Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bookthras]

I think I missed those games... So, survivors, yes? Plural. Interesting. They can't win as a team at all, can they? Only if someone else wins as faction (yeah, that's what "survivor" means, just making sure).

Please, if you have time, and given Cybrid is an open-setup and all that, do tell us a bit more about how you'd balance an 11-p game, how to allocate Officers within the teams, and when and why you'd choose to add these neutral survivors to the mix.

Thanks.

[GlyphGryph]

The number of survivors really depends on the strength of the cybrids - weaker cybrid teams (for example, if they started out with only one convert and it was unreliable) are generally balance by taking members from both the Imperials and Rebels and making them neutrals. If I have more than one neutral, one (and maybe both) non-cybrid sides will have a persuader. There are really two options here:

Pull survivors from (or mostly from) one side: Give that side a persuader, but not the other. Example 5I-2N-3R-1C

This leaves the rebels a bit weaker earlier off, and losing their persuader is a huge hit, but since they can probably convert 2 or 3 of the Imperials as well, leaves them in a potentially strong position late game. Since a survivors job is merely to end the game as quickly as possible, this DOES give the imperials a decent advantage early on - but then, it only takes one rebel persuade to achieve parity. This would probably be somewhat balanced by giving the teams an equal number of power roles (so the rebel team would probably end up doubled at least once, and then have the ability to get more power roles as well, since I generally favour neutrals for roles like Doctor). Note that this can be done with a stronger cybrid team since it still leaves a decently powerful "town" block.

OR
Pull survivors equally from both teams. For example, 2I-2R-1C-6N
This is a bit like a three way cybrid-team game in many ways - all teams would have powerful leaders and the ability to recruit. This make bussing, rather than defending, a VERY difficult choice if they are the persuader. Its risky - and it means a lot less direct opposition to the cybrid early on. The neturals know they are going to be recruited by someone and probably won't have much incentive to be active - which is why I'd probably add a few flavour mechanics on top of this sort of game (more than in most) to keep things moving.
-------

The first option up there is by and far my preferred setup, though the others can be fun.

[Servant Corps]

Like in Cybrid I (and, I think, two), they are Neutral Survivors - their goal is to survive and are likely to wind up converted by one team or another (they are always convertible).

I don't recall there being any Neutral Survivors in those two games, and the role list for Cybrid #1 backs me up on that. As Neutral Survivors don't show up on the rolelist, I think its existence needs to be disclosed if and hwen you plan on using it.

[GlyphGryph]

HUH. You're right. My notes just had me cast people as Imperial or Rebel. The only "other" there was the cybrid sympathizer. I'm pretty sure someone had asked at some point if it could be something else and I mentioned it being other standard mafia wincons - survivor being most likely. But huh. Cybrid 2 was the first to even introduce that.

We I'll be damned. I know nothing about my own game, heh. Actually, I've realized mentally that I really only count certain dudes as one side or the others - the officers, the "unconvertibles". I... need to fix that. So... ignore all that. Everything I said was bullshit. I am 100% bullshit. Now you all know my secret, I balance my game with pure, unadultered bullshit.

Anyways, I WILL be posting the new roles list before the game starts, and I'll make sure to include them in it. I'll probably post the breakdown between Imperials/Rebels/Other too.

Oh and also dudes I'm planning on neutral survivors, I should probably make a not of that.

[GlyphGryph]

Fellow mods -

How would you recommend I handle simultaneous actions of the same type? For example:

A blocks B, B blocks C - Does C get blocked, yes or no?

I'm thinking yes - actions are processed in a random order at each step, but as long as they were valid at the beginning of the step they remain valid.

So people could kill each other, or block each other, and blocking someone would stop their killing, but killing them would not, thus people could kill each other in the night (or convert each other, in my game). Events that depend on other events at the same step (such as who gets the killed if two players both target a one use vengekill dude with the same action) are processed in a random order and only the first is killed (but both would succeed).

Does this seem reasonable, or is there a better approach?

[webadict]

Fellow mods -

How would you recommend I handle simultaneous actions of the same type? For example:

A blocks B, B blocks C - Does C get blocked, yes or no?

I'm thinking yes - actions are processed in a random order at each step, but as long as they were valid at the beginning of the step they remain valid.

So people could kill each other, or block each other, and blocking someone would stop their killing, but killing them would not, thus people could kill each other in the night (or convert each other, in my game). Events that depend on other events at the same step (such as who gets the killed if two players both target a one use vengekill dude with the same action) are processed in a random order and only the first is killed (but both would succeed).

Does this seem reasonable, or is there a better approach?

I let all actions of each type happen at a certain time.

Blocks happen all at the same time in most of my games, so C does get blocked.

[Leafsnail]

I would have C unblocked.  Otherwise your roleblockers are effectively immune to blocks and you should tell them this (which is a fine, option, #mafia does it).

[Mephansteras]

I'd handle it the same as webadict.

[webadict]

I would have C unblocked.  Otherwise your roleblockers are effectively immune to blocks and you should tell them this (which is a fine, option, #mafia does it).

That's usually how they are in my game. It's just easier.

[Think0028]

On one hand, I'd say C does not get blocked, as that would minimize the side effects of action resolution (blockers wouldn't suddenly become immune to blocks based on execution order). That said, I don't think you can universally resolve all disputes without doing something like time-of-submission resolution.

[Toaster]

I spelled out this situation explicitly in Roguelike:

Blocking a blocker takes precedence over blocking a non-blocker.

So in your case, C would not be blocked.

[webadict]

I spelled out this situation explicitly in Roguelike:

Blocking a blocker takes precedence over blocking a non-blocker.

So in your case, C would not be blocked.

But then what about something along the lines of:

A blocks B
B blocks A

Who gets blocked?

This matters in my games because you can have a player do two or more actions, and my games also send a message if blocked.

Therefore, if A is blocked, B cannot be blocked and vice versa, but if neither are blocked, then A or B could perform another action.

They cannot both be blocked, as that would create a paradox. Therefore, the simplest solution is that no blocker may block another blocker unless they have precedence.

It's not ideal, no, but it solves all the problems I could have.

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, I think I've decided on the setup where both of them would be blocked - basically, actions are submitted at the beginning of the precedence phase and processed randomly after it, but an action is never /withdrawn/ once it has been submitted. So you can't block a block, because the action is already in the stack, even if the player themselves is still blocked.

[webadict]

Yeah, I think I've decided on the setup where both of them would be blocked - basically, actions are submitted at the beginning of the precedence phase and processed randomly after it, but an action is never /withdrawn/ once it has been submitted. So you can't block a block, because the action is already in the stack, even if the player themselves is still blocked.

But that would just confuse the blocker that got blocked.

[GlyphGryph]

Well, they would only receive a blocked message for actions that were actually prevented - though the character /counts/ as having had a block action done to them (for various other game purposes, watchers or paranoid gunowner or whatevers), no actions prevented would mean no PM about actions that were prevented, unless they tried to take another action as well.