Discussion The Resistance - TF2
03-10-2015, 09:22 AM (This post was last modified: 03-24-2015 08:02 AM by amosmyn.)
Post: #1
The Resistance - TF2
So! This thread is for discussing a Resistance variant I'd like to run sometime soon. Players will be sorted into two sides of equal size. Each side will have a thread consisting of MOSTLY players from that side, with a few spies from the other side included. Hopefully the following explanation will make sense even to those of you who are entirely unfamiliar with Resistance.

The ultimate goal of the game for each side is to win more "missions" than the other side. Each thread votes for a leader, who will decide which players should go on the current mission. The two groups selected are compared according to the roles of the players, and one team wins the mission (or a draw occurs). This is repeated through a series of missions (with a new leader being voted on each time). At the end of the day, the side with the most mission victories is the winning team!

The flow of play will look like this:
- Each player will be assigned a side and a class (i.e. role) and pointed to their thread. Posting in the other thread is not permitted, but observing it is fine.
- Each spy player will be informed of who all their allied spies are.
- There are no quicktopics. No players have any form of communication outside their assigned thread.
Phase 1: Turn Start
- During this phase of play, the moderator will announce the current mission and provide flavour.
- The type of mission doesn't affect anything ITSELF, but some roles behave differently on different types of mission
- Players who sat the last mission out due to being killed will RESPAWN during this phase.
Phase 2: Leader Election
- During this phase of play, the players in each thread will vote on a representative to pass a team to the moderator. Electing a leader requires a PLURALITY VOTE, meaning the candidate with the most votes at the deadline will be elected.
- If a candidate ever has a MAJORITY of the votes, they are elected immediately. Plurality is used only if the deadline is reached.
- In the event of a tie, whoever received their last vote earliest will be elected.
- This is in contrast to other Resistance games in order to make it easier to synchronize gameplay between the two threads.
Phase 3: Team Selection
- The leader will submit a mission team consisting of players from their thread.
- Once this is done, the submitted team will be announced publicly.
Phase 4: Mission Actions
- Every player on the mission team submits any actions to the moderator via PM.
- Players with no actions must still submit "No action".
- Unlike in regular Resistance, there is no "pass/fail" vote. Spies have a disguising ability that allows them to simulate "passing" a mission, more on this later.
Phase 5: Mission Resolution
- The two teams will face off against each other.
- Each player on a mission will have a value they contribute to the mission's success.
- Each team's value is determined by adding up all the values of the players on the team.
- The team with the higher value wins the mission for their side
- The total values of the two teams will NOT be announced publicly. Only which side won and which side lost.
- A couple of other effects may take place during this phase, all of which will result in someone's death. Deaths will also be announced.

Play then returns to phase 1, and this repeats until all missions are exhausted.

Mission types:
CTF (Capture the Flag), Payload, Arena

Scout - Base value 1, +2 on CTF
Soldier - Base value 1, +2 on Arena
Heavy - Base value 1, +2 on Payload
Demoman - Base value 2
Spy - Base value 0, the Spies have a few abilities at their disposal.
- DISGUISE: If on a mission, may choose another class and contribute points to the mission as though the Spy is that class instead.
- SABOTAGE: May target another player and guess their class. If correct, the target receives -1 to their value on the next TWO missions they participate in and are only notified of this AFTER they go on one mission. If incorrect, they receive +1 on their next two missions and are notified of the attempt immediately.
- ASSASSINATE: If on a mission, may assassinate another player on the mission. If disguised as the target's class the assassination happens PRE-MISSION, otherwise it happens POST-MISSION
- Extra sabotage details:
Each spy may attempt this once per mission, any time after phase 1 but before the mission is resolved in phase 5. This "sabotage modifier" can never be lower than -1 (i.e. a single successful sabotage cannot be stacked, but two successful sabotages and a failed one work out to -1). The spy is notified of whether their attempt succeeded when the target goes on a mission.

Below are some initial, more complex class designs (that make more use of the kill/respawn mechanics)
- Base value 3, +2 on CTF
- Base value 3, +2 on Arena
- Base value 2, makes disguises ineffective (i.e. a Spy will ALWAYS contribute 0 to a team with a Pyro on it. Also makes it impossible to assassinate as the spy will not be disguised)
- Spies are notified if a Pyro was on the mission
- Note that a Spy disguised as a Pyro that assassinates a Pyro will do so PRE-MISSION, meaning the Pyro never actually goes on the mission.

- Base value 4
- Base value 3, +2 on Payload

- Base value 1, +1 for every other ally on the team.
- Base value 2, picks a target on the enemy team to kill POST-MISSION.
- Base value 0
- Can disguise as any other class, providing that class's benefits to the mission.
- Can assassinate a target on the mission (including himself but NOT including allied spies) if disguised. If target is the same class as their disguise, assassination happens PRE-MISSION. Otherwise, assassination happens POST-MISSION.

PRE-MISSION deaths mean the target doesn't contribute to the mission. POST-MISSION deaths mean they do. A killed player sits out the next mission cycle and then RESPAWNS. Friendly Fire is off, so snipers that assassinate a friendly spy on the enemy team will simply fail.

I have a rough idea of 9-person teams (so 18 people total) and 7 missions if I can get away with that many. Other than that, it's basically just been developed to the point where open feedback will be productive. I would appreciate any questions or comments and especially "I don't understand X because you explained it badly"
03-10-2015, 11:27 AM
Post: #2
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
The medic seems terrible to me, since it seems to offer less than any other class unless you can manage to send three other people who aren't spies on your mission. Maybe have it so that they are an anti-sniper, who don't give any points but can protect a player from sniper and spy kills? I'd also make the sniper give only one point.

Voting who elects the team is also a meh idea since why wouldn't each thread just continuously elect the same person over and over again the instant they're successful?

How many people will be on each team for each round, and how many spies? You said you wanted 8 person teams, but that implies only one spy - while you later said that there could be multiple spies. Personally I think the former is better, unless you have some sort of other system.

Why would a spy ever assassinate themselves?
03-10-2015, 11:47 AM
Post: #3
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Sniper being 1 point was how I initially had it but it made Spies disguising as Snipers too obvious. The power increase was actually intended to be a nerf, as it makes it easier for a Spy to disguise as one without being obvious which in turn makes assassinating a Sniper pre-mission more likely. On the other hand, Pyro is a fine two-point disguise so knocking it back down to 1 is probably fine.

Medic was supposed to be the "good on large missions" class. Having it as a Sniper countermeasure could work, but I'm trying to avoid anything that encourages counterpicking (as it means the teams have an incentive to lock in second which causes problems). I'd rather each side just try to get the best team they can assemble for the mission rather than attempting to counterpick, at least in this early iteration of the game. Other option is just to bump it up to 2 base, but then it's just straight up better than Demoman most of the time (pretty much the only exception to this is 3-person missions that a spy manages to get on as well). Could put some minor perk on it like "combos with Heavy"...or just remove it to be honest. This is meant to be a very simple iteration of the game to start with.

Nine person sides would involve probably 3 spies each (Nine is just a good number, it's not a "one of every class" thing!). A one-spy game could work, but there'd need to be more disincentive for massclaiming (right now it's the fact that pre-mission assassinations are nasty, but with only one spy that becomes a lot less of a risk)

Option for a spy to assassinate themselves is to prevent "oh person X was assassinated, when they respawn they're guaranteed town and someone ELSE on the mission was a spy". So basically, a spy might assassinate themselves early on in order to look like town later in the game.

Voting for who elects the team was the solution we came up with for one thread taking inordinately longer than the other to settle on a team. I propose voting on the team ITSELF (i.e. each player's "vote" is a proposed team and the team with the most propositions goes through), come to think of it. (I had a similar concept where the candidates proposed a team and it was the team that was voted for, but there were issues with "three people propose the same team and votes get split between the people").

Basically for actual team selection there needs to be a quicker and more synchronous process than in regular Resistance. The idea behind leader election is that everyone campaigning would say what team they'll submit and probably be voted on purely based on their proposed team, so it's effectively voting for the team (technically the leader can put in a different team to the one they promised, but that's pretty much a recipe for never being elected again). It's kind of a tricky thing to sort out, we basically need a system that accurately reflects who the thread wants to send on the mission.
03-10-2015, 12:31 PM
Post: #4
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
I don't think creating 7-9 different roles is a great idea for a Resistance game. There isn't enough design space (see: Scout, Soldier, and Heavy being the exact same role with different names) and there doesn't need to be that much design space to make an interesting game. "Vanilla" Resistance is pretty interesting already.


I would also drop the TF2 theme, as I suspect it will hold you back more than help you out (see: "too many roles"). It's easy to do "bottom-up" design, particularly when dealing with a game that isn't super complex.


Having roles trigger on missions is kind of bad, because it snowballs - I already wonder how back-breaking it is to have M1 be all Town in normal resistance, getting sniper kills and 0 assassinations on top of that seems pretty devastating. There should be roles with strong abilities that trigger when a particular team is behind (Something like: "Upon failing a mission *arbitrary role ability here*").


I suspect more should be done to draw the two threads together, right now I get the sense it would feel like two completely separate games except you arbitrarily add points from two teams to see who wins. "The total values of the two teams will be announced publicly" seems like a good target, if threads only know who won the mission worldbuilding needs to take cross-thread information into account. However, I like the general idea of two teams facing off like this.


As an additional concern: I don't know where you're planning to get 18 players for this, FTL has severe inactivity problems and it's 17 players, + player elimination makes finding replacements easier.
03-10-2015, 12:54 PM
Post: #5
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
The TF2 theme was basically because it fit the two teams facing off thing. It could be dropped, but I'd rather just knock out a bunch of classes since it fits well enough. I did try and keep it not TOO top-down (Pyro is generic anti-spy rather than actually setting things on fire, for instance) but yeah.

Scout/Soldier/Heavy being identical was intentional, without the flavour I'd have "You are a TOWN MISSION SPECIALIST for MISSION TYPE: <whatever>. You have a BASE VALUE of 3 and a BONUS of +2 on <whatever> MISSIONS." They're basically one role with three different names, so it's less "I needed an ability to give these classes" as "I want a specialist for each of three types of mission, oh I could make each one a different class". Don't forget that Demoman is a vanilla, too.

However...that's pretty confusing for the purposes of discussing/evaluating the game so maybe it'd be better to remove the flavour for the open discussion at least (it'd always be possible to add it back in once the mechanics are settled)

Of note on Sniper kills, if they're power 1 then the team with a Sniper on it is very liable to fail the mission. That's kinda the point: Sniper doesn't exactly trigger on a failed mission but he's very likely to cause one. Plus, assassinations have a strong narrowing effect and so it's perfectly reasonable for spies to choose not to make one, meaning 0 assassinations isn't nearly as damning as an all-Town mission. (And for that matter, an all-Town mission can still fail in this model)

18 is about the minimum, unfortunately. I could try to make it 2/3 size (6 players per side, two spies per side) but that would probably solve too easily.

The aim was really to make the "two sides facing off" aspect the focus of the game and have everything else just appear "as necessary". Although honestly in that case we could probably drop the killing/respawning and have just:
- Vanilla town (2 points)
- Town specialist (1 point, 3 points while on specialized mission, three different varieties of mission with the only difference being that different people specialize in them)
- Spy (0 points, can choose to grant 1, 2, or 3 points instead)

So flavour-wise that'd just be a five class game which would be fine to be honest.

That'd be the absolute simplest version of the game class-wise and might be smarter to start out with? Not showing each team's numbers makes deduction harder but that's probably a good thing so yeah I could see that working. We still need a good synchronous model for choosing the mission teams though. It MIGHT even make six players to a side work (each side is one vanilla, one of each specialist, and two spies?), but the lack of reason not to just massclaim D1 is a concern.
03-10-2015, 12:57 PM
Post: #6
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Reaverb's basically summed up all the major problems we noticed with the game while discussing over PM. I mean, there's concept here but it needs serious simplification and tweaking.

The one point we didnt talk about is Reaverb's 3rd which totally makes sense.
03-10-2015, 01:04 PM
Post: #7
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
I'd start with the minimum ruleset you just proposed and add things from the original post as they solve problems/make for gameplay. (There does need to be an oblit/assassination esque mechanic to stop massclaims)

What's the intended gameplay pattern of the Mission specialists? I don't see much difference from vanilla town play except trying to get your townreads on unsuited missions instead of you, which seems....awkward and hard to pull off without making your role obvious.

I'd add some info role(s), probably one which knows who the spies are in the other thread (helpful for worldbuilding + in-built claim deterrent) and perhaps one which can see how many points a player contributed to a mission.
03-10-2015, 01:12 PM
Post: #8
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Intended play pattern is to have specific townies that want to get on a specific mission and specific townies that don't. So if player X really pushes onto a mission there's "are they a spy or are they a specialist?" questions arising.

Additionally, it adds the variance necessary to prevent the missions being "oh, equal number of spies? K draw". Townies need to contribute differing values under SOME condition at least, and the specialists are probably the simplest way to do that.

I actually quite liked the way assassinations turned out (they're okay if you fail your guess but brutal if you succeed at it), so I'd like to make that the anti-massclaim mechanic if it can be worked in.

I never really got the point of Merlin in Resistance, actually. What problems does he solve?

Buuuuut yeah you're absolutely right about bottom-up. I guess I got caught up because TF2 was what gave me the idea for this concept so I stuck to it pretty hard :/. I actually think mostly just adding things that solve problems would be sensible at this stage: the concept takes up a LOT of the "new stuff" space so minimizing everything else should probably be a priority. Like you said, vanilla Resistance is already very interesting!
03-10-2015, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2015 01:20 PM by reaverb.)
Post: #9
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Hilarious idea:

What if players had a day activation that let them publically switch threads?

Obviously using it at the beginning of the game is -EV because your new thread knows you're likely the opposite fraction.

But if you're widely scumread in your home thread you can transfer and become widely townread.

This is mostly a thing for "scumfirmed" spies, but scummy Townies could redeem themselves by sabotaging missions in their new thread.
03-10-2015, 01:25 PM
Post: #10
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Threads becoming unbalanced might be a concern (would mission numbers change to match?), but if that could be overcome in some way that actually sounds pretty good. Maybe you have to trade places with another player? I am unsure how you'd go about negotiating that between players though.

I'm assuming a transferring player would become a spy on transferring into the enemy thread and become whatever their previous role was on transferring back? And would the spies in the new thread would be notified if the incoming player is an allied spy (and vice/versa)? I'm thinking no to the second one because every new person coming in being Oberon would be hilarious.
03-10-2015, 01:34 PM
Post: #11
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Resistance is supposed to be relatively simple aint it?

It's time to, T-T-T-T-T-T TRIPLE POST
03-10-2015, 01:39 PM
Post: #12
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Yep. I kinda got carried away and I think Amos was a bit too gentle on this point :V

Roles have been massively cut down and the game flow is specified excruciatingly but in practice is quite simple: Threads pick teams (through some process), teams face off, this repeats. Everything else is largely dealing with edge cases.
03-10-2015, 02:10 PM
Post: #13
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
(03-10-2015 01:12 PM)dichotomousCreator Wrote:  Intended play pattern is to have specific townies that want to get on a specific mission and specific townies that don't. So if player X really pushes onto a mission there's "are they a spy or are they a specialist?" questions arising.
Yes, I just suspect player X pushing to get on a particular mission would reveal their role. Particularly since they want to be selective about which mission they join, unlike spies. I just don't see how "I want to be on this mission more than another mission" changes play a ton, Mission Specialists still heavily prefer to be on a Mission over Spies.

(03-10-2015 01:12 PM)dichotomousCreator Wrote:  Additionally, it adds the variance necessary to prevent the missions being "oh, equal number of spies? K draw". Townies need to contribute differing values under SOME condition at least, and the specialists are probably the simplest way to do that.
I think this would still be a problem with the Mission specialists (Active Mission Specialist + non-active Mission specialist + spy vs. two vanillas + Spy)

My thought on ties was "whoever is behind gets the point if it's tied, else whoever lost the last mission, flip a coin if M1 is tied"


Transferring threads:

I don't see threads becoming unbalanced becoming concern - if one thread loses a townie the other thread gains a spy and vice versa, so it shouldn't make figuring out teams easier.

My thought was spies become vanilla if they swap, all Town roles become Oberon spies if they swap.
03-10-2015, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2015 02:23 PM by dichotomousCreator.)
Post: #14
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
The thing is that in 6v6 (for example) if the game ends up at 8 people in one thread and 4 in the other then how many people do we make the missions for? Do we have to change the missions depending on how many people are in each? Hell what if everyone transfers out of one thread? :V

There'd still be SOME draws, but it adds an element of differentiation? Like, if both threads manage to pick all town (or the same number of spies) then there's still the worldbuilding contest of picking the BEST town for the job (given that there's an anti-massclaim effect this becomes non-trivial). It also opens up stuff like spies prodding inactive specialist reads onto the wrong mission rather than hopping on themselves.

Plus as a non-active specialist there's only a 1-point difference between you and a spy anyway, and "non-active specialist" narrows down your role but doesn't necessarily give it away. I'm open to other ideas regarding how to make certain town better on certain missions than other town, but I think it's an important aspect of the game to have? Like, I get the feeling that for the "missions are competitive" gameplay to work there need to be more than just "town" and "scum" to go on a mission.
03-10-2015, 03:04 PM
Post: #15
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
I would just have the Mission be the same size no matter how many players are in a thread at a particular time. I don't see how this would cause any problems.

Let's assume 2 spies in 6 players:

Largest Mission size is 4 players (i.e, hitting every Townie in the game)

If 2 spies transferred from the 4 thread to the 8 thread, then the 4 thread is solved (everybody is Town!). That's the reason having both spies swap threads is a bad idea.

If a Townie switched over, being brought down to 4 players is an indication they should probably switch /back/ because otherwise a spy is likely to steal the final mission and probably other missions before the final mission. Alternatively if they're really townread in their new thread they could neutralize the spy in their home thread by sabotaging missions in their new thread.

I would just have "you can make a team with less slots then required by the mission, all dead slots contibute nothing to the mission". That's significant deterrent that a team would never allow their home thread to be below the number of members necessary to make a team.

I wouldn't expect the transfer mechanic to be used more than 2-3 times in a game, it's just a neat option for people widely scumread in their home thread.
03-10-2015, 03:19 PM
Post: #16
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Yeah the dead slot thing probably mostly solves it (inb4 team A abandons their thread entirely and manages to get all team A members onto team B's team, leading to a 0 vs. 0 draw :V). Plus I get to say "auto-balance has been turned off" :V

Anyway I hope I'm not pushing the specialist thing too hard, is that what you'd like to sort through next? My current stance is basically that it's the simplest differentiator available and it works gameplay-wise (I'm hoping that spies can take advantage of some townies NOT wanting to be on a mission and that it'll create a trade-off between being known to the spies and achieving the highest team value so you can beat the other team's value), but I'd be interested to hear about alternative schemes. (Just having vanilla town, inforoles, and scum is worth considering but I feel like it downplays the thread interactivity)

I'm happy to give spies the disguise/assassinate thing as-is (i.e. they disguise as a class and can pick a target to kill, if their disguise matches the target the target is killed pre-mission, else post-mission) as it also means an early massclaim DOES have advantages but it's at the cost of the late game (where a single spy on a mission becomes a LOT more dangerous).

...oh, except counterclaims will be inevitable if a massclaim is called and assassinating your CC is Very Bad™...although if you're on the same mission as your CC you can just not disguise and contribute 0 and no-one can tell which of you did that so it changes nothing. Hm, that should work.
03-10-2015, 03:28 PM
Post: #17
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Im not sure why you'd want to include a cross thread action like that since it functions as a reward mechanism for scum screwing up.
03-10-2015, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2015 03:32 PM by dichotomousCreator.)
Post: #18
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Hmm, what if they get treestumped in their new thread? (Or just have a value of 0 or 1 or something)

I think the idea is that the double threads opens up the opportunity for scum who are basically outed to continue participating (whereas in Resistance they're functionally ignored) by hopping to their team's thread and contributing to discussion there? Unfortunately even treestumped it's probably still a reward (yay townfirmed opinions!)

I guess there COULD be a lynch-like mechanic that "sends the target back home" but I don't see how that could be made to work...

EDIT: On the other hand this is an additional unnecessary complication so I think we don't include it in this game.
03-10-2015, 03:43 PM
Post: #19
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
If I was scumfirmed and there was no transfer mechanic I would be giving "townfirmed" opinions from my home thread on the second thread. (so you can already effectively treestump to move to a new thread).

(03-10-2015 03:28 PM)amosmyn Wrote:  Im not sure why you'd want to include a cross thread action like that since it functions as a reward mechanism for scum screwing up.
It might encourage more aggressive scum play but it's not really a reward? It just makes being widely scumread less bad.

I cannot see a spy transferring threads D1, remaining hidden at home is more valuable than becoming a townfirm abroad.

The initial idea was a way a scumfirm could continue to participate. I extended the idea to Townies for Wine.
03-10-2015, 03:58 PM
Post: #20
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion

Well if you can already do it I don't see a problem with making the treestumping official (it keeps things in the correct threads, for one).
03-10-2015, 11:26 PM
Post: #21
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Been thinking about it and I think there's no reason for each thread to not immediately mass claim? The only thing spies can do in that situation is counterclaim, and those can be more or less easily sorted out (without even losing a town member if you guess right between the counterclaims) thus setting you up for the entire game.

Not 100% sure how to fix that without adding in a Merlin-type mechanic or possibly making spies proper obliterators who can act without being on the mission (which is both overpowered for them but also possibly against the spirit of the game), but I figured I should bring this up regardless.
03-10-2015, 11:34 PM
Post: #22
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
EBWOP: Basically, since spies can only do damage when they're on a team town massclaiming means that they simply need to narrow down the spy counterclaims which they can do within two-three missions since there's way more scum than town. The only thing spies could reasonably do about it is just never use their killing powers but still contribute points via disguising, which basically makes them unwilling regular townsfolk.

There's only five roles now so I'm assuming there'd be six players on each team with two spies, but here's what I hope is an effective example:
1) Everybody claims, spies counterclaim soldier and demoman.
2) Heavy and Scout go on first mission along with one of the demomen.
3) If it doesn't go as planned, demoman claim is bust.
4) If it does, add on a soldier when necessary, repeat.

It could work out for scum in this situation if they make it in right away, help it pass, and then sabotage it when a new townsperson comes in after them, but even that would only work for a single round (since then there's two scum and any more sabotages would reveal both of them).
03-11-2015, 09:10 AM
Post: #23
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Well the obvious solution is to make the setup semi-open (i.e. roles are known, but not how many of them are in play). Would probably need an 8-player game so there'd be two of two of the roles and one of the other two (leaving the spies free to claim the other one)...or heavy role imbalance (like two demos and no soldiers or something).

Also the example doesn't work in ALL cases because what if it's an Arena mission? Heavy/Scout/Demo will probably lose to an enemy team with no spies or disguised spies on it, and we don't tell the threads how many points their team had any more.

One possibility is to make the anti-claiming mechanic cross-thread? Like, if people from the OTHER thread pin down your role somehow they can take actions against you (Maybe Sniper's kill when on a mission relies on having the role of his target?)
03-11-2015, 10:29 AM
Post: #24
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Yeah I suppose that could work? Note my earlier comment on obliteration. Making it so that the setup is unbalanced wrt roles would work too, but that's hardly an optimal solution.

Making it so that points are no longer revealed helps a fair amount too.

I think some sort of poisoner mechanic might help prevent massclaiming too. (This is a bad idea but works as an example so) Like if a spy could nail down the entire thread they're on at the end of the game they win regardless of who won the most missions.
03-11-2015, 11:02 AM
Post: #25
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Hmm. Maybe Spies can do something little like -1 someone's point value if they know their class, without having to be on the mission? Less "absolute" than poisoner but it adds an element of "whichever side's spies get better role reads have an advantage" to the game. There might need to be a penalty for guessing wrong though (obvious one being +1 to the target instead and they're notified they were targeted :V)
03-11-2015, 11:24 AM
Post: #26
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Sounds good. Would the +/-1 last for the whole game? It would certainly stop spies from just guessing (since if they guess wrong multiple times they could end up with a demoman with +5 to each mission).
03-11-2015, 11:40 AM
Post: #27
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
I would say...maybe for a couple of missions afterward? So guessing would be less punished early on (since it'd wear off before game's end) but near the end of the game when knowing roles might be more reasonably expected it'll be more dangerous (especially since for the game to get to that point the scores have to be relatively even)
03-13-2015, 01:49 PM
Post: #28
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Set it up so it's -1/+1 to whatever the next mission they join is. Hoping that "I got failsabotaged, put me in" becomes a fun thing to say :v

Mildly concerned that the spies have become too complicated. Not really concerned about power level: I want them to be a bit stronger than Resistance spies so that we're less likely to end up with flawless teams from either side (draws are funnier if they're because both sides got screwed over EXACTLY the same amount :v).
03-14-2015, 04:19 AM
Post: #29
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
So what happens during a draw?

Also, can spies make multiple guesses, because if not than the +/-1 only lasting for a turn doesn't exactly do much in a massclaim world.
03-14-2015, 06:13 AM
Post: #30
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
I would suggest extending the duration to two or three turns, making both claiming your role and sabotaging people who haven't claimed much more dangerous.
03-14-2015, 10:42 AM
Post: #31
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
Well the idea behind making it "the next mission you go on" is that it's guaranteed to affect exactly one mission. If it's two or three turns, then if the person doesn't go on a mission in those turns the sabotage (whatever the outcome) doesn't actually DO anything, and if they only go on ONE mission then the "next mission" duration does the same thing anyway.

I could make it affect the next TWO missions you go on, though?
03-14-2015, 10:54 AM
Post: #32
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
That seems like a good idea.
03-14-2015, 11:01 AM
Post: #33
RE: The Resistance - TF2 - Open Discussion
I'm mildly concerned that two missions worth of penalty will end up making things too swingy on the sabotage mechanic (I really want to make it as low power as possible while still making claiming not worth it), but I've edited it in for now.

Note that near the end of the game, claiming in order to guarantee a 2-point value on a mission can still be a viable tactic (I think this is in fact a GOOD thing).

Forum Jump: