Next go around i think i will make rogues item seers. As in, they know which corpses have items. Might take away some frustration from them. (although well played to those rogues that figured out that looting came after the vote)
@Langly Didn't need you to believe the lie. Just question enough to think it not worth wasting resources to test. Since we were never attacked again, it obviously did work.
Not to burst your bubble, but you weren't attacked again because we didn't mean to attack you in the first place. You weren't fooling anyone. :P
Locus I should mention that I was the mysterious message sender on Day 2, which is funny because you were also a Ranger and already knew that info.
Yeah, Mikey gave me the message and I said to myself, "Well someone wasted their money." But I see you got a lot of stuff for dirt cheap so I guess it worked out for you in the end!
And then you tried to teach me the Ranger ability. I clearly picked the wrong class.
I paid nothing for the message, so it was a great deal.
-Yeah, considering you RNG'd things ZH for 9 people's class assignments, might have been that you just needed to have the floor for one or two a bit higher than two. It's possible that knight's and clerics do need some funner mechanics.
A) Knight, when you successfully block an attack, you will also counter attack you X damage equal to your attack/defense, X% of damage done to you or X*missing health (this would be based on health at the start of the day BTW). Another perk that might be more balanced is they can pick a second target and if they successful block they hit the second target with a bonus attack (damage would be determine the same way as it is in the first idea). It was pretty clear knight's were going to lose health doing there job, but I think there might be more appeal if they get some bonus damage for doing a good job. I like the last idea for determining that bonus damage because it adds a nice risk reward for doing a good job and not taking heals all the time. Just keep the value based on their health at the start of the day because that could make them rather silly OP and that would be a pain in the ass for spread sheeting. Also maybe keep this village only because the mafia already has a the informed minority advantage, along with secret potion use and a greater need to have at least one knight to up their chances of victory.
Cleric, when you successfully heal you earn blessing (could be get a stack every 1-2hp healed). Blessing stacks up to 10, upon reaching ten you get sacred bounty, which allows for a +1 to your vote that day (this includes both red vote and a possible blue vote). On the off chance that doesn't appeal or play well, option two could be they get 10g for every 1hp they heal (no gold for overheals). I'm sure the extra gold income could be worth it to some. Again this is another one of those things I probably would only do for the village because the mafia has plenty of advantages to begin with and they're likely to grab at least one cleric anyways. Also with the cleric getting stuff for heals, this could be an early boon for the mafia since a non-networked cleric might decide the gains out way negatives if they inadvertently heal a possessed.
-Seer with interaction with potions
A) No potion: seers alignment mana potions: alignment and action for the night
C) mana potions: seers alignment and target's HP (what they'll have at the start of the next day).
E) invincibility potion: alignment and defense
F) haste potion: couple routes for this but the seer targets two players. Could get the alignment for both targets (probably OP). Gets the alignment of one target and the action of the other. I could add more, but I'd stick with the theme that the seer gets the alignment of at least one player.
G) Potion of alteration: alignment and class of the target.
-Monsters. After further thought, I think I have an idea for making them less of a distraction. First make everyone aware that monsters will always die that night but killing a monster will yield a better outcome. As I stated before, the mafia shouldn't get any gold if they ignore the monster (one has to attack the monster or I suppose you could nerf pickpocket so it caps at 50g stolen per night) and probably should be susceptible to taking damage from the monster. Have one or two of the classes having a reason to ignore monsters most of the time bonuses that I suggested to knight and cleric village side might achieve the desired result (the former gets bonus damage from block monster attacks and the latter benefits from having people to heal). This also make the leader a little more valuable, since they don't become useless when people opt to ignore monsters. I'd also make sure each monster drops at least two items that leader can hand out (going to assume you'll go back to not letting people have potions on their person and remove the possessed's pantry of potions). Bonuses for killing a monster with damage instead of letting auto die, could include no one taking damage from monster abilities (hey gives dungeoneer or ranger some incentive to tell the village what the abilities do), bigger gold drops, more items being drops (1-3) and better items dropping (maybe less health pots and more gear). Also for fluff, I'd have the poor bastards dying to the vote being killed by the monsters.
No, no - I just think it's in bad taste. It seems rude. But then I remembered I've only been doing this since like November so what the fuck do I know?
Okay was toying with ideas to make merchants more neutral and less king makers without minimizing the fun factor. Note a few things might be more general towards the overall game than be specifically tied to the merchants.
-Wincons
Have to survive
Achieve two of the following:
Have the least inventory left (items that they get for sale that don't get sold count as one item regardless of the items possible value)
Earn the most gold
Had the most costumers
-*If one merchant dies the other leaves the game still.
-*Village still has the option to vote one out or the mafia could trying getting them voted out.
-They can't talk to each other in PM or on a proboard. This should cut down on their coordination, making it harder for make both of them stooges by pressing just one. For all the merchants know, anyone claiming they have the other merchant in the palm of their hand could be telling the truth or full of shit.
-Merchant health, defense and attack would be pooled. This will achieve them being more tanky and make it easier for them to find ways to stay in the game if someone decides to focus fire one; especially, since they can't talk to one another in PM or on a proboard. They'll probably still need more health and defense added to make them a bit tankier. Also of note, fortify and sharpen from the same blacksmith could still be used on both merchants since they aren't technically the same target. Maybe one or two meat shields.
-*They wouldn't be allowed to use their wares. All wares most be sold to another player before they could be utilized. This is similar to the restriction to loot leader and makes balance a little easier since their survival won't have to factor in them using their own merchandise.
-*All wares most go to the highest bidder.
-*Merchandise has to be exchanged for gold, goods or an acceptable service.
-*The merchants can use public health potions, but their target will be announced. Also they'll only do so if it's in the form of a transaction (either trade gold, items and/or services. Also the merchant can use an individual's private health potions on them, but only as a transaction and a minimum of 100g must be paid (maybe have the merchant announce such targets). In the event that too many people bid for this limited service, the highest bidders will get the service.
-*Any items that merchants get from other players as part of a transaction will not count towards the a merchant's inventory. These items can be sold by the merchant. At the end of the game a value will be assigned to these goods for determining who earned the most gold. Up to you if there is assigned value to each type or item or if you RNG the value at the end of the game. I certainly wouldn't tell the merchants what the value of items are since that could lead to auctions being less interesting. For the purposes of auctions the merchant and the bidder will need to determine what the gold value of an item is (yes, they could attach a silly high value to an item if they determine they truly need it for survival)
-*Acceptable services for trade. Like items the merchants can agree to a silly high value on services for purposes of a bid.
Use of potions on a merchant.
Fortifying a merchant.
Sharpening a merchant.
Use of scroll of invincibility on a merchant.
Guarding a merchant.
Healing a merchant.
Anything else I might have missed that is considered a beneficial buff or item.
Promising not to kill or red vote the merchants does not count as a transferable service for purposes of auctions.
-*They have brought the clockwork golem Mister Cranks. Potions tend to be a bit volatile, so it only makes sense to utilize a clockwork golem with start of the art magic to minimize any accidental explosions. Mister Cranks will allow anyone to access the public stockpile. In addition he will maintain records of privately purchased potions from the merchants for private use but this is limited to a max of 2 for none alchemists, 3 for alchemists and 5 for the group leaders. Of note with the group leader, there seems to be some sort of ward preventing possessed individuals from accessing it's contents should the previous leader meet with an unfortunate demise. The leader can add potions from loot drops, that he made (if applicable) or that he purchased to his store. Alchemists can only add privately purchased potions or self-created potions to their stores. An alchemist leader would only have the leader's private store (so if a an alchemist gets promoted, his stash will increase to five and include whatever he already stockpiled. Finally, the golem is technically rented by the party, if something terrible where to happen to one or both merchants, Mister Cranks will remain loyally with the party.
-The merchants have Doc Red'Tunic. As long as he remains alive the merchants can use up to two potions, but never on the same target. Unfortunately, the Red'Tunic family line is curse with their male members often dying young and to terrible accident when they go on business trips. This would be a meat shield, just not sure if he should be the only one.
-For the fee of 200 gold. A merchant may have an agent of the smuggler's guild investigate a player. The smuggler's guild seems have a vested interest in the party succeeding so no harm will come towards those that are vested in the village's success. Unfortunately for any threats to the party, a visit from the smuggler's guild could prove to be lethal. There is an understanding between the merchants and the guild, that this will not be discussed with anyone. Also the guild is a little short handed so they can only deal with one person a night, if both merchants use this power each one will only be charged 100g if they picked the same target, otherwise RNG will determine who pays up money and gets their target sorted out. The idea here is to give the merchants a means to deal with the SK if they figure out who it is, since the SK has a vested interest in killing them at some point. It also gives them the option to retaliate against the mafia without having to necessarily go to the village for help. The idea behind the price tag of 200g and the anonymity is so they don't become a vig or seer for the village since that put them a disadvantage with their competition. The idea of only allowing it to kill village threats is so that merchants can't throw their lot in with mafia to end things quickly in their favor. Might be worth making this their only attack and the damage can go up if they get better gear or buffs for killing people.
-In the event that a merchant is attacked. Both merchants will be made aware of who attacked them. The family has a strict policy of not doing business with people that tried to kill them, well not without forgiveness and the hefty price of 200g.
Anything with an asterisk probably should be public knowledge from day one. Everything else should either be the merchants' call or kept solely between the hosts and the merchants.
But then I remembered I've only been doing this since like November so what the fuck do I know?
Don't let that stop you. I think that one of the problems that Phalla has right now is a stagnant player base (evidenced by the trouble we're having filling games). When we lose someone from the game (due to boredom or frustration or whatever else) we don't replace them.
I'd have tried to extract lower prices from the second-place merchant as a condition of not buying from the guy in front. If I'd had the financial clout, anyway.
+1
Options
Iron WeaselDillon!You son of a bitch!Registered Userregular
edited March 2013
Mill, I like a lot of your ideas, but one thing I would reconsider is setting specific price on a lot of that stuff. A large part of the fun of this role was the wheeling and dealing aspect, and having rules that force me to say, "sorry I have to charge X for that" would really cut down on those interactions, while also potentially penalizing players who have less cash.
I'm also not a fan of hard rules that state what is or is not "of value" to the merchant; that should be his or her call; a promise that someone publically detracting me in the thread will die might well be worth a Ring or Potion to me. Likewise, a rule that says the merchant has to sell to a specific person (like the highest bidder) is also problematic, because then you have to define what services are worth. For example, Assuran offers me 250 gold for a Weapon, but then TRV comes along and bids 150 + my choice of targets for him to attack that night. Which is the highest bid? If Baidol bids 150 gold on a potion, and then jdark bids half that but offers to heal me, who wins?
That said, I do not have a problem with changes that would make the merchant class less susceptible to mafia strongarm tactics, and preventing them from communicating except in public would be an interesting change. Certainly things in this game would have gone far different for us had Mikey not (privately) urged me to negotiate with the mafia after Day 3; I sincerely doubt he would have done so openly in thread! I also like the idea of having to accomplish 2/3 wincons (plus surviving, of course), though I would probably also rank the wincons so that a clear winner could be established easily (something like Most Gold> Fewest Items Remaining> Most Customers).
And while it was cool to be able to use the items we received, I agree that we should have to sell that stuff. The merchants could be made tougher mechanically as you've suggested. It might also be neat if each night, in addition to their new wares, the Merchants got some new and nifty defensive device or ability. These abilities would only last until the next shipment arrives, at which point they'd be overriden by whatever the new thing was. They wouldn't have to be crazy, but maybe something like, "Tonight your Defense score is doubled" or "the first person to attack you tonight will take 5 points of damage" or "You can only be targeted by basic attacks tonight".
Iron Weasel on
Currently Playing:
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
Well then scratch most of that idea. I came up with the kill mostly because I was under the impression that the SK was a threat to them. I still would work it so that they had the option to attack other players, but it would come at a cost. I also was thinking that it be done in such a way, they would rarely want to attack other players and would only do so if provoked. Thinking through, maybe let it be free if they both agree the monster needs to go, a hefty fee if it's a player and only really effective on possessed.
Reporting the lead merchant could make things interesting. Some players might use that to further leverage beneficial abilities without better targets and/or unwanted items to score a deal.
Merchant Question: So, if i reported who was in the lead (but not by how much) at the end of each day, what reaction would that elicit?
Free market interference!
But really, more information would be great. I was also thinking it might be interesting if the merchants had to do their own narration disclosing some sales data (no names, though). That way, poor jdark would have numbers to play with.
Sometimes I have ideas for things.
+2
Options
Iron WeaselDillon!You son of a bitch!Registered Userregular
Merchant Question: So, if i reported who was in the lead (but not by how much) at the end of each day, what reaction would that elicit?
Free market interference!
But really, more information would be great. I was also thinking it might be interesting if the merchants had to do their own narration disclosing some sales data (no names, though). That way, poor jdark would have numbers to play with.
I would have loved this.
Currently Playing:
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
I like keeping the rules relatively relaxed for how the merchants earn money, it inspires creativity. Overall, i look to avoid them kingmaking the sides, or having either side kingmake one of them. This means that they have to keep both sides happy. Giving the village an easier way to kill them is one way to approach it, but you have to be careful that one villager doesn't go rogue and ax them. Like, maybe a daily vote as to whether they stay around, but are invincible otherwise (and then have a 3/4 majority required to have them leave or similar)?
I don't like the idea of giving the village a completely costless way of removing the merchants, just more information and the vote is fine.
Edit: Reasoning: An organized village is then able to be fairly ruthless, if they've confirmed their gold was mostly spent compared to the mafia's and they've been getting more items out of the merchants than expected they can just remove the merchants for free and come out ahead.
Fake edit edit: This does impact merchant balance but is more of a cool idea I thought up than to fix anything: how about more powerful alchemist/blacksmith abilities that cost gold to use?
As it stands, mafia spend much less relative effort than the village to remove the merchants, which is one of the reasons why the merchants are more afraid of mafia, thus work with them. Maybe not making merchant removal costless, but i think making the villagers use their vote on a neutral is actually so expensive that the village is limited to just sniping them.
I think the way the merchants interacted with the mafia, especially on the last day, would have been radically different had a village network popped up.
Iron Weasel. Having the merchant use one's private health potion on oneself to bypass the self-use restriction on health potions. I think for at least 100g, person could still get outbid, would be reasonable considering how powerful that could be. If you win the use of the service from both merchants and have access to a cleric or two, you could got from almost dead to full HP.
I'm trying to think of ways to avoid have a scenario where the mafia strong arms the merchants, while make sure the merchants don't become super strong king makers. Looking at the idea, I could see how that could be objectionable in regards to a few things. I don't think the village, mafia or SK should be able to use the threat of red votes or attempted murder as a commodity to trade with. I'm also not sure it's a good idea to let people sell killing or voting for a certain person to the merchants, since that could lead to the merchants being too strong at king making. I'm going to accept that the merchants will have some king making power because they are a source of items, that can help people win, but could certainly should put a few reigns so that a faction still has a good shot at winning in the event that one or both merchants decide they really don't like a particular faction. I am kind of pushing for a set up where merchants will either require the vote (voting out a merchant could make that day's record useless, plus any villagers still on the good side of the merchants loose out) or a hefty amount of resources to kill, so all factions may decide they're better off ignoring the uncooperative merchants.
Ranking the wincons isn't a bad idea. I could see the scenario where one merchant gets the most gold and ties with the other merchant on inventory left, while the other merchants ends up having more customers. Another options could be to have a point system.
Every 100g at the end is 1 point.
Each inventory item (stuff you didn't get from trading with players) will net one point when sold.
Each unique costumer would get you 2 points (probably should be higher since there are 28 customers max and the number will dwindle over the course of the game)
Only problem with the point system is, I'm pretty sure you'd have to math things out so that one route isn't the stupidly obvious way to go for the merchants and all those values I came up off the top of my head would need to be changed.
You're last point on giving the merchants different defensive items would be a good one. Also gives the game better replay value, since the order that merchants get defensive items could be switched up.
If you include that vote then it shouldn't be consider a close - it just pre-emptively ends the game for them. You probably want to have it require like 70+ percent of the vote.
I haven't read all of these long posts, but if the merchants have a way to do business, etc., without being publicly exposed then it's kind of hard for them to be strong-armed
In most battle games the village has something like 4-5x the offensive power of the mafia at the start of the game, which ultimately means even with village attrition and overkill they can easily dispatch a misbehaving neutral.
This could be less the case in this game because they had to kill monsters and had more useful non-battle actions (which is generally a good thing)?
Voting out a neutral is problematic only in practice because silly people start neutral witchhunts the moment a neutral is reveal and tie up the discussion. A seer call esque late demand for a neutral's head is as damaging to the village's vote records as an actual seer call.
I just don't see any kind of costless vote working, and arbitrarily putting a penalty on that vote of some sort is going to seem overly gamey. Why not just give the mafia a bit less gold if you're willing to go to such lengths?
I haven't read all of these long posts, but if the merchants have a way to do business, etc., without being publicly exposed then it's kind of hard for them to be strong-armed
Their win condition includes survival, so they don't really care (except for their hurt feelings) if they do get strong-armed so long as they win, so even with anonymous selling they'll probably reveal anyways if only to prevent random attacks from killing them.
Only reason a survival neutral has to not reveal generally is that another role may have to kill them (SK is the common worry, bounty hunters can be a thing as well).
For the record I wouldn't be opposed to making it so that voting out a merchant had a higher cost than simple losing out on item access and maybe having a worthless vote record for the day.
Options
-2/3-3/4 of the votes have to be for the same merchant, resulting in both going. I guess no one dies if the total isn't reached.
-A merchant winning the vote results in their total health pool being halved permanently. If a merchant wins the next day, they get removed. So the village can choose to waste two days of voting on merchants or one day followed up with blowing other resources on killing them.
Are you arguing for the red vote being weaker on the merchants? No one is suggesting that a single red vote shouldn't end the game for them.
If you're talking about the hypothetical secondary vote reserved only for the merchants, a free vote done twice with any kind of required supermajority is still free. I mean, I guess the merchants can still at least give the mafia all their wares out of spite, but still. Achieving a supermajority isn't going to be a problem when a network head says "Okay based on the information the network knows, we want the merchants gone. Everyone get voting."
Edit: If you really want to keep a secondary vote, making it shared with some kind of thing that can benefit the village may work out.
Something like Tonight, vote in darkorchid for one of the following
1. Search for Secret Doors (some sort of random beneficial effect)
2. Utilize something discovered in the current part of the dungeon (could change day to day, for example an alchemist's lab found could be used to add potions to the public stash)
3. Kick out the merchants
and so on and so forth
Rawkking Goodguy on
+3
Options
Iron WeaselDillon!You son of a bitch!Registered Userregular
Iron Weasel. Having the merchant use one's private health potion on oneself to bypass the self-use restriction on health potions. I think for at least 100g, person could still get outbid, would be reasonable considering how powerful that could be. If you win the use of the service from both merchants and have access to a cleric or two, you could got from almost dead to full HP.
I agree with you here; my point is just that this doesn't necessarily need to have a hard-written cost built into the rules. Again I think the merchant should be able to decide how much to charge for that kind of service. If it's OL asking me, maybe I give him a discount. If it's a suspected mafia, maybe I plead "robust market conditions" and charge him more.
I'm trying to think of ways to avoid have a scenario where the mafia strong arms the merchants, while make sure the merchants don't become super strong king makers. Looking at the idea, I could see how that could be objectionable in regards to a few things. I don't think the village, mafia or SK should be able to use the threat of red votes or attempted murder as a commodity to trade with. I'm also not sure it's a good idea to let people sell killing or voting for a certain person to the merchants, since that could lead to the merchants being too strong at king making. I'm going to accept that the merchants will have some king making power because they are a source of items, that can help people win, but could certainly should put a few reigns so that a faction still has a good shot at winning in the event that one or both merchants decide they really don't like a particular faction. I am kind of pushing for a set up where merchants will either require the vote (voting out a merchant could make that day's record useless, plus any villagers still on the good side of the merchants loose out) or a hefty amount of resources to kill, so all factions may decide they're better off ignoring the uncooperative merchants.
I'm really glad someone who's not me is thinking about this kind of stuff, because I of course would have had no problem being an invincible Warlord King Maker. Certainly it's important to find ways of making the merchants more resilient in the face of threats from the mafia or SKs, but I agree that it should not cause a crisis if the village decides for some reason to censure the merchants.
Ranking the wincons isn't a bad idea. I could see the scenario where one merchant gets the most gold and ties with the other merchant on inventory left, while the other merchants ends up having more customers. Another options could be to have a point system.
Every 100g at the end is 1 point.
Each inventory item (stuff you didn't get from trading with players) will net one point when sold.
Each unique costumer would get you 2 points (probably should be higher since there are 28 customers max and the number will dwindle over the course of the game)
Only problem with the point system is, I'm pretty sure you'd have to math things out so that one route isn't the stupidly obvious way to go for the merchants and all those values I came up off the top of my head would need to be changed.
I think I would simplify that down to a straight comparison of each category, with the 'winner' getting a point. So if you finished with more gold and less inventory, you would win outright. If the merchants split the first two categories, then number of customers would be the tie-breaker.
And yes, this creates an obvious path to victory, but if you're playing a merchant I'm not sure that it's a bad thing if your primary goal is to sell lots of stuff and stack paper to the ceiling.
Iron Weasel on
Currently Playing:
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
Posts
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
In the future, i may be reaching out for someone to help with storytelling (not my strong suit), and i'll def be asking Gizzy for her help again.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
Not to burst your bubble, but you weren't attacked again because we didn't mean to attack you in the first place. You weren't fooling anyone. :P
I paid nothing for the message, so it was a great deal.
Yeesssss...!
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
Thing is, that works the other way too.
My take is just enjoy the game as a game and your penis size will be fine.
Next up on Zorak Coast to Coast, two sides of the erectile dysmorphia issue will be here for a lively debate!
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
A) Knight, when you successfully block an attack, you will also counter attack you X damage equal to your attack/defense, X% of damage done to you or X*missing health (this would be based on health at the start of the day BTW). Another perk that might be more balanced is they can pick a second target and if they successful block they hit the second target with a bonus attack (damage would be determine the same way as it is in the first idea). It was pretty clear knight's were going to lose health doing there job, but I think there might be more appeal if they get some bonus damage for doing a good job. I like the last idea for determining that bonus damage because it adds a nice risk reward for doing a good job and not taking heals all the time. Just keep the value based on their health at the start of the day because that could make them rather silly OP and that would be a pain in the ass for spread sheeting. Also maybe keep this village only because the mafia already has a the informed minority advantage, along with secret potion use and a greater need to have at least one knight to up their chances of victory.
-Seer with interaction with potions
A) No potion: seers alignment
C) mana potions: seers alignment and target's HP (what they'll have at the start of the next day).
E) invincibility potion: alignment and defense
F) haste potion: couple routes for this but the seer targets two players. Could get the alignment for both targets (probably OP). Gets the alignment of one target and the action of the other. I could add more, but I'd stick with the theme that the seer gets the alignment of at least one player.
G) Potion of alteration: alignment and class of the target.
-Monsters. After further thought, I think I have an idea for making them less of a distraction. First make everyone aware that monsters will always die that night but killing a monster will yield a better outcome. As I stated before, the mafia shouldn't get any gold if they ignore the monster (one has to attack the monster or I suppose you could nerf pickpocket so it caps at 50g stolen per night) and probably should be susceptible to taking damage from the monster. Have one or two of the classes having a reason to ignore monsters most of the time bonuses that I suggested to knight and cleric village side might achieve the desired result (the former gets bonus damage from block monster attacks and the latter benefits from having people to heal). This also make the leader a little more valuable, since they don't become useless when people opt to ignore monsters. I'd also make sure each monster drops at least two items that leader can hand out (going to assume you'll go back to not letting people have potions on their person and remove the possessed's pantry of potions). Bonuses for killing a monster with damage instead of letting auto die, could include no one taking damage from monster abilities (hey gives dungeoneer or ranger some incentive to tell the village what the abilities do), bigger gold drops, more items being drops (1-3) and better items dropping (maybe less health pots and more gear). Also for fluff, I'd have the poor bastards dying to the vote being killed by the monsters.
-Going to do a separate post for merchant tweaks.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
-Wincons
Have to survive
Achieve two of the following:
Have the least inventory left (items that they get for sale that don't get sold count as one item regardless of the items possible value)
Earn the most gold
Had the most costumers
-*If one merchant dies the other leaves the game still.
-*Village still has the option to vote one out or the mafia could trying getting them voted out.
-They can't talk to each other in PM or on a proboard. This should cut down on their coordination, making it harder for make both of them stooges by pressing just one. For all the merchants know, anyone claiming they have the other merchant in the palm of their hand could be telling the truth or full of shit.
-Merchant health, defense and attack would be pooled. This will achieve them being more tanky and make it easier for them to find ways to stay in the game if someone decides to focus fire one; especially, since they can't talk to one another in PM or on a proboard. They'll probably still need more health and defense added to make them a bit tankier. Also of note, fortify and sharpen from the same blacksmith could still be used on both merchants since they aren't technically the same target. Maybe one or two meat shields.
-*They wouldn't be allowed to use their wares. All wares most be sold to another player before they could be utilized. This is similar to the restriction to loot leader and makes balance a little easier since their survival won't have to factor in them using their own merchandise.
-*All wares most go to the highest bidder.
-*Merchandise has to be exchanged for gold, goods or an acceptable service.
-*The merchants can use public health potions, but their target will be announced. Also they'll only do so if it's in the form of a transaction (either trade gold, items and/or services. Also the merchant can use an individual's private health potions on them, but only as a transaction and a minimum of 100g must be paid (maybe have the merchant announce such targets). In the event that too many people bid for this limited service, the highest bidders will get the service.
-*Any items that merchants get from other players as part of a transaction will not count towards the a merchant's inventory. These items can be sold by the merchant. At the end of the game a value will be assigned to these goods for determining who earned the most gold. Up to you if there is assigned value to each type or item or if you RNG the value at the end of the game. I certainly wouldn't tell the merchants what the value of items are since that could lead to auctions being less interesting. For the purposes of auctions the merchant and the bidder will need to determine what the gold value of an item is (yes, they could attach a silly high value to an item if they determine they truly need it for survival)
-*Acceptable services for trade. Like items the merchants can agree to a silly high value on services for purposes of a bid.
Use of potions on a merchant.
Fortifying a merchant.
Sharpening a merchant.
Use of scroll of invincibility on a merchant.
Guarding a merchant.
Healing a merchant.
Anything else I might have missed that is considered a beneficial buff or item.
Promising not to kill or red vote the merchants does not count as a transferable service for purposes of auctions.
-*They have brought the clockwork golem Mister Cranks. Potions tend to be a bit volatile, so it only makes sense to utilize a clockwork golem with start of the art magic to minimize any accidental explosions. Mister Cranks will allow anyone to access the public stockpile. In addition he will maintain records of privately purchased potions from the merchants for private use but this is limited to a max of 2 for none alchemists, 3 for alchemists and 5 for the group leaders. Of note with the group leader, there seems to be some sort of ward preventing possessed individuals from accessing it's contents should the previous leader meet with an unfortunate demise. The leader can add potions from loot drops, that he made (if applicable) or that he purchased to his store. Alchemists can only add privately purchased potions or self-created potions to their stores. An alchemist leader would only have the leader's private store (so if a an alchemist gets promoted, his stash will increase to five and include whatever he already stockpiled. Finally, the golem is technically rented by the party, if something terrible where to happen to one or both merchants, Mister Cranks will remain loyally with the party.
-The merchants have Doc Red'Tunic. As long as he remains alive the merchants can use up to two potions, but never on the same target. Unfortunately, the Red'Tunic family line is curse with their male members often dying young and to terrible accident when they go on business trips. This would be a meat shield, just not sure if he should be the only one.
-For the fee of 200 gold. A merchant may have an agent of the smuggler's guild investigate a player. The smuggler's guild seems have a vested interest in the party succeeding so no harm will come towards those that are vested in the village's success. Unfortunately for any threats to the party, a visit from the smuggler's guild could prove to be lethal. There is an understanding between the merchants and the guild, that this will not be discussed with anyone. Also the guild is a little short handed so they can only deal with one person a night, if both merchants use this power each one will only be charged 100g if they picked the same target, otherwise RNG will determine who pays up money and gets their target sorted out. The idea here is to give the merchants a means to deal with the SK if they figure out who it is, since the SK has a vested interest in killing them at some point. It also gives them the option to retaliate against the mafia without having to necessarily go to the village for help. The idea behind the price tag of 200g and the anonymity is so they don't become a vig or seer for the village since that put them a disadvantage with their competition. The idea of only allowing it to kill village threats is so that merchants can't throw their lot in with mafia to end things quickly in their favor. Might be worth making this their only attack and the damage can go up if they get better gear or buffs for killing people.
-In the event that a merchant is attacked. Both merchants will be made aware of who attacked them. The family has a strict policy of not doing business with people that tried to kill them, well not without forgiveness and the hefty price of 200g.
Anything with an asterisk probably should be public knowledge from day one. Everything else should either be the merchants' call or kept solely between the hosts and the merchants.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Don't let that stop you. I think that one of the problems that Phalla has right now is a stagnant player base (evidenced by the trouble we're having filling games). When we lose someone from the game (due to boredom or frustration or whatever else) we don't replace them.
TLDR - New blood. New blood. New blood.
ok, now reading the rest
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
<WARNING: Health potion is extremely volatile>
i love it
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
The SK this time around could actually win with the merchants. Killing them was beneath him
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
I'm also not a fan of hard rules that state what is or is not "of value" to the merchant; that should be his or her call; a promise that someone publically detracting me in the thread will die might well be worth a Ring or Potion to me. Likewise, a rule that says the merchant has to sell to a specific person (like the highest bidder) is also problematic, because then you have to define what services are worth. For example, Assuran offers me 250 gold for a Weapon, but then TRV comes along and bids 150 + my choice of targets for him to attack that night. Which is the highest bid? If Baidol bids 150 gold on a potion, and then jdark bids half that but offers to heal me, who wins?
That said, I do not have a problem with changes that would make the merchant class less susceptible to mafia strongarm tactics, and preventing them from communicating except in public would be an interesting change. Certainly things in this game would have gone far different for us had Mikey not (privately) urged me to negotiate with the mafia after Day 3; I sincerely doubt he would have done so openly in thread! I also like the idea of having to accomplish 2/3 wincons (plus surviving, of course), though I would probably also rank the wincons so that a clear winner could be established easily (something like Most Gold> Fewest Items Remaining> Most Customers).
And while it was cool to be able to use the items we received, I agree that we should have to sell that stuff. The merchants could be made tougher mechanically as you've suggested. It might also be neat if each night, in addition to their new wares, the Merchants got some new and nifty defensive device or ability. These abilities would only last until the next shipment arrives, at which point they'd be overriden by whatever the new thing was. They wouldn't have to be crazy, but maybe something like, "Tonight your Defense score is doubled" or "the first person to attack you tonight will take 5 points of damage" or "You can only be targeted by basic attacks tonight".
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
Reporting the lead merchant could make things interesting. Some players might use that to further leverage beneficial abilities without better targets and/or unwanted items to score a deal.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Free market interference!
But really, more information would be great. I was also thinking it might be interesting if the merchants had to do their own narration disclosing some sales data (no names, though). That way, poor jdark would have numbers to play with.
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
I also had the merchants as a separate signup for a long time, if they come back AND they will be public i might do that next time.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
Edit: Reasoning: An organized village is then able to be fairly ruthless, if they've confirmed their gold was mostly spent compared to the mafia's and they've been getting more items out of the merchants than expected they can just remove the merchants for free and come out ahead.
Fake edit edit: This does impact merchant balance but is more of a cool idea I thought up than to fix anything: how about more powerful alchemist/blacksmith abilities that cost gold to use?
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
3DS: 1289-8447-4695
I'm trying to think of ways to avoid have a scenario where the mafia strong arms the merchants, while make sure the merchants don't become super strong king makers. Looking at the idea, I could see how that could be objectionable in regards to a few things. I don't think the village, mafia or SK should be able to use the threat of red votes or attempted murder as a commodity to trade with. I'm also not sure it's a good idea to let people sell killing or voting for a certain person to the merchants, since that could lead to the merchants being too strong at king making. I'm going to accept that the merchants will have some king making power because they are a source of items, that can help people win, but could certainly should put a few reigns so that a faction still has a good shot at winning in the event that one or both merchants decide they really don't like a particular faction. I am kind of pushing for a set up where merchants will either require the vote (voting out a merchant could make that day's record useless, plus any villagers still on the good side of the merchants loose out) or a hefty amount of resources to kill, so all factions may decide they're better off ignoring the uncooperative merchants.
Ranking the wincons isn't a bad idea. I could see the scenario where one merchant gets the most gold and ties with the other merchant on inventory left, while the other merchants ends up having more customers. Another options could be to have a point system.
Every 100g at the end is 1 point.
Each inventory item (stuff you didn't get from trading with players) will net one point when sold.
Each unique costumer would get you 2 points (probably should be higher since there are 28 customers max and the number will dwindle over the course of the game)
Only problem with the point system is, I'm pretty sure you'd have to math things out so that one route isn't the stupidly obvious way to go for the merchants and all those values I came up off the top of my head would need to be changed.
You're last point on giving the merchants different defensive items would be a good one. Also gives the game better replay value, since the order that merchants get defensive items could be switched up.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
This could be less the case in this game because they had to kill monsters and had more useful non-battle actions (which is generally a good thing)?
Voting out a neutral is problematic only in practice because silly people start neutral witchhunts the moment a neutral is reveal and tie up the discussion. A seer call esque late demand for a neutral's head is as damaging to the village's vote records as an actual seer call.
I just don't see any kind of costless vote working, and arbitrarily putting a penalty on that vote of some sort is going to seem overly gamey. Why not just give the mafia a bit less gold if you're willing to go to such lengths?
Their win condition includes survival, so they don't really care (except for their hurt feelings) if they do get strong-armed so long as they win, so even with anonymous selling they'll probably reveal anyways if only to prevent random attacks from killing them.
Only reason a survival neutral has to not reveal generally is that another role may have to kill them (SK is the common worry, bounty hunters can be a thing as well).
Options
-2/3-3/4 of the votes have to be for the same merchant, resulting in both going. I guess no one dies if the total isn't reached.
-A merchant winning the vote results in their total health pool being halved permanently. If a merchant wins the next day, they get removed. So the village can choose to waste two days of voting on merchants or one day followed up with blowing other resources on killing them.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
If you're talking about the hypothetical secondary vote reserved only for the merchants, a free vote done twice with any kind of required supermajority is still free. I mean, I guess the merchants can still at least give the mafia all their wares out of spite, but still. Achieving a supermajority isn't going to be a problem when a network head says "Okay based on the information the network knows, we want the merchants gone. Everyone get voting."
Edit: If you really want to keep a secondary vote, making it shared with some kind of thing that can benefit the village may work out.
Something like Tonight, vote in darkorchid for one of the following
1. Search for Secret Doors (some sort of random beneficial effect)
2. Utilize something discovered in the current part of the dungeon (could change day to day, for example an alchemist's lab found could be used to add potions to the public stash)
3. Kick out the merchants
and so on and so forth
I'm really glad someone who's not me is thinking about this kind of stuff, because I of course would have had no problem being an invincible Warlord King Maker. Certainly it's important to find ways of making the merchants more resilient in the face of threats from the mafia or SKs, but I agree that it should not cause a crisis if the village decides for some reason to censure the merchants.
I think I would simplify that down to a straight comparison of each category, with the 'winner' getting a point. So if you finished with more gold and less inventory, you would win outright. If the merchants split the first two categories, then number of customers would be the tie-breaker.
And yes, this creates an obvious path to victory, but if you're playing a merchant I'm not sure that it's a bad thing if your primary goal is to sell lots of stuff and stack paper to the ceiling.
The Division, Warframe (XB1)
GT: Tanith 6227
Oh you.