The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This looks like a three game sequence, is that correct?

And the 36/24 split on day/night phases will be interesting. I've always wanted to play a game where the phase ended in the morning.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This looks like a three game sequence, is that correct?

And the 36/24 split on day/night phases will be interesting. I've always wanted to play a game where the phase ended in the morning.

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This looks like a three game sequence, is that correct?

And the 36/24 split on day/night phases will be interesting. I've always wanted to play a game where the phase ended in the morning.

I think it's rather like your four-paradigm tree-hugging game. One gets picked at the start of the game.

I think a 36/24 cycle would send the deadlines spinning too much. Let's say D1 starts at 10pm (evening); it'll end at 10am two days later (morning); but then N1 will also end at 10am (morning) the day after and then D2 will last until 10pm (evening), two days later etc. See how morning and evening deadlines keep switcherooing? It may be problematic to different players, having different timezones or schedules.

I'd endorse a 36/12, though.

I'll review later how feasible it is for a traditional game, but you know me, I'll like them peppered with intricacy.

Ricochet wrote:Slot One sounds too kill friendly and the issue with it is in what direction it might drive the game's balance and dynamics. Let's just imagine the scenario in which Tessa would use her vigi kill on D1 + get killed on N1, taking with her the killer and the protected player + the other killing faction (either Mafia or SK) would not be affected and would kill as well. That's a maximum range of 5 casualties for a single cycle, meaning D2 would commence with 8 players (in which the town-mafia-sk balance would be hard to project) instead of the traditional 11 (one lynch, one kill). And if from those 8 players, the SK would be unscathed by Tessa's demise and the Mafia would also successfully recruit, that'd be a 4-3-1 structure, sounding like sudden lylo for the civs...on Day 2.

I noticed how kill-friendly Slot One has the potential to be, which made me consider MM's idea of making this a game with three sequences (though I'm not sure if it would qualify as a Bank Heist if I were to implement that). Slot One is very much meant to be filled with unexpected deaths, but you are correct in that it could make for an awfully short game.

Even if none of the above happen at such a worse-case alarming rate, a mafia team of already three gathering, gradually, new recruits, sounds awfully unbalancing. Usually, only a loner role, such as the SK/LMS, should be invested with possible recruitements abilities.

My consolation with one of the mafia member's being able to recruit is how many things can go wrong in doing so. If the mafia member (information crew) recruiting other players dies they all die with it, and each new member it recruits makes it require one less vote to be lynched. And with Tessa blocking one player and protecting another each night, and with the SK doing the same on even nights for another player, I feel that the mafia isn't too well-equipped if Tessa and the SK are alive.

---

Reviewing Slot Two fared much better, meaning that in principle a protector against the SK and the mafia having a shot to remove either the civ powered player's or the SK's powers sounds fair enough (not sure what the SK's voyeuring would amount to, though), until a few of the "worlds" made me rub my eyeballs. Vigilante Wars sounds like total mayhem, Forensic Mafia would require a lot of deaths already having taken place (or everyone will basically just sniff the same one or two corpses). The others are ok, I think the civs could handle one phase of slightly shenanigan'd voting (because of Democracy) and the baddies could survive a Night in which their kill will probably bounce off anyone (because of Hospital Utopia).

My consolation here is that the player who possesses these worlds is town-aligned, meaning they would have to be smart to enact Vigilante Wars and Forensic Mafia at the right time. If this player was the SK or mafia then it wouldn't be fair, but I think since the player has to use these abilities with caution for both their own survival and the rest of the civs, I don't think it would make things unbalanced. Crazy, absolutely, but unbalanced? I'm not so sure.

---

Slot Three looks fine. I'm not sure if a mafia Silencer is the kind of role that can compensate for there being a cop and a chatty guy on the town's side (especially since the silenced can still vote, therefore potentially affect the Mafia), others will have to pitch in on this.

I wasn't sure which power role to give to the mafia in this setup, and I think you may be right here. Do you have another suggestion for a mafia role that would compensate for town's?

---

Please note that these observations are only based on judging the slots as being implemented for a classic/traditional/heist game, which, at its standard 13-player dimensions, doesn't usually have a lot of wiggle room for shenanigans and complex outcomes (...says the guy who pitched multiple twists for his Chromatic Scale Mafia ). I would otherwise have no personal issue giving it a go with either of these three installments. Slot One definitely sounds like it could use a more substantial roster than 13 - aka maybe a Speed, if not a Full game.

This is a very good point. Do you think it would be improved by combining the three slots into a single game? If the players' role cards are randomized for each slot then their wins could be tallied up and ranked at the end of all three to determine who won the most times and so on? Again my concern here would be that it wouldn't qualify as a bank heist game, but then again, with as much madness going on in this setup as there is, even with as a game with three sequences it might not be too lengthy. Let me know if that sounds good.

Hope this feedback is helpful.

It definitely is, thank you.

Also, why is the indy ??? always a she?

Because it is the same character in each slot, whose name is unknown.

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This looks like a three game sequence, is that correct?

And the 36/24 split on day/night phases will be interesting. I've always wanted to play a game where the phase ended in the morning.

If by three-game sequence you mean all three will be played, I think that would be too lengthy for a Bank Heist game. I was actually inspired by your Trees game to have one of the three be selected randomly at the start of the game.

And my main intent with the 36/24 split is for multiple time zones to be covered equally for the days and nights, and by having 36 hour days, the period for each shift will change over the course of the game. For the aussies and New Zealender(s?) you know.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This looks like a three game sequence, is that correct?

And the 36/24 split on day/night phases will be interesting. I've always wanted to play a game where the phase ended in the morning.

If by three-game sequence you mean all three will be played, I think that would be too lengthy for a Bank Heist game. I was actually inspired by your Trees game to have one of the three be selected randomly at the start of the game.

And my main intent with the 36/24 split is for multiple time zones to be covered equally for the days and nights, and by having 36 hour days, the period for each shift will change over the course of the game. For the aussies and New Zealender(s?) you know.

I know some folks were talking about creating series of Heists that would take place one at a time. Then I remembered you were talking about the multiple-paradigm plan. I ended up confusing those two ideas.

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This looks like a three game sequence, is that correct?

And the 36/24 split on day/night phases will be interesting. I've always wanted to play a game where the phase ended in the morning.

If by three-game sequence you mean all three will be played, I think that would be too lengthy for a Bank Heist game. I was actually inspired by your Trees game to have one of the three be selected randomly at the start of the game.

And my main intent with the 36/24 split is for multiple time zones to be covered equally for the days and nights, and by having 36 hour days, the period for each shift will change over the course of the game. For the aussies and New Zealender(s?) you know.

I know some folks were talking about creating series of Heists that would take place one at a time. Then I remembered you were talking about the multiple-paradigm plan. I ended up confusing those two ideas.

I'm interested. A series of Heists played back-to-back with the same players, perhaps?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:This looks like a three game sequence, is that correct?

And the 36/24 split on day/night phases will be interesting. I've always wanted to play a game where the phase ended in the morning.

If by three-game sequence you mean all three will be played, I think that would be too lengthy for a Bank Heist game. I was actually inspired by your Trees game to have one of the three be selected randomly at the start of the game.

And my main intent with the 36/24 split is for multiple time zones to be covered equally for the days and nights, and by having 36 hour days, the period for each shift will change over the course of the game. For the aussies and New Zealender(s?) you know.

I know some folks were talking about creating series of Heists that would take place one at a time. Then I remembered you were talking about the multiple-paradigm plan. I ended up confusing those two ideas.

I'm interested. A series of Heists played back-to-back with the same players, perhaps?

Ooh, that would be awesome if we could get the same players each time.

Different role distribution of course. :P

a2thezebra wrote:
My intent with the 36/24 cycle was to get the deadlines spinning to spice things up a bit. But if that doesn't sound appealing then I can change it to 36/12 or the standard 48/24.

a2thezebra wrote:My consolation here is that the player who possesses these worlds is town-aligned, meaning they would have to be smart to enact Vigilante Wars and Forensic Mafia at the right time. If this player was the SK or mafia then it wouldn't be fair, but I think since the player has to use these abilities with caution for both their own survival and the rest of the civs, I don't think it would make things unbalanced. Crazy, absolutely, but unbalanced? I'm not so sure.

a2thezebra wrote:I wasn't sure which power role to give to the mafia in this setup, and I think you may be right here. Do you have another suggestion for a mafia role that would compensate for town's?

a2thezebra wrote:This is a very good point. Do you think it would be improved by combining the three slots into a single game? If the players' role cards are randomized for each slot then their wins could be tallied up and ranked at the end of all three to determine who won the most times and so on? Again my concern here would be that it wouldn't qualify as a bank heist game, but then again, with as much madness going on in this setup as there is, even with as a game with three sequences it might not be too lengthy. Let me know if that sounds good.

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:
My intent with the 36/24 cycle was to get the deadlines spinning to spice things up a bit. But if that doesn't sound appealing then I can change it to 36/12 or the standard 48/24.

Idk, you'd have to ask more players, just felt like pointing it out, especially considering you'd also issue a miss-and-it's-curtains-for-ya participation.

I could manage deadline spins better than I can usually manage deadlines that are far up in the dead of night's ass over here.

I'm hoping that this would encourage the busier players to vote early rather than miss the vote, but this is a good point. I'll see what others think. If it isn't received well overall then I think I'll go with 48/24, since 36/12 doesn't leave enough room for night actions IMO.

a2thezebra wrote:My consolation here is that the player who possesses these worlds is town-aligned, meaning they would have to be smart to enact Vigilante Wars and Forensic Mafia at the right time. If this player was the SK or mafia then it wouldn't be fair, but I think since the player has to use these abilities with caution for both their own survival and the rest of the civs, I don't think it would make things unbalanced. Crazy, absolutely, but unbalanced? I'm not so sure.

Fair point, but it's still a "free vigi kill for everyone". Do vigi killers usually think about their actions that hard or do they shoot at first or second impulse? Multiply that by 8 civilians.

My assumption (and granted, it is an assumption) is that Vigilante Wars would not be chosen until very late in the game, most likely as a last ditch effort and only a last ditch effort. But you're right, if it were enacted earlier it would definitely be some insanity to behold and the game wouldn't last long afterwards.

a2thezebra wrote:I wasn't sure which power role to give to the mafia in this setup, and I think you may be right here. Do you have another suggestion for a mafia role that would compensate for town's?

Again, the more traditional a design is meant to be, the less I'm sure what the right design is. So far I've seen the mafia being attributed a Godfather to compensate for town having civs, doctors, etc. Or maybe a Stronghold? Or maybe a blocker? Either way, I think the principle is, it should be something to either loosen the strength of the civ's important power or make it worthwhile for the mafia to evade something in the process.

Godfather sounds perfect to counter the cop's upper hand somewhat, I think I'll go with that for the update, thank you!

a2thezebra wrote:This is a very good point. Do you think it would be improved by combining the three slots into a single game? If the players' role cards are randomized for each slot then their wins could be tallied up and ranked at the end of all three to determine who won the most times and so on? Again my concern here would be that it wouldn't qualify as a bank heist game, but then again, with as much madness going on in this setup as there is, even with as a game with three sequences it might not be too lengthy. Let me know if that sounds good.

It's worth considering it, G-Man already projected a series of heist-size games and that one is more than likely to receive green light. A three-peat game would compensate, overall, in case one of the three games would go tits up, nonetheless I still feel it's worth trying to give each of the three slots a fair chance of going smoothly.