-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Building on what I wrote and putting it somewhere more appropriate:
The idea is that the game principles seem to work best when the number of Spies is equal to the number of mission needed to win.
2 Spies => best of 3
3 Spies => best of 5
4 Spies => best of 7
5 Spies => best of 9
etc.
Now, we also know that Spies need to be in the minority. Thus, if we have an even amount of players, we can't split it down the middle but need to offset by one:
6 players => 4R/2S
8 players => 5R/3S
10 players => 6R/4S
12 players => 7R/5S
etc.
So for even numbers, we can go from number of players to number of spies to number of missions.
What about odd amounts? Each of them can be lumped with either the even number below it or the one above it.
For example, 7 players would either be 5R/2S or 4R/3S. Or, in other words, there's either 3 more resistance than spies, or 1 more.
I believe both options are playable, though maybe not necessarily with the same rules. If there's three more resistance, then the Spies are in an underdog position with less options to sway the votes. I feel that they need the advantage of full information to balance things out, so in such a setup I would give them all the names of their spymates. If there's only one more resistance than spies, though, I would not give out the full list of spies but just one name.
Or, you know, we could simply not play with odd amounts of players...
Working out a set of rules for the team sizes per mission is a bit more complex, but I think it's feasible.
The idea is that the game principles seem to work best when the number of Spies is equal to the number of mission needed to win.
2 Spies => best of 3
3 Spies => best of 5
4 Spies => best of 7
5 Spies => best of 9
etc.
Now, we also know that Spies need to be in the minority. Thus, if we have an even amount of players, we can't split it down the middle but need to offset by one:
6 players => 4R/2S
8 players => 5R/3S
10 players => 6R/4S
12 players => 7R/5S
etc.
So for even numbers, we can go from number of players to number of spies to number of missions.
What about odd amounts? Each of them can be lumped with either the even number below it or the one above it.
For example, 7 players would either be 5R/2S or 4R/3S. Or, in other words, there's either 3 more resistance than spies, or 1 more.
I believe both options are playable, though maybe not necessarily with the same rules. If there's three more resistance, then the Spies are in an underdog position with less options to sway the votes. I feel that they need the advantage of full information to balance things out, so in such a setup I would give them all the names of their spymates. If there's only one more resistance than spies, though, I would not give out the full list of spies but just one name.
Or, you know, we could simply not play with odd amounts of players...
Working out a set of rules for the team sizes per mission is a bit more complex, but I think it's feasible.
Hm. So: Let's see: 17 player resistance:
- 8 spies.
- 8 missions needed to win.
- Therefore, it would be best of 17 missions, and there would have to be at least 32 plot cards (2 * (missions-1) ).
Such a game would take a crazy long time, though ..
- 8 spies.
- 8 missions needed to win.
- Therefore, it would be best of 17 missions, and there would have to be at least 32 plot cards (2 * (missions-1) ).
Such a game would take a crazy long time, though ..
What makes you think this will work better?
The game as it is seems rather balanced to me and your tweaks to the cards last game worked well I feel. I think changing the number of missions like you are proposing would just make the game worse though. A best of 3 would be rediculously luck based and it seems like you may as well flip a coin at the start. Either the teams will contain a spy or they won't - there will be no time to try and analyse anything and discover who the spies are. A best on 9 would not only be too easy for the resistance as they have all the time in the world to work out who the spies are, but it would also be a rediculously long and boring slog. Some of the best of 5 games already feel liek they run to long when there are long periods without updates and few posts in the game. I certainly don't think we should be looking to extend the games.
That just leaves the games in the middle that we have basically been playing currently. I don't see any reason to change it myself.
With the end of game 18, now could be a good time for someone who hasn't GMed before to have a go. It's quite easy.
Are we due another Avalon in the next few games?
Are we due another Avalon in the next few games?
If you trust me not to make errors, I can start one in the next few days. What kind of rules does everyone want?
I'm fine with either, really, but if you pick the cards one, nerfing NC (by not counting it against rejection limit) and/or SL would be preferable. If you go with Avalon, we need something to do about Lancelot (the most radical way would be to eliminate switches completely, leaving S-L as a simple Spy with no knowledge).
If you take an Avalon game, use my LOTR game as basis, those are the official rules (though changed in flavor).
The most important thing about Avalon, though, is that you shouldn't decide on the exact rules until you know how many players you have. 5-6 players tends to favor the Resistance, while 9-10 favors the Spies, so you need to add Avalon rules that bring more balance, not less...
Best option would be to have sign-ups open for a fixed time and then maybe take a day to publically discuss possible setups if you're uncertain about the impact of each rule.
The most important thing about Avalon, though, is that you shouldn't decide on the exact rules until you know how many players you have. 5-6 players tends to favor the Resistance, while 9-10 favors the Spies, so you need to add Avalon rules that bring more balance, not less...
Best option would be to have sign-ups open for a fixed time and then maybe take a day to publically discuss possible setups if you're uncertain about the impact of each rule.
Tomorrow, no later than that, if not before the end of today. I'm snowed in anyhow. I've got little else to do.
It's a give and take, Falc. You've provided me with reasonable rules, yet now I have to do the leg-work of making a theme!
Expect a game going before the end the day, my time (EST).