Definition of endgame

[Rodion]

I've heard a lot about mafia winning if their number is equal to the town's at any given point. For instance, if we go into night phase with townies and 1 mafia and the mafia kills one of the townies, they'd go to the next day 1-1 and win.

Is it always true? What if the remaining townie is a doublevoter? Town would win.
What if the remaining townie is a roleblocker? Tie?
What if there are 3 townies and 3 mafia, but all 3 townies are bombs?

I'd like to know how things are considered. I understand that when mafia began there were probably simple roles only and mafia equaling the town was a guarantee of a win. However, with so many new power roles being created day after day, should that conception be changed?

[Fircoal]

What if the remaining townie is a doublevoter? Mafia Win.
What if the remaining townie is a roleblocker? Likely Mafia Win, but could be Tie.
What if there are 3 townies and 3 mafia, but all 3 townies are bombs? Probably Tie, but maybe Mafia Win.
Last townie a PGO or Vig? Mafia and Town Win via Double Killing Role Rule (A rule of my own for the lolz, but yea, that or tie)

This is how I'd do it.

[Rodion]

Why would the doublevoter lose? Shouldn't he be powerful enough to hammer the mafia alone?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Well, logically, yes a double voter should win.
But the real question is one of game balance, which always trumps logic.
I say it depends on the set-up and it's the mods job to decide which way is more balanced.

[strike wolf]

Different mods may play it differently but generally when town no longer has the ability to lynch mafia then there is no longer a chance to win. So in cases where it is a double voter or a politician (steals another players vote) or a day vig to eliminate a mafia town can still technically win if numbers are even going into the day but in cases where its one mafia and a role blocker mafia wins because town has fully lost their ability to lynch by majority. Other mods may play this differently.

[strike wolf]

Well, logically, yes a double voter should win.
But the real question is one of game balance, which always trumps logic.
I say it depends on the set-up and it's the mods job to decide which way is more balanced.

In all honesty I feel like if the mod includes the double voter role, they should be prepared for that situation where it is day 4 or 5 and it's just one mafia and tthe double voter left.

[Fircoal]

Why would the doublevoter lose? Shouldn't he be powerful enough to hammer the mafia alone?

No cause this is how I see it. Mafia when they can win have guns, and they can just kill them and no obey the rules of lynching. Thusly the fact that there is a doublevoter means jack when there isn't much of a lynching game anymore. Mafia wouldn't just watch themselves die in a lynching vote if the other guy is just a double voter, any one with self worth would be like screw this, and shot the guy dead. It's only if there is another killing role that can stop it or something like that.

[Mr. Squirrel]

I define endgame as when the town can no longer form a majority to lynch (like strike said). This is what mafia was based on to begin with and I don't really think it needs changing. Doublevoters can extend life of the town, but imo vigs should be endgamed when town=scum. If the vig hadn't been able to kill the scum up until that point, then I'm going to say the scum deserve to win rather than declaring it a tie.

[Metsfanmax]

First situation is obviously a town win. Mafia should have eliminated the double voter if they wanted to win.

Second and third are draws in my mind, but as long as you're consistent and make it clear that town not having enough to lynch is a mafia win, that's fine. But if that's your policy you should agree that the first situation is a town win.

[nagerous]

If there is just a mafia and a double voter left at endgame, mafia win. Mafia have guns, they can just shoot the double voter. Reading the WCs for mafia in the game, it is quite clear 'You win when you equal or outnumber the town.' The fact the double voter has 2 votes won't make a difference at an endgame stage.

[Fircoal]

If there is just a mafia and a double voter left at endgame, mafia win. Mafia have guns, they can just shoot the double voter. Reading the WCs for mafia in the game, it is quite clear 'You win when you equal or outnumber the town.' The fact the double voter has 2 votes won't make a difference at an endgame stage.

QFT

[Talapus]

Endgame - When all threats to Talapus have been eliminated and he may claim sole victory regardless of alignment.

[Metsfanmax]

If there is just a mafia and a double voter left at endgame, mafia win. Mafia have guns, they can just shoot the double voter. Reading the WCs for mafia in the game, it is quite clear 'You win when you equal or outnumber the town.' The fact the double voter has 2 votes won't make a difference at an endgame stage.

This is a tautological answer. You are saying that because the rule says that mafia should win when they equal town, therefore mafia should win whenever they equal town. This is not an argument for why the system should be this way. I believe the rule should be changed to match the reality that in those situations, town could reasonably win. Sure mafia have guns, but apparently they're not allowed to use them during the day as the remaining town members drag them to the noose.

[safariguy5]

If there is just a mafia and a double voter left at endgame, mafia win. Mafia have guns, they can just shoot the double voter. Reading the WCs for mafia in the game, it is quite clear 'You win when you equal or outnumber the town.' The fact the double voter has 2 votes won't make a difference at an endgame stage.

This is a tautological answer. You are saying that because the rule says that mafia should win when they equal town, therefore mafia should win whenever they equal town. This is not an argument for why the system should be this way. I believe the rule should be changed to match the reality that in those situations, town could reasonably win. Sure mafia have guns, but apparently they're not allowed to use them during the day as the remaining town members drag them to the noose.

Yes, but in 1v1 situation, you cannot use the doublevote as an excuse to set an arbitrary majority for lynch.

[Metsfanmax]

It's not arbitrary. A double vote doesn't make sense when there are multiple people left either. The fact that it can be used to win the game just reflects how nonsensical the role is. But if it exists, what's arbitrary is to suddenly make it stop working just because it would allow that player to win.

[safariguy5]

Well majority for lynches are determined by the number of people left. Doublevoters can influence that by helping to reach majority faster.

However, if you have two people left, the principle of majority rule is circumvented by unanimous vote in order to lynch, which is why mafia is given the win. The majority in that case constitutes a theoretical unanimity which is impossible given two people left.

[Metsfanmax]

Well majority for lynches are determined by the number of people left. Doublevoters can influence that by helping to reach majority faster.

However, if you have two people left, the principle of majority rule is circumvented by unanimous vote in order to lynch, which is why mafia is given the win. The majority in that case constitutes a theoretical unanimity which is impossible given two people left.

As I said, arbitrary. Why is it impossible to have a unanimous result with two people left? Isn't it possible that I could be the remaining mafia against one remaining town player and decide to lynch myself, just for the hell of it? No rule says that a player can't vote for himself.

[safariguy5]

Well I guess then if you're modding, you cannot tell mafia that they win if they equal or outnumber town then if you have a doublevoter in the game. That would therefore giveaway that role to mafia which is unfair to the doublevoter role.

[Metsfanmax]

Well I guess then if you're modding, you cannot tell mafia that they win if they equal or outnumber town then if you have a doublevoter in the game. That would therefore giveaway that role to mafia which is unfair to the doublevoter role.

You don't need to tell them that. You simply change the rules from the outset in every game, and say that mafia only wins if it becomes impossible for town to force a lynch. If they get to equal number and you haven't endgamed yet, they're going to know about the existence of the doublevoter anyway. It may be "unfair" to the doublevoter role, but I'm pretty sure it's less unfair than making his whole faction lose ;-p

[Rodion]

If they get to equal number and you haven't endgamed yet, they're going to know about the existence of the doublevoter anyway.

Not necessarily a double voter, but any sort of combo that prevents mafia from a sure win.

For instance, think of a 2v2 with doctor + vigilante. The mafia could hit the protected vigilante and the vigilante could kill one of the goons bringing the game back to a 2v1.

It could also be 2v2 with a vanila and a busdriver. The busdriver can redirections the mafia kill and bring it back to a 2v1.

Mafia equaling town and not winning doesn't mean that there has got to be a doublevoter.

[Metsfanmax]

If they get to equal number and you haven't endgamed yet, they're going to know about the existence of the doublevoter anyway.

Not necessarily a double voter, but any sort of combo that prevents mafia from a sure win.

For instance, think of a 2v2 with doctor + vigilante. The mafia could hit the protected vigilante and the vigilante could kill one of the goons bringing the game back to a 2v1.

It could also be 2v2 with a vanila and a busdriver. The busdriver can redirections the mafia kill and bring it back to a 2v1.

Mafia equaling town and not winning doesn't mean that there has got to be a doublevoter.

I know, I was referring very specifically to games where the current endgame definition could be circumvented through special voting roles into a town win. What you're talking about is a whole new can of worms and I was going to get to that after we agreed on the doublevoting thing.

[safariguy5]

If they get to equal number and you haven't endgamed yet, they're going to know about the existence of the doublevoter anyway.

Not necessarily a double voter, but any sort of combo that prevents mafia from a sure win.

For instance, think of a 2v2 with doctor + vigilante. The mafia could hit the protected vigilante and the vigilante could kill one of the goons bringing the game back to a 2v1.

It could also be 2v2 with a vanila and a busdriver. The busdriver can redirections the mafia kill and bring it back to a 2v1.

Mafia equaling town and not winning doesn't mean that there has got to be a doublevoter.

I know, I was referring very specifically to games where the current endgame definition could be circumvented through special voting roles into a town win. What you're talking about is a whole new can of worms and I was going to get to that after we agreed on the doublevoting thing.

I dunno if you're going to get agreement here, I think it's mod's discretion at that point. Personally, I'll give mafia the win if they equal town in number.

If we're talking about multiple players still remaining, then we'd have to include busdrivers, roleblockers, jailkeepers, retaliatory bodyguards, JOATs, vote stealers, and probably a few other roles as any of these roles could potentially block or kill mafia during the night phase.

I've definitely endgamed a few games where town have had one or more of those roles still alive.

[Metsfanmax]

I've definitely endgamed a few games where town have had one or more of those roles still alive.

I know that this is currently the norm. I'm basically asking whether you'd reconsider doing that in the future, since I don't think it's logical, even if it is traditional.

[freezie]

Mafia win condition is, generally, that they win if they equal or outnumber town.

So, personally, whatever the townie's role is, wether it's a double voter, roleblocker, day vig or super amazing can kill all townie, if he is outnumbered and/or even with mafia, mafia has fulfilled their wining condition, so they win.

A lyncher wins if he lynches his target. Even if someone else can bring that player back to life, the lyncher wins cause he managed his winning condition, whatever could happen.

But that's my way to see things.

[safariguy5]

I've definitely endgamed a few games where town have had one or more of those roles still alive.

I know that this is currently the norm. I'm basically asking whether you'd reconsider doing that in the future, since I don't think it's logical, even if it is traditional.

I think it's harder for Mafia to win (although I'd love to see some stats on town/mafia/cult/third party win %) so I think that's where the custom comes from.

Again, you're free to tweak the rules as mod. In the TeamCC game, the cult win condition clearly stated that if cult equaled or exceeded the number of town remaining, then it would be a cult win. However, Sax decided that the DKer negated this WC (to my chagrin). I defer to the mod's judgment, so you're free to tweak the WC's in your games if you'd like.