Speed up the game! [Ideas]

[Austin]

Well for starters, players who are playing are a good start. Lassr has stuck a hard cap on days in his BSG game. What if the majority needed to lynch dropped by 1 every X days.

Day 1 -> Majority needed to lynch drops by 1 every real 1 day.
Day 2 -> Majority needed to lynch drops by 1 every real 1 day.
Day 3 -> Majority needed to lynch drops by 1 every real 2 days.
Day 3 -> Majority needed to lynch drops by 1 every real 2 days.
Day 4 -> Majority needed to lynch drops by 1 every real 3 days.
Day 5 -> Majority needed to lynch drops by 1 every real 4 days.

It would depend on the number of players of course. It might be a good wolf indicator to see who seems to be stalling for time too.

[Chaosraven]

Hard cap on time for either day or night is ok, as long as it is set out ahead of time.

I ran one with a Hard 24hr deadline with Plurality rather than Majority.

Guess it depends on the objective. Allowing the potential for multiple days of discussion is good for a collection of players who aren't on the same schedule (me, for example, as I transition from Midnight to Day to Afternoon schedules across every 4 weeks)

24hr? 48hr? 72hr?

Those of you who login only during the day, imagine if the majority of chatter took place from 9pm to 5am, with the day closing out at 7am...

I think it might be better to have a ((set time)) based on ((number)) of remaining players.
I do like the Time Limit lassr has been using, as it allows all involved to know what time remains.
(and in the face to face games we were playing, the mod did indeed institute a countdown)

[Kraegor]

speed generally favors the evil side.

I admit early days lag a bit. more the fault of the players not rules. everyone waits for the defacto vocals to speak.

once its apparent the vocals will or will not be making an overt move... the dominoes start to fall.
need something to tweak the "wait for a leader to step up" dynamic.

perhaps day 1 has a forced vote of some sort. instead of "check in" you have to accuse someone.

[Semaj]

I see no point in this, I dont think I've ever lived long enough to worry about it..

[Austin]

I agree with the sentiment that people actually playing is the biggest factor. Just thinking about ideas though. I agree with Kraegor that deadlines tend to favor the wolves but they could certainly be watched to see who is not too eager, or who appears over-eager to beat the deadline.

[Remus West]

Dealines favor the wolves. True.

Hard deadlines with plurality favor the wolves much more.

Deadlines where nothing happens if you do not reach majority favor them less.

[Chaosraven]

Deadlines where nothing happens if you do not reach majority favor them less.

You mean, "No Lynch"?

I disagree.

That would mean the Wolves have a 100% kill rate whereas the Village has 0% chance of finding a Wolf.

The Population would fall slower. But at an AUTOMATIC rate of 1 villager per day+night.

[purge]

I would think that majority reached or highest count at hard deadline would suffice to curtail those players who sign up and don't show up.

[Grundbegriff]

I would think that majority reached or highest count at hard deadline would suffice to curtail those players who sign up and don't show up.

+1

Deadlines force action on the part of the Village, which favors the Wolves a bit. But a slight tilt wolfward is just the thing to incentivize participation.

Folks who miss the deadline can be understood to have gone along with the flow. Pluralities ahoy!

[Lassr]

I would think that majority reached or highest count at hard deadline would suffice to curtail those players who sign up and don't show up.

I thought about this for my BSG game. I was originally going to go with majority vote at the end of the day is lynched. Then I wondered about ties. Also didn't want someone (a wolf) sitting back and saying well I don't have to vote, let's just let the day run out. So I went with no lynch happens. Not sure if it's the correct rule though.

[Remus West]

Deadlines where nothing happens if you do not reach majority favor them less.

You mean, "No Lynch"?

I disagree.

That would mean the Wolves have a 100% kill rate whereas the Village has 0% chance of finding a Wolf.

The Population would fall slower. But at an AUTOMATIC rate of 1 villager per day+night.

Yes, I mean no lynch. Kind of a spur to get the silent to play now isn't it. Getting that majority when there are folks not voting at all becomes harder and harder. Which means there is extra incentive for the village to kill the silent ones early.

[Semaj]

you could weigh votes by post count?

Someone who posts once every 2 or 3 days might get 1/3rd of a vote.

Someone who posts 10 times a day might have his worth 2....

And no, 2 lines wouldnt qualify as a post...

[Chaosraven]

you could weigh votes by post count?

I'm Chaosraving, and I approved this message.

[purge]

I would think that majority reached or highest count at hard deadline would suffice to curtail those players who sign up and don't show up.

I thought about this for my BSG game. I was originally going to go with majority vote at the end of the day is lynched. Then I wondered about ties. Also didn't want someone (a wolf) sitting back and saying well I don't have to vote, let's just let the day run out. So I went with no lynch happens. Not sure if it's the correct rule though.

Ties add an element of strategy though; it means that the wolves/villagers have the opportunity to sway others to tie up the vote come crunch time. I think a lynch HAS to happen, and a provision in the rules can state that a tie can delay the lynching process by another 8 real-time hours. In this 8 hours each side has the opportunity to sway the members of the other side.

If no conclusion is reached at the end of the 8 hour blitz, the moderator will randomly select anyone who hasn't voted will be to vote for one of the candidates (the vote itself is also randomly assigned by the mod). That means if a wolf sits out of the vote, they could be called upon to vote one way or the other, regardless of allegiance. Since they sat out, one side of the conflict has forced them to go with them under duress.

In a case where ALL people have voted but the vote count is equal, it could be handled in one of two ways:
- the mod will randomly select one person's vote and have them "cave in"
- the mod will randomly select one person's vote and add weight to it, tipping the scales in favor of their decision. (say one person is more convincing, or pushy, etc..)

I really like this idea, BTW.

[Lassr]

I would think that majority reached or highest count at hard deadline would suffice to curtail those players who sign up and don't show up.

I thought about this for my BSG game. I was originally going to go with majority vote at the end of the day is lynched. Then I wondered about ties. Also didn't want someone (a wolf) sitting back and saying well I don't have to vote, let's just let the day run out. So I went with no lynch happens. Not sure if it's the correct rule though.

Ties add an element of strategy though; it means that the wolves/villagers have the opportunity to sway others to tie up the vote come crunch time. I think a lynch HAS to happen, and a provision in the rules can state that a tie can delay the lynching process by another 8 real-time hours. In this 8 hours each side has the opportunity to sway the members of the other side.

If no conclusion is reached at the end of the 8 hour blitz, the moderator will randomly select anyone who hasn't voted will be to vote for one of the candidates (the vote itself is also randomly assigned by the mod). That means if a wolf sits out of the vote, they could be called upon to vote one way or the other, regardless of allegiance. Since they sat out, one side of the conflict has forced them to go with them under duress.

In a case where ALL people have voted but the vote count is equal, it could be handled in one of two ways:
- the mod will randomly select one person's vote and have them "cave in"
- the mod will randomly select one person's vote and add weight to it, tipping the scales in favor of their decision. (say one person is more convincing, or pushy, etc..)

I really like this idea, BTW.

or just randomly lynch someone that hasn't voted...

[purge]

While I see that as working as punishment; the fact that their strategy (or RL tragedies) shouldn't hold up the game.

[theohall]

you could weigh votes by post count?

Someone who posts once every 2 or 3 days might get 1/3rd of a vote.

Someone who posts 10 times a day might have his worth 2....

And no, 2 lines wouldnt qualify as a post...

this would be hell on mods. Having to a) count posts b) count lines per post and hope one of the frequent posters doesn't post while trying to go through a 33 page thread counting posts and lines per post.

[theohall]

Deadlines where nothing happens if you do not reach majority favor them less.

You mean, "No Lynch"?

I disagree.

That would mean the Wolves have a 100% kill rate whereas the Village has 0% chance of finding a Wolf.

The Population would fall slower. But at an AUTOMATIC rate of 1 villager per day+night.

Yes, I mean no lynch. Kind of a spur to get the silent to play now isn't it. Getting that majority when there are folks not voting at all becomes harder and harder. Which means there is extra incentive for the village to kill the silent ones early.

I am 100% behind getting the silent to actually communicate, vice the player who posts once every two pages of a thread with nothing but a vote and zero discussion. So I like the idea of the village getting a "No lynch" result for not reaching a majority. Why should the village get a pass when the village, as a group, won't participate?

The only flaw I see in this - wolves not voting later resulting in a non-lynch. Although, if the non-wolf villagers all voted and made their thoughts known, this wouldn't matter. That's the problem, reading through several of these game threads, non-special villagers tend not to participate - with a few exceptions.

The counter-counter problem - some folks expressing their thoughts would be completely misread resulting in lynching when they are trying to stay alive.

Sticky wicket - but I'm behind anything that gets ALL villagers - special and non-special - to actually participate in a game.

And on that thought....

If there is a tie in the vote and someone hasn't posted in 2 real days or more without any explanation - they automatically get lynched. This prevents silent good guys and silent bad guys.

[Unagi]

I'd be curious of what you all feel about an idea I was going to attach to my (coming soon!) game:

First, the game would have a hard deadline for the end of the day (like Lassr's recent BSG game).

As usual, any majority vote reached before that hard deadline would end the day and the lynch would begin.

If the deadline was reached and there was a 'deadlock' tie (14 players, 7 to 7 tie)
- then the player that first reached 7 votes (and held at 7) would be the lynch victim.

If the deadline was reached and there was not a tie - (14 players, say a three person : 6 to 4 to 4 vote)
- then the player that has the most votes would be the lynch victim.

If the deadline was reached and there was not a deadlock, but there was a tie (14 players, say a four person : 5 to 5 to 2 to 2 vote)
- then the player that first reached 5 votes (and held at 5) would be the lynch victim.
- (or) we'd extend the "day" for 2 more RL days, clear the votes - and only allow for votes on those 2 players (a run-off election, if you will) ...

[Unagi]

That's the problem, reading through several of these game threads, non-special villagers tend not to participate - with a few exceptions.

I honestly feel like that is a recent development - and not all that common.

Frankly - I think that a good part of this game's thrill is indeed playing as a villager. Now, I certainly agree that it's not a ton of fun to only get the villager role in a ton of games - but taking your turn for a few games should not be a big deal to anyone that actually likes these games (and I think for the majority of the players, that is indeed the case.)

Not having a 'power' doesn't mean you are excluded from the game at all (it's nearly the opposite) - I would rather the people that are only signing up "to be the super duper special" just don't play at all.

[Chaosraven]

I'd be curious of what you all feel about an idea I was going to attach to my (coming soon!) game:

First, the game would have a hard deadline for the end of the day (like Lassr's recent BSG game).

As usual, any majority vote reached before that hard deadline would end the day and the lynch would begin.

If the deadline was reached and there was a 'deadlock' tie (14 players, 7 to 7 tie)
- then the player that first reached 7 votes (and held at 7) would be the lynch victim.

If the deadline was reached and there was not a tie - (14 players, say a three person : 6 to 4 to 4 vote)
- then the player that has the most votes would be the lynch victim.

If the deadline was reached and there was not a deadlock, but there was a tie (14 players, say a four person : 5 to 5 to 2 to 2 vote)
- then the player that first reached 5 votes (and held at 5) would be the lynch victim.
- (or) we'd extend the "day" for 2 more RL days, clear the votes - and only allow for votes on those 2 players (a run-off election, if you will) ...

I have tried versions of "plurality" versus "majority" in the past.
I believe I had set a 24hr (realtime) deadline for the vote, essentially because I could come home and Close the Vote, then go read what transpired.

Actually, as far as "silent players" goes, there have been Lurking Good Powered, Lurking Evil, and of course the Lurkers themselves (who have a reputation for doing just this, and have to restrain themselves when Powered to avoid giving themselves away, notably tru1cy among others, but has learned to control himself in the latter games)

And then there are those who simply cannot shut up as well.
Because, as you may note, if I'm not leading the post count by a strong margin, I get referred to as "quiet"

[Grundbegriff]

I'd be curious of what you all feel about an idea I was going to attach to my (coming soon!) game:

First, the game would have a hard deadline for the end of the day (like Lassr's recent BSG game).

As usual, any majority vote reached before that hard deadline would end the day and the lynch would begin.

If the deadline was reached and there was a 'deadlock' tie (14 players, 7 to 7 tie)
- then the player that first reached 7 votes (and held at 7) would be the lynch victim.

I like this a lot. It's fair in the sense that those already voting for the guy who reached 7 first are glad to see him go, and those who object can't complain since they had a fair shot at killing the guy who reached 7 second. If all votes are used up in a 7/7 tie, then the folks on the losing bandwagon failed in persuasion fair and square.

I think I'll use this system next time I run a game: hard deadlines, with death going to majority / plurality / first-to-the-tie.

[Grundbegriff]

That's the problem, reading through several of these game threads, non-special villagers tend not to participate - with a few exceptions.

I honestly feel like that is a recent development - and not all that common.

Frankly - I think that a good part of this game's thrill is indeed playing as a villager. Now, I certainly agree that it's not a ton of fun to only get the villager role in a ton of games - but taking your turn for a few games should not be a big deal to anyone that actually likes these games (and I think for the majority of the players, that is indeed the case.)

Unagi's right. As far as games at OO go, this play-only-if-special thing is new.

I've always maintained that Simple Villager is the most powerful (and potentially the most interesting) role to play.

Not having a 'power' doesn't mean you are excluded from the game at all (it's nearly the opposite) - I would rather the people that are only signing up "to be the super duper special" just don't play at all.

Yup.

[Lassr]

I think there's going to have to be a month or two break just so people will be itching to get back and participate again.

But alas, someone would start a "simple game while we wait for everyone to take a break" game...

[Lassr]

I'd be curious of what you all feel about an idea I was going to attach to my (coming soon!) game:

First, the game would have a hard deadline for the end of the day (like Lassr's recent BSG game).

As usual, any majority vote reached before that hard deadline would end the day and the lynch would begin.

If the deadline was reached and there was a 'deadlock' tie (14 players, 7 to 7 tie)
- then the player that first reached 7 votes (and held at 7) would be the lynch victim.

I like this a lot. It's fair in the sense that those already voting for the guy who reached 7 first are glad to see him go, and those who object can't complain since they had a fair shot at killing the guy who reached 7 second. If all votes are used up in a 7/7 tie, then the folks on the losing bandwagon failed in persuasion fair and square.

I think I'll use this system next time I run a game: hard deadlines, with death going to majority / plurality / first-to-the-tie.

+1
I like it, and will probably use it if/when I run another BSG game...

[Unagi]

This isn't an idea designed to speed the game up (all though perhaps it could... but none the less, it's not the intent)....


I'd be curious to hear what people think about this insane idea:

Wolves may only kill during a night where 'the majority of wolves' (1 in the case of 2 wolves) were on the lynching vote that preceded the night.

crazy? meaningless?

I just wanted to give stessier something to muse about for a bit.

(I do not plan to try it out in my first game, in any case)

[Chaosraven]

This isn't an idea designed to speed the game up (all though perhaps it could... but none the less, it's not the intent)....


I'd be curious to hear what people think about this insane idea:

Wolves may only kill during a night where 'the majority of wolves' (1 in the case of 2 wolves) were on the lynching vote that preceded the night.

crazy? meaningless?

I just wanted to give stessier something to muse about for a bit.

(I do not plan to try it out in my first game, in any case)

If you mean Voted with the Majority, waaaaaay too much information for the village.

11 players with 2 wolves, Day One Majority - 6.
This means one wolf is Automatically to be found within those 6.
With Specials outing that wolf is certain to be found.
At 1 wolf left, does he have to be in on the vote?

15 players with 3 wolves, Day One Majority - 8.
This means 2 of 3 Wolves are now to be found within 8 Players.

This is heavily constrictive to the hiding places the Wolves have, and means that the Wolves HAVE to participate whereas the normal villagers DON'T.

[Unagi]

Yeah, I thought it would probably be too 'exposing', but perhaps something like 1 wolf must be? I dunno - I am trying to think of ways to "make" the wolves participate a bit. But, I do think the 'good guys' should be under some simular restriction.

Maybe: place no vote - you are frail and can be killed by wolves without the wolves even wasting their night kill on ya....