View Full Version : Mafia Wars, suggestions and rules thread
After the Mafia Wars I saga, I thought we should have a thread for talking about the flaws of the game (if any), and give suggestions which could improve the experience of what already is a cool experience, without talking about it and thus interfering in the actual thread where the game is played.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So far, I only have one suggestion: the game is in need of certain tweaks in order to establish a better balance between the mob and the townies.
My suggestion is, more specifically:
* the mob has too much of an advantage, and I do not think adding more special roles will fix the key flaw at hand; what we have is a problem with time, even without roles, if there was a time limit to the amount of time you can go without saying anything.... this would force everyone into speaking up, and thus create/force interaction between mobsters and townies, which is what was needed in the Mafia Wars I saga to keep the game flowing instead of turning into a stalemate for undetermined amounts of time.
* a time limit should be set, so that after a determined time span everyone HAS to comment....
* the time limit should be that everyone (mobster or townie) MUST comment at least once, one hour before the day ends; if anyone does not meet the deadline.... this would result in the townies or mobsters getting an upgrade in terms of roles or special powers such as "the reviver role", thus there would be serious consequences which could affect the outcome of the game, if the deadline is ignored by anyone.
* the roles would thus complement with the deadline that should be respected, and you have that last hour before the day ends to spark things up.
* perhaps someone, one person from each team, could have the special ability or role, of not saying anything without receiving the penalty; perhaps "lying low role" or something like that.
* also, since there would be a deadline to meet, it would also make sense to put a limit on the amount of words that can be used; for instance, ONE day will always have a FIRST post from each user.... the mentioned first post should have a restriction or policy to it, it should be comprehensive enough to force the user into provoking suspicion, the more words required the more interesting the game would be because it would require more cunningness from your part; on the other hand, if you already posted once throughout the day, there would be no limit to the amount of words that can be used after the first post of the day.
I think that could improve what already is a cool experience. Feel free to correct me if I missed something, or add your own suggestion if you notice any irregularities with the current format of the game.
Yeah I think that everyone should post anyway. The first game we played there were a few people who didn't post, leaving easy targets for the mafia.
That mean the mafia could dwindle our numbers without having any serious impact upon the game, and leaving us townies with no real suspicion as to why they killed said person. Pretty silly really.
Yeah I think that everyone should post anyway. The first game we played there were a few people who didn't post, leaving easy targets for the mafia.
That mean the mafia could dwindle our numbers without having any serious impact upon the game, and leaving us townies with no real suspicion as to why they killed said person. Pretty silly really.
So far I've written from page 1 to page 35 (I think) from the Mafia Wars I saga, it's probably the most hilarious thing I've ever seen in this forum.
But what I noticed is, is that the people who don't post kinda spoil the game; I think that even without roles, the game would have been more balanced if the mafia members had to comment at least once before the last hour of the day.... I think that could spark things up at the end of the day.
The roles are cool but the roles will not fix the lack of comments to work with, without comments the game becomes stale, although still funny because you end up with paranoid townies arguing amongst themselves.
My opinion is that the roles could be used to complement with a deadline; for instance, if anyone (townie or mobster) does not comment at least once before the last hour of the day, that would result in you loosing your role or special ability for the subsequent day.... I think that might make the game a bit more interesting.
Dundon's
04-02-2011, 18:51
I was planning on doing a Kaiser Soze on the game and getting right in the middle of the town debates but for that poxy fucking serial killer. To this day I haven't a clue why I was picked first as I would of at least posted like a MOFO and brought something to the game overall.
I didn't really care which side won but I'm out of the banter now way too soon which is a bit of a sickner for me as I was looking forward to V2 for ages. :P
As Godfather I should of had a bodyguard anyways to protect me, a clear flaw in the way the game was setup this time around. We'll just have to put it down to experience and move on.
So far I've written from page 1 to page 35 (I think) from the Mafia Wars I saga, it's probably the most hilarious thing I've ever seen in this forum.
But what I noticed is, is that the people who don't post kinda spoil the game; I think that even without roles, the game would have been more balanced if the mafia members had to comment at least once before the last hour of the day.... I think that could spark things up at the end of the day.
The roles are cool but the roles will not fix the lack of comments to work with, without comments the game becomes stale, although still funny because you end up with paranoid townies arguing amongst themselves.
My opinion is that the roles could be used to complement with a deadline; for instance, if anyone (townie or mobster) does not comment at least once before the last hour of the day, that would result in you loosing your role or special ability for the subsequent day.... I think that might make the game a bit more interesting.
Totally agree man, and it's definitely something to consider for future games.
Why would people join the game though if they didn't want to post, and ultimately play the game? I think it's poor form to do such a thing because, as you've said, it makes the game stale.
Everyone should have to post man, otherwise there's no point in them even being in the game.
Although it's a double edged sword because as we've seen in game one, the people who don't post could be mafia as well as town, so it could disadvantage the mafia just as equally as it could the town. Although the town don't start off with much advantage anyway, it still could give advantage to either side.
Totally agree man, and it's definitely something to consider for future games.
Why would people join the game though if they didn't want to post, and ultimately play the game? I think it's poor form to do such a thing because, as you've said, it makes the game stale.
Everyone should have to post man, otherwise there's no point in them even being in the game.
Although it's a double edged sword because as we've seen in game one, the people who don't post could be mafia as well as town, so it could disadvantage the mafia just as equally as it could the town. Although the town don't start off with much advantage anyway, it still could give advantage to either side.
Have the roles made a great deal of difference in game two? or do you think that the game is still a bit spoiled by the lack of comments?
As for the people who don't comment, to be honest, I think it's cool to have a few silent and non-cooperative dudes out there, it adds a bit of mystery and variety to the game; however, I really think everyone involved in the game should be forced into commenting at least once before the final hour of the day.
And there should be a penalty for whomever does not comment before the final hour of the day; it will always be a double edged sword, but at the same time, it gives a better balance to the game.
The townies have more numbers but the mob cannot kill one of their own, same as in game one, only difference would be that everyone would be forced into exposing themselves.
The thing that spoiled the Mafia Wars I game, for me, was that the mobsters knew who their cosa nostra fellows were and yet the mobsters did not necessarily needed to comment anything, which gave them a massive advantage.
Even without roles, if both the townies and the mobster had to comment at least once before the final hour of the day, this would force everyone into exposing themselves, and could ultimately be an improvement on what already is a pretty cool experience.
I feel something like that would have made a great deal of difference in the first game: forcing everyone into exposing themselves; thus, it's not a case of certain people simply deciding not to make a single comment, it would be a case of knowing that everyone will need to comment at least once before the final hour of the day.
And perhaps, a person from each team could have the ability of not commenting without receiving the penalty.
I have not seen how much of a difference the roles have made in game two, so I can't comment on that, but in game one, rather than the lack of special roles, I feel the lack of exposure was the main thing that spoiled the game.
Have the roles made a great deal of difference in game two? or do you think that the game is still a bit spoiled by the lack of comments?
The thing that spoiled the Mafia Wars I game, for me, was that the mobsters knew who their cosa nostra fellows were and yet the mobsters did not necessarily needed to comment anything, which gave them a massive advantage.
And perhaps, a person from each team could have the ability of not commenting without receiving the penalty.
I'm not sure they have to be honest, because in this game all we've seen is; A serial killer kill the mafia godfather (who didn't get a chance to use his ability), the mafia kill our reviver (who didn't get a chance to use his ability either), and us lynch our own Mason (who didn't talk, so again, didn't have the chance to use his ability).
Either way, i'd be pissed if I were the other mason. What a waste of 4 roles!!
Yeah the first game was a bit one sided, and without having roles for either team, it makes it incredibly easy for the mafia to win, since we have absolutely no advantage. I think we could maybe try a game like this;
5 mafia, 15 town; 2 of which are masons that can induct into their society.
This could be a simplistic but very interesting game that could see us grow in strength to kill all the mafia.
I think there is a role like what you have mentioned, called the Hider or something, I could be wrong though.
Billy Minof
05-02-2011, 11:42
The only problem is that you cannot make someone post although I think that if someone doesnt contribute they should be involved in nasty accident, say 3 members have not done a thing or posted since day 1 then they should be involved in a car accident whether they be townie/mafia/serial killer and so on, it could even be a fun story where a mafia member trying to infiltrate the town goes for a drive out the country and the 3 members 2 of which were town and 1 mafia die in a horrible accident and then every 3 days and more members have become inactive they can be the next victims this would keep only the active members involved in the game......
Anyway, good thread.
Maybe we could have Barn write the accident scene :lol:
Yeah it's a good idea but that could really shorten the games. They're already short, but killing people off in accidents just for not posting could accelerate the game; maybe even faster than how me and Hunter accelerated the last game :laugh:
Good idea though because it will stop people joining the game and not posting.
The only problem is that you cannot make someone post although I think that if someone doesnt contribute they should be involved in nasty accident, say 3 members have not done a thing or posted since day 1 then they should be involved in a car accident whether they be townie/mafia/serial killer and so on, it could even be a fun story where a mafia member trying to infiltrate the town goes for a drive out the country and the 3 members 2 of which were town and 1 mafia die in a horrible accident and then every 3 days and more members have become inactive they can be the next victims this would keep only the active members involved in the game......
Anyway, good thread.
Yeah but it's not the same thing as "forcing", I mean, you can decide not to comment for an entire day, the only repercussion would be that you will loose your ability for the subsequent day.
I think the accidents that you mentioned is another method of forcing the people into commenting, I think a harsher method because 3 individuals can get lynched in one event, which would no doubt accelerate the game for good or for bad.
My opinion is that the lack of comments is the main thing that spoiled Mafia Wars I, so something (anything) should be done to force the people involved into commenting at east once before the final hour of the day.
This would give the townies an entire hour to listen to the comments of everyone, and make an informed decision as to who is mafia; even without roles, I think this would have made some difference in game one.
I'm not sure they have to be honest, because in this game all we've seen is; A serial killer kill the mafia godfather (who didn't get a chance to use his ability), the mafia kill our reviver (who didn't get a chance to use his ability either), and us lynch our own Mason (who didn't talk, so again, didn't have the chance to use his ability).
Either way, i'd be pissed if I were the other mason. What a waste of 4 roles!!
Yeah the first game was a bit one sided, and without having roles for either team, it makes it incredibly easy for the mafia to win, since we have absolutely no advantage. I think we could maybe try a game like this;
5 mafia, 15 town; 2 of which are masons that can induct into their society.
This could be a simplistic but very interesting game that could see us grow in strength to kill all the mafia.
I think there is a role like what you have mentioned, called the Hider or something, I could be wrong though.
Well that was the thing that I have liked so far about Mafia Wars I, nobody had any ability over anyone else, which provided a certain freedom where your ability for deceiving was the most important thing.
With roles, that freedom is somewhat diminished; though no doubt, if more roles are included, perhaps we'd have a more balanced game.
To be honest, I think something should be done about the serial killer, he's the type of dude who can really spoil things in a negative way; as opposed to fucking up in a positie way, that is, like you and Hunter spoiled the Mafia Wars I, which was classic stuff.
I'd rather see paranoid townies killing themselves and coming up with conspiracy theories, rather than see some random serial killer screwing up the plans of everyone; the serial killer is somewhat like The Joker in The Dark Night, he screws up the plans of everybody, which isn't that cool in my opinion.
At the same time, the serial killer does add a great deal of unpredictability to the game; but is it too much power for just one individual?
Not really a rule suggestion but a suggestion nevertheless, I think we should give it a few weeks, maybe a couple of months before starting V3. So that everyone is fresh and raring to go again, and we can perhaps get some more people in.
I don't think a few months is really necessary but a few weeks should suffice I think. I don't mind either way though to be honest, if MWIII started a day after MWII I'd still be all up on it.
smudger2008
09-02-2011, 12:20
Is there somewhere that explains how to play this game?
What would everyone think about a game that had just 2 mafia members in it?
So 10 Town and 2 mafia?
What would everyone think about a game that had just 2 mafia members in it?
So 10 Town and 2 mafia?
I think there should be 1/4 as many mafia, as townies.
I just think that would be an interesting game type.
No special roles, just 2 infiltrators....could be fun.
I think if we can get more people for game 3, everyone should have a special role :laugh:
I just think that would be an interesting game type.
No special roles, just 2 infiltrators....could be fun.
I think if we can get more people for game 3, everyone should have a special role :laugh:
Let's get EVERY forum member in on the action and have an EPIC V3 :laugh:
Would be interesting for everyone to have a special role. But in that case, EVERYONE would have something to hide.... so we'd all appear to be suspicious..... even more so than usual!
Haha it could be a great game! I think that smudger guy (liverpool fan) wants to play this time round, so it should be interesting regardless :lol:
smudger2008
09-02-2011, 13:24
Haha it could be a great game! I think that smudger guy (liverpool fan) wants to play this time round, so it should be interesting regardless :lol:
I'd need someone to tell me how the game is played
I'd need someone to tell me how the game is played
http://www.pesgaming.com/showthread.php?t=82750
Then just take a look at all the mafia threads to get a better idea.
:lol:
Have a read through this ButtSmudger, it explains everything;
http://cataldo.freeshell.org/mafia/mafiascum04.swf
smudger2008
09-02-2011, 13:35
:lol:
Have a read through this ButtSmudger, it explains everything;
http://cataldo.freeshell.org/mafia/mafiascum04.swf
Thanks for the help, but why be such a bell end?
Because I am a bell end!
Question is, to be or not to be?
smudger2008
09-02-2011, 14:04
Because I am a bell end!
Question is, to be or not to be?
Touche
Dictator Role vs Cop Role
I think the town needs a role to manipulate suspicions and decisions but not necessarily to investigate if someone is mafia or not; do you think the game was better without the cop role?
After MW III, I thought a cop would improve the game, but to be honest, now I'm thinking the game was better without the cop role because, to start with, the investigations make it too easy and require no real work put into it; for instance, a person who is the cop and yet has not read a single comment, could investigate someone, completely random, and that someone could turn out to be mafia. Which really does not add anything to the entertainment value of the game, since it turns the game into a bluff based game where certain characters are spoon fed with facts.
And the second reason for why I think the game was better without the cop role, is because the cop role completely fucks up the balance of the game, it's too much responsibility/power for just one individual.
I think the game would be better off with a pro-town dictator, who has the power of forcing four characters into voting against just one character or against different characters; the key difference between the cop role and the dictator role, is that the dictator does not receive information notifying him of whether or not the person investigated is mafia or not.
In other words, the investigation needs work, the dictator can force four characters into voting against whomever the dictator wants, and the characters who have been manipulated by the dictator cannot unvote; the characters who have been manipulated by the dictator can speak out against the dictator, but as a consequence the mafia member or the townie will lose his powers/role for the following day or night.
If your vote has been manipulated or determined by the dictator, and you say that your vote was manipulated or determined by someone else, this would result in you loosing your powers/role for the following day or night.
The rest of the characters can suspect that your vote was determined by the dictator, as a victim, you should not deny nor confirm the suspicions of anyone, as doing so would result in you loosing your powers for the following day or night.
And a very important detail to this role, is that a character that has already used his vote cannot be manipulated by the dictator; however, it would not be possible to evade the dictator by simply voting all the time, since the dictator could target you and if you change your vote, you will then be effectively manipulated by the dictator. However, again, if you vote before the dictator makes a move and you do not change your vote, then the dictator cannot touch your voting rights.
Such a role would generate suspicion, bluffing, conversation, investigation, without spoon feeding an individual with facts and therefore without placing too much power on just one individual.
Dragonfly
02-08-2011, 13:34
I was watching The Road the other day and thought a post-apocalyptic Mafia Wars would be good. You get a variety of characters in these kind of films, good and evil.
muscularmatt
02-08-2011, 13:48
Like Mad Max.
Dragonfly
02-08-2011, 14:14
Sure. The 'Mafia' could be ravenous cannibals and/or some sort of reaver; 'cops' could be the settlement's leader or marshall.
I just think that would be an interesting game type.
No special roles, just 2 infiltrators....could be fun.
I think if we can get more people for game 3, everyone should have a special role :laugh:
Agreed. I kinda hate special roles. In fact, I think the game regressed as soon as the special roles were implemented.
Personally. I really like the idea of one mafia gang made of 3 or 4 members, one cult leader, one town, and one pro-town dictator.
The dictator would have a special ability but it would be a "manual" special ability, as opposed to a random special ability were attacks rebound and suddenly you randomly end up killing three members of the same mafia in just one night.
*
*
Dictator Role: Intro
*
*
I just thought MWI was the most hilarious of the lot, and it was the most hilarious due to the complete lack of certainty.... which lead to hilarious theories that ended up backfiring.
After the first MW, some roles are cool, but I think the cop role has done more harm than good. It's somehow turned into a "I am the cop, I investigated this dude and he is mafia", which completely ruins the fun factor of the game.
The first massive flaw with the cop role, is that UNCERTAINTY goes out the window. Because if you are not the cop and you bluff that you are the cop, the real cop will easily expose you as a phony. Then the next thing you know, is that the people who supported the phony cop will look suspicious as a result; and then the rest of the game becomes a rather boring task of protecting the cop via the role block special ability, and the cop investigating the suspicious people who supported the phony. And in the end, it's simply not as entertaining as it could be.
The second massive flaw with the cop role, is that it gives too much POWER to just one individual. Meaning that the town actually DEPENDS on the competency of the cop.
Example: the cop has not read a single comment, there's always a chance that he could investigate someone for whatever the reason, and that in return he will know with certainty if that someone is mafia or not.
How would you know, as a normal townie, if the cop is investigating the right people for the right reasons? You do not know, because the investigations are something that only the cop would be able to appreciate. The investigations blatantly affect the balance of the game, yet the townies have absolutely no say in it, because the cop can do whatever the fuck he wants to do. MASSIVE FLAW.
And since the cop would need to expose himself at one point or another, it eventually becomes a fact-based bluffing fest, where the real cop will claim to be the cop and a pretender will claim to be the cop, and soon after lynching one of the two, the rest of the game will unravel itself quite obviously because the real cop will spill the beans without much effort.
*
*
Dictator Role: Explanation
*
*
Unlike the cop role. With the dictator role everyone can bluff, everyone can pretend to be the dictator, because the dictator cannot investigate you and know that you are mafia, it would not be that simple; it would generate suspicion without spilling the beans with actual facts.
The dictator would be a pro-town dude who gets to manipulate the votes of perhaps one third of the total number of players.
The dictator can manipulate/determine the voting decisions of other characters at any time during the game, though at the same time, the dictator would need to conform to a deadline, meaning that the dictator must make all his voting manipulations/decisions TWO HOURS before the end of each day, therefore leaving a small window of time so that the townies and everybody else can react accordingly if they want.
The dictator must be a dictator on a day to day basis, meaning that if the dictator does not make the maximum number of voting manipulations TWO HOURS before the end of the 1st day or 2nd day or 3rd day of the game; such a dictator would be overthrown by another player who would then become the new dictator.
Example: the dictator failed to make all his voting manipulations on the 2nd day. As a result, the dictator looses his special role for the remainder of the game, and a new dictator comes out on whatever is left of the 2nd day, which would be two hours. The new dictator would be someone that is available to make all the voting manipulations as soon as he is notified of his new dictator status.
The dictator can only make each voting manipulation only ONCE per character. Meaning that if the dictator manipulates the vote of Player B, the dictator cannot change his mind about his decision, or in other words, the dictator cannot unvote on his decision.
Example: the dictator has a total of three voting manipulations to use. If he used one of the mentioned three on Player B, he cannot unvote on his decision.
The dictator can use all his voting manipulations in order to vote against the same character; but the dictator can also use each voting manipulation to vote against a different character.
Example: the dictator decided that Bammers, Hunter, and Dale, would vote for Ali. But the dictator could also decide that Bammers voted against Dale, that Hunter voted against Ali, and that Dale voted against 777.
The dictator must be a dictator on a day to day basis, meaning that if the dictator does not make the maximum number of voting manipulations on the 1st day or 2nd day or 3rd day of the game; such a dictator would be overthrown by another player who would then become the new dictator.
Example: the dictator failed to make all his voting manipulations on the 2nd day. As a result, the dictator looses his special role for the remainder of the game, and a new dictator comes out on whatever is left of the 2nd day, which would be two hours. The new dictator would be someone that is available to make all the voting manipulations as soon as he is notified of his new dictator status.
The dictator who was overthrown can confirm or deny that he was in fact the dictator and that he was overthrown by a new dictator. It makes little difference to the game, because anyone could pretend to be the dictator. And furthermore, because the overthrown dictator would never know anything with absolute certainty, it would all be based on concrete or blind suspicion, but never on absolute certainty.
If your vote was manipulated/determined by the dictator, the rest of the players can suspect that your vote was determined by the dictator, but as a victim you cannot confirm (in any way, shape, or form) the suspicions of anyone, as doing so would result with you immediately loosing your powers during the day or night; denying that the dictator manipulated your vote would go unpunished.
Example: the dictator manipulated the vote of a mafia member on the 2nd day of the game. The mafia member confirmed that the dictator determined his vote. The mafia member looses his special role for the 2nd night of the game.
The undeniable suspicion and conversation that the dictator should produce, would help carry out investigations BASED on something that although unreliable would ultimately be concrete. The behavior of the people would suggest a lot. The plain townies who do not have special roles would have nothing to loose if they confirm that their vote was manipulated/determined by the dictator; on the other hand, townies or mafia with special roles would have their roles to loose.
The behavior of a townie without special role and a townie or mafia with a special role, would generate a lot of suspicion without LITERALLY spilling the beans, thus leaving room for deception and suspicion.
In addition to confirming or denying if your vote was determined by the dictator, it would be possible to unvote once the dictator has determined your vote, although doing such a thing would immediately cancel your special ability in the day or night.
And a very important detail to this role, is that a character that has already used his vote before the dictator targeted him, cannot be manipulated by the dictator. However, it would not be possible to evade the dictator by simply voting all the time, because the dictator could target you at a time when you are untouchable, but if you change your vote after being targeted by the dictator you will then be effectively manipulated by the dictator.
On the other hand, if the dictator targets you at a time when you are untouchable, and you never change your vote after being targeted by the dictator, you would effectively avoid the dictator. Meaning that the dictator wasted one of his voting manipulations on an untouchable character.
Example: you made your 1st vote, and the dictator targeted you when you had already made your 1st vote. If you decide to change your 1st voting decision, and make a 2nd vote, then your 2nd vote will be whatever the dictator wants it to be.
Example: you made your 1st vote, and the dictator targeted you when you had already made your 1st vote. If you never change your 1st voting decision, you effectively avoid the dictator (voting too early in order to avoid the dictator might make you look like mafia) and you effectively minimize the damage that the dictator can do.
The voting manipulations/decisions of the dictator would be evident to everyone whom is playing the game, as soon as the vote can touch the target.
Example: you made your 1st vote, and the dictator targeted you when you had already made your 1st vote. The voting manipulation/decision of the dictator will not be evident to anyone but the dictator, until the voting decision can actually affect the selected target.
Example: the dictator manipulated/determined the vote of Player B, and Player B was not using his vote against anyone, which means that the voting manipulation/decision of the dictator would be immediately evident to everyone whom is playing the game.
And another very important detail of the dictator role, is that the dictator cannot say/confirm that he is the dictator *before* making all his voting manipulations. Instead, the dictator can only confirm that he is the dictator only *after* all his voting decisions are made evident to everyone.
This means that anyone can effectively pretend to be the dictator, and the dictator cannot do anything about it. Which also means that bluffing about "I am the dictator, before the end of the day I will manipulate the votes of Ali, Bammers, and Dundon's" would be redundant, due to obvious reasons.
Example: on the 2nd day the dictator says "I am the dictator, before the end of the day I will manipulate the votes of Ali, Bammers, and Dundon's" then, as a result, the dictator will immediately not be the dictator for the remainder of the game; and a new dictator will immediately replace the old dictator on whatever is left of the 2nd day.
Example: in such a case, since the dictator must make all his voting manipulations two hours before the end of the day; as a result, the new dictator would need to make all his voting manipulations quickly before the end of the day, so that the townies and the rest of the players can react accordingly if they want.
And last but not least. The dictator would be immortal. If the dictator gets lynched, a random understudy will replace him; if the understudy gets lynched, another understudy becomes the new dictator, etc.
Example: the dictator gets lynched on the 2nd day, as a result there would be no dictator on the 2nd day; however, a new dictator would come out on the 3rd day.
Example: the dictator gets lynched on the 2nd night, as result a new dictator comes out on the 3rd day.
And one last detail. The dictator can easily be inducted by a cult leader: the result would be a cult dictator.
As a result, the dictator would need to make all his voting manipulations on a day to day basis, the only difference would be that he would now play for the cult. If the cult dictator does not make his voting manipulations: as a result, he would no longer be a dictator for the remainder of the game, and a new dictator would come out on the next day.
Example: the cult dictator does not make all his voting manipulations on the 3rd day. As a result, the cult dictator becomes a normal cult member without special ability, and is then replaced by a new pro-town dictator on the 4th day.
Example: the cult dictator is lynched on the 3rd day. As a result, the cult dictator who was lynched, is replaced by a new pro-town dictator on the 4th day.
The fact that the townies and the mafia and the cult, can all see the decisions of the dictator, means that the balance of the game does not rests solely on the decisions of just one character.
The dictator role could work. It'd have to be done via PMing the mod of the game. ie you'd tell Sminky/whoever to tell eg:
"Bammers, Hunter, Dale to vote Amateur"
Also, I quite enjoyed being the cop :smug:.
Though, if I was given that role again, I'd be a tad more subtle :D
The dictator role could work. It'd have to be done via PMing the mod of the game. ie you'd tell Sminky/whoever to tell eg:
"Bammers, Hunter, Dale to vote Amateur"
Also, I quite enjoyed being the cop :smug:.
Though, if I was given that role again, I'd be a tad more subtle :D
To be honest. I criticized you for stupid reasons the last time I played, my behavior was stupid and embarrassing, even for mafia wars standards. You did a decent enough job as a cop, though ultimately you made yourself a prime target for the cult, though at the same time we had never played with a cult before.
But my opinion is that the cop is only genuinely enjoyed by just one person. If by some random accident that person gets lynched: the town is left without a cop. If by some reason the cop is taking the piss: the town is fucked. I just think the cop role balances the game in favor of the mafia or in favor of the cult, and makes it very difficult for the town to win.
The dictator role, on the other hand, would be enjoyed by everybody regardless of loyalties. I mean, can you imagine meyyappan as the dictator? and then imagine meyyappan as the cop? which one do you think would be more entertaining as a spectator?
Even if you don't know that meyyappan is the dictator, perhaps the crazy shit decisions will make you suspect that meyyappan might be the dictator, before the day actually ends; which is something that the cop role simply does not provide to the overall experience.
I think the dictator role balances the game better and would also encourage more discussion: the lack of discussion and the lack of votes are the one main things that need to improve the most, I think the dictator role would do that.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.