, it basically makes a 3-3-9 save become a 3-3-8 save. That's a pretty large advantage. It also prevents that share of information and keeps a player alive who would take up Town night actions. This combined is far stronger than a single kill via Disguiser, ect.

It also becomes a hard counter to mayor and other people that confirm themselves as town and start taking roles. Silencing would both prevent them from communicating any bad role claims and also prevent them from voting to indicate who to lynch. A silencer in the game would completely and entirely nullify mayor (and anyone else who takes roles), only a bus driver could protect from it.

Tho i'm not sure i see that as an entirely bad thing, certainly adds another dynamic to the game.

[lawson]

I don't support this change. There has to be a happy medium, like bringing the sound back. This way you can't tell for sure if someone is actually BMed or if they are faking it.

Say you are a Sheriff, you find SK night 1. BAM Mafia Blackmails you the rest of the game. If you make it so I can't vote or have any way to communicate, I am essentially dead. Even if I find both detectable Mafia, I'd have to -suicide to get the message to town.

Removing voting altogether or any means of communication would make being Blackmailed very un-fun. As a Sheriff, you could find leads and would have no way of communicating them. Might as well just leave the game.

Furthermore, in the example listed by the person right above me, if Blackmailer removed votes you could essentially take a Mayor out of the game without having to worry about Bodyguards. Way too strong.

As the game stands right now I don't want to see Blackmailing be any stronger than it is. It's hard enough to get the message across and only sometimes do you get a town with enough experience to catch on to your signaling.

[Helz]

We could always nerf the blackmailer with an option for charges (default on). It would maintain balance while allowing hosts to make the bm strong as hell if they wanted

[yzb25]

I think the vote change + charges is the best course of action. However, I'd suggest a mechanic that limits the amount of times you can blackmail the same person, rather than a mechanic that limits the number of times you can blackmail. ("Your target is beyond care, he will do what he wants even if you expose him"). More specifically, I'd recommend that you can blackmail as much as you want, but you can only blackmail a specific person once. After that, you can only blackmail others.

A) This means your blackmailing will have sustained relevance for as long as the blackmailer lives, rather than the blackmailer using their 2 blackmails, then having nothing to do.
B) This means that "saving up blackmails" only results in the blackmailer delaying an important player's information and voting on one key day, rather than being able to completely disable the important player for the duration of your blackmails.
C) It would also, in my opinion, make the decision process of when the blackmailer uses their blackmails more interesting. (if the blackmailer has to choose when they hinder a significant player, rather than waiting for the 2 most important nights and using all their blackmails at once to completely disable said player).
D) This will stop the infinitely annoying problem of "your save has too few charges!" "Now your save has too many charges!" or, at the very least, alleviate it.
E) Chain blackmails, as previously stated, would be very boring and frustrating from the blackmailed person's perspective.

[Cryptonic]

Add an option "Target can vote". If off, Blackmailer has charges lol. If not, Blackmailer has unlimited uses.

[yzb25]

Add an option "Target can vote". If off, Blackmailer has charges lol. If not, Blackmailer has unlimited uses.

But that doesn't resolve the issue - that just puts it in the far less able hands of the pub host to decide. I'm sure that most people (even if they don't admit it at first) would much rather the 1000 game players came to a decent, experience-based decision that we all had to follow without choice rather than giving the average amateur host more ways to screw up their saves that they probably don't care about.

Eh, I guess it would have little impact on the game anyway, but look after the pennies is what I believe.

P.S. I know this is the wrong place and the wrong time, but what on earth is with the baby picture? Don't get me wrong - it's cute. But just... why?... SOME OF US were planning on eating sometime today and seeing food smeared all over that thing's face is NOT appetizing.

[Slaol]

But that doesn't resolve the issue - that just puts it in the far less able hands of the pub host to decide. I'm sure that most people (even if they don't admit it at first) would much rather the 1000 game players came to a decent, experience-based decision that we all had to follow without choice rather than giving the average amateur host more ways to screw up their saves that they probably don't care about.

Eh, I guess it would have little impact on the game anyway, but look after the pennies is what I believe.

P.S. I know this is the wrong place and the wrong time, but what on earth is with the baby picture? Don't get me wrong - it's cute. But just... why?... SOME OF US were planning on eating sometime today and seeing food smeared all over that thing's face is NOT appetizing.

Sadly the 1,000 game players do not agree all the time - See Cryptonic v Me right now - and so we make options to appease the minds here that the correct things are possible.

The baby is Cryptonic. He is a highly intelligent young lad.

[Brendan]

Sadly the 1,000 game players do not agree all the time - See Cryptonic v Me right now - and so we make options to appease the minds here that the correct things are possible.

The baby is Cryptonic. He is a highly intelligent young lad.

babbie*

[MasterNinja]

this has occured before tho. it can happend as a bug when silenced by triad silencer and when you vote there wont be any info in the chat saying so but you will have the - after ur name.

but putting an option for this would only improve the game and make it more customizable than before. dont see why not

[Mentar]

this has occured before tho. it can happend as a bug when silenced by triad silencer and when you vote there wont be any info in the chat saying so but you will have the - after ur name.

it's not a bug, it's a normal part of voting to have a - next to your name showing that you've voted. The no info in chat was a deliberate change made. They simply decided (or were unable) to remove the - at the same time.

[Numbertwo]

If the blackmailer prevents voting then he should have a set amount of charges.

[Slaol]

If the blackmailer prevents voting then he should have a set amount of charges.

Have you seen my rundown of how strong new Blackmailer would be in relation to Disguiser

[Cryptonic]

What about Mafia with TWO blackmailers. Random Mafia often excludes killing lol

Also, if Blackmailing is after Killing in OoO, then it's fairly even lol.

[Slaol]

What about Mafia with TWO blackmailers. Random Mafia often excludes killing lol

Also, if Blackmailing is after Killing in OoO, then it's fairly even lol.

Still strengthwise weaker than 2 Disguisers. You are right that it might often exclude killing, but oh well.

Blackmailing is after killing in OoO, which should alleviate some of the worry in the hearts of the sayers of nay. However even still it's just not as strong as a killer, and we see no issue with Disguiser or Kidnapper (which is even more broken).

For example: your scenario of a 3v2 in which a Town can not vote
This situation requires that it is a 4v2 going into the night before. Then the Mafia kills a Town, and Blackmailer silences successfully.
In a situation with a Disguiser if it were a 4v2 scenario then the day following would be literally 2v2 if both kills were successful.

[Mentar]

I think I'd be ok with the no voting thing if they just add a way of protecting from it too, like that bastion role suggestion. Or add add option limiting how many times the silencer can silence the same person (twice max? )

[lawson]

Making people unable to vote will be extremely overpowered, it will make them dead without being dead. Think about it, can't talk or vote?

If Mafia had 2 Blackmailers they could secure a win with 8 people alive. That's a bit early yeah? That's as early as Day 4 assuming SK and Maf kill each night and a person is lynched each day. Don't even get me started on the Docs that hate their role and quit, Jailors that exe n1 or Veterans that take out town.

BMer should not get the power to remove votes. A smart player will be able to use it way too well. It will become an ability used not to silence someone, but to eliminate someone. Even with charges, it's just too much.

---------------------------------------------------

I'll tell you what you should do, you should make Mafia able to Blackmail each other. That way, BMer can BM the GF and completely cover for him. Spy would be thrown off, GF could be legit BMed and it would throw the Detective off the chase.

[Slaol]

Making people unable to vote will be extremely overpowered

I've laid out in several different ways why this statement is wrong.

You know what else prevents you from talking or voting, but also permanently role blocks you? Dying.

You say Day 4 is an early Mafia end, but 5 day long games are a good game, and you mention SK, Doctor, Jailor, and Veteran without the reality that these roles will positively impact a Town just as much as they will negatively.

The pure reality of this buff is that the only complaints are on worst case scenario situations, as the normal case situation is that it is still weaker than Disguiser.

Could people please stop saying it is broken? It's simply mathematically not so. I think the discussion would be much more positive if we discuss how this will impact the meta. That would be worth real consideration.

[lawson]

a Blackmailer with charges could eliminate a Mayor from the game regardless of any BG on him. You could eliminate any investigative role you wanted for X number of days regardless of who's protecting them. What's the point of Doctors and BGs if Mafia can just temporarily remove any key role from play and focus on killing the quiet protective roles while bypassing the protection they offer?

I think Blackmailing is fine bro, Mentar is mad cause it reveals who is truly blackmailed and who is faking. Town doesn't always possess the competency to know how to handle being BMed as a Sheriff or have the initiative to interpret the message they are trying to send.

Getting mad because one game the Sheriff was smart enough to send signals and a non blackmailed person was smart enough to interpret them and lead the town to follow them isn't cause to give BMer an enormous buff.

And seriously, put yourself in the shoes of someone who will be BMed by this new BM buff. It would be miserable. Imagine being chain-BMed. You'd be a stump. Being chain BMed sucks anyways, but if you couldn't even vote? Why play?

You said it yourself, death is the exact same thing as what this new BMer will do. It's a Disguiser with multiple charges that bypasses protectives. How do you not see this?

-----------------------------------------

This blackmailer bullshit is seriously a minor concern that me, another player, isn't really bothered by, and the solution that has been given in this thread is to drastically improve something that wasn't really underpowered to begin with. BMing is fine, if you really have a problem with it you need to find a much softer tweak and not drastically increase their power.

I think you might be too attached to your idea to see its flaws. It really is a bad idea.

[Slaol]

You said it yourself, death is the exact same thing as what this new BMer will do.

No I didn't. Try again.

You'd be a stump

If I was a Citizen to begin with, or perhaps a solo Mason. Luckily those never occur. just about a 100% chance that I can still do something at night.

I think you might be too attached to your idea to see its flaws. It really is a bad idea.

Explain to me the math behind it being stronger than a Disguiser, and I'll consider your stance. The only rundowns of how actions can go with the buff have proven to not have thought of how a role that CURRENTLY EXISTS would be more broken.

My bad, I just get annoyed at answering the same thing over and over.

If someone could give me a different rundown of actions comparing Blackmailer and Disguiser that be of value.
Also, if someone discussed the meta change surrounding the buff that would also be a good discussion point.

I do flame though, and I would prefer to avoid that, so plz bring more than "shits broken"

[lawson]

This thread and its ideas have gotten way out of hand. The original problem was that the silent votes give away who is BMed 100%, and how to make it so that BMing didn't reveal players as non-Mafia.

I suggest keeping it exactly how it is and making it so that BMer can BM Mafia as well. That or bring the sound back so there's no way town can differentiate between a true BM or a fake.

Look, this BMer situation is a car with an oil leak. Let's not give it a new engine, let's just fix the oil leak. You feel me?

[Slaol]

This thread and its ideas have gotten way out of hand. The original problem was that the silent votes give away who is BMed 100%, and how to make it so that BMing didn't reveal players as non-Mafia.

I suggest keeping it exactly how it is and making it so that BMer can BM Mafia as well. That or bring the sound back so there's no way town can differentiate between a true BM or a fake.

Look, this BMer situation is a car with an oil leak. Let's not give it a new engine, let's just fix the oil leak. You feel me?

This is also an acceptable solution, but I think less exciting.

[Helz]

I suppose my issue would be the leave factor. If an invest / cit was blackmailed back to back that player will very likely leave being on par with a kill.

Another Nerf would be restricting the blackmailer to every other night.. I'm pretty indifferent on the change other than that I would rather not see a vote removing bm with no restrictions. Even a mechanic to prevent him from blackmailing the same player multiple nights in a row could be a workable solution.

Someone tell elixer to unfuck his service provider and contribute : )

[yzb25]

Eh, I still prefer my idea. My idea has that slick, sexy feel to it that compensates for a lack of accomplishment in the real world.

P.S. I agree with Slaol - discussing balance isn't very fruitful, even putting to one side the fact that there are more interesting things to discuss like metagame effect. In a game where there is a possibility all the mafia die n1, a possibility that mm/vet slaughters 6 townies in one night by pure chance, and that framer can skew results to a point of irrecoverable chaos (but will usually be unable to skew any results), I don't think balance is an extremely important thing. The randomness of the game is the problem with all these perfect little scenarios that are being created to prove a point. Real games do not follow such rigid theory, and the tendency of players to do the unexpected in a PSYCHOLOGICAL GAME makes balance almost impossible to calculate mathematically. If any mathematics is calculated for balance, it will be in the form of statistics and probabilities and will still be largely subjective. Imbalances such as are being discussed will likely only surface in <1/100 games.

[DrakEmono]

Honestly, I hightly agree with the idea to remove the '-' next to the name. Did you think a little?

I will show my case:

Before the update, someone started to chain his votes to show he is blackmailed. However, there is still a possibility he lies.

Now, you just have to vote and unvote someone. At a moment, someone might notice the '-' appearing and disappearing without any message on chat. He show he is blackmailed, however, he CAN'T lie.

It's actually a nerf for the blackmailer and a buff for the blackmailed...


About the fact blackmailer prevents to vote... I'm with those who say it would be too OP...