Auto Balance suggestion

I have an idea. Instead of having number of neutrals be random, it could be, in part, based on King’s side.

As a simple example, i just had a game where King was evil, but we also had the minimum BD members (7). There was 4 neutrals. In addition to this, the neutral roles were fairly bad for BD with a scorned, a fool, a reaper and a alchemist.

My suggestion is the following: Reach a balance of 0, and use the following scores:

Good king = +2
Neutral king = 0
Evil king = -2
4 neutrals = -1
3 neutrals = 0
2 neutrals = +1
Having a fool in game = -1
Having a scorned in game = -1
Sheriff or paladin in game = +1

So as an example, the game i just described would be a -5, which means very unseen sided.
There could still be some variations (-1 or +1 is ok), but not something as massively unseen sided as this.

1 Like

This sounds like a decent idea, but it shouldn’t be certain imo - flipping the king shouldn’t tell you how many Neutrals their are with certainty

Definetly not. As i explained, there are other factors involved. A evil king can mean there is several sheriffs. It can mean there is few neutrals. It can mean the neutrals are not too damaging for town, etc. That is why i’m using a score system like this.

I feel like the main factors that influence balance are those i listed:

Number of BDs
Side of the King
The exact type of neutral
Number of powerfull BD roles like sheriff

which is why he said some variation should be allowed so you can’t simply count after you find the kings identity. Personally i think it would be okay if something like this took place only if there was an evil king

Should also take place when its a Good king. Having a good king is a massive advantage. So to compensate, maybe there will be more “unseen sided” neutrals like fool or scorned. Or maybe there will be less sheriffs. Or maybe there will be more neutrals and less BD.

People won’t be able to tell anything from a king flipping good, but they will know the game is most likely balanced.

1 Like