Phantom-X v1.7

[Duck_42]

Ok, time for the next test version of Phantom-X. Since I'm still not comfortable with the changes in v1.6, this version will be a continuation of that test.

Changes in v1.7a
- Everything in v1.6 (see http://www.faforever.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1559&start=0)
- Added Paladin Players

Paladins are "super innocents" that get 45% of the phantom bonus. Paladins have the same goal as regular innocents. The Paladin assignment is made at the same time as phantom assignments (8 minutes in). No one else will know (including the other Paladin) who the Paladins are, so Paladins will need to be careful or they will look a lot like the Phantoms. Paladins are assigned based on how many phantoms there are.

3 Phantoms = 2 Paladins
2 Phantoms = 1 Paladin
1 Phantom = No Paladins

Phantom-X-Test-v1.7a.zip

Phantom-X v1.7a TEST VERSION

(88.93 KiB) Downloaded 316 times

[mead]

Suggestions:
- only one paladin even for 3 phantoms, but maybe give him a slightly larger bonus (f.e. 55 % of phant income instead of 45%)
- put the old phantom UI info back in (#, bonus); with a paladin, it should be again easier for phants to reliably identify each other
- add number of remaining paladins to UI - at least for testing purposes while we examine balancing

- just an idea, but one that I would love to see implemented even if its only for trying out: do the phantom reveal only for paladin - only he will know for sure who is phantom, and has to convince the other innocents. Of course phantoms may try to pose as paladin... This would bring back the uncertainty and diplomacy that we all liked in Phantom N, but without the drawback of overly long boring games. Tbh I like this idea a lot. For this to work for games with only 1 phantom, you could simply add a paladin with 0% bonus.

[CocoaMoko]

I agree especially with mead's last suggestion. It would indeed (in theory) add another great psychological layer on to the game without having to make the games long and boring.

[Harpagon]

It sounds dangerous for the beginers but it could be interesting to test mead's idea.

[Duck_42]

From http://www.faforever.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1501#p15662

Still, it might be good to add a "Reveal Phantoms To" option with choices such as "Phantoms Only", "Paladins Only", "Phantoms and Paladins", "Everyone", and "No one".

That's already on the list.

FYI Mead, With some effort, the Paladin can determine who the Phantoms are (using the same method I've told you about). The challenge for a Paladin would always be getting everyone else to go along with him. I definitely like the idea of revealing only to Paladins. As it is now, the reveal timer takes some of the challenge and suspense out of Phantom games. Basically, innocents just sit around and wait for either a Phantom rush or the reveal time to expire.

Anyway,

-I'll add the Phantom UI information back in. (I didn't really want to remove it to begin with, but this is a test version)

-I'll give the Paladin a UI as well so he can see the bonus he's getting.

-I'm not sure where I can put the remaining paladin count. There's not a whole lot of room left in that little box, but I'll see what I can do.

-In the final version, I'll probably make the number of Paladins configurable (and the bonus amount as well). For testing purposes, I'll go ahead and set it to one paladin and 55% bonus.

[mead]

Great to hear all that. I'd keep the bonus at 45% for games with 2 phantoms though. Thats already enough to engage a phantom in a defensive 1v1, equal skill assumed.

[MadDogTen]

These changes sound pretty cool. I always like new things that can shake up the game a bit more.


I have a couple of ideas, One is what if instead of raising the Paladin's Bonus all to high, they could see what the Phantoms Bonus is, hence, making it harder for Phantoms to tell who exactly the other Phantom is. Then while Innocents have issues knowing who the other innocent is, Phantoms would have the same Issue.

It would still be "easy" to figure it out (As, if the Paladin starts attacking a Phantom, then it gives him up. But if he sits and doesn't help Innocents, will cause him to lose in the end too).


and the other idea is (Which kinda goes along with the first idea), What if killing the Paladin (No matter who kills him), slightly raises the Phantoms Bonus. Meaning that Phantoms would have a reason to not trust other phantoms and kill them, and have a reason to do it (Plus, if they do end up killing the person, they would always have the excuse that they thought it was a Phantom, and understandable so).

[mead]

Having played 1.7a quite a number of times in the last days, I find it to be reasonably balanced, including the paladin bonus of 45%. I have no further input regarding changes for 1.7b beyond those that have already been announced in this thread

What if killing the Paladin (No matter who kills him), slightly raises the Phantoms Bonus. Meaning that Phantoms would have a reason to not trust other phantoms and kill them, and have a reason to do it (Plus, if they do end up killing the person, they would always have the excuse that they thought it was a Phantom, and understandable so).

.
Considering the paladin's economy counts for the phantom bonus just like the other innos', killing him results in a considerable net decrease of the combined innocent income, and therefore a decrease in the total phantom bonus (around 25% if pala is the first person to die and there were 3 other innocents in the game, correspondingly more if there were fewer still alive). Offsetting this by increasing the phantom bonus percentage is very bad balancing-wise, because it penalizes the innocents all the more the weaker their team is, essentially guaranteeing a phantom win if the paladin dies. The only incentive phantoms need to kill the paladin is the fact that he is (or should be) the most dangerous innocent in the game.

[MadDogTen]

Having played 1.7a quite a number of times in the last days, I find it to be reasonably balanced, including the paladin bonus of 45%. I have no further input regarding changes for 1.7b beyond those that have already been announced in this thread

What if killing the Paladin (No matter who kills him), slightly raises the Phantoms Bonus. Meaning that Phantoms would have a reason to not trust other phantoms and kill them, and have a reason to do it (Plus, if they do end up killing the person, they would always have the excuse that they thought it was a Phantom, and understandable so).

.
Considering the paladin's economy counts for the phantom bonus just like the other innos', killing him results in a considerable net decrease of the combined innocent income, and therefore a decrease in the total phantom bonus (around 25% if pala is the first person to die and there were 3 other innocents in the game, correspondingly more if there were fewer still alive). Offsetting this by increasing the phantom bonus percentage is very bad balancing-wise, because it penalizes the innocents all the more the weaker their team is, essentially guaranteeing a phantom win if the paladin dies. The only incentive phantoms need to kill the paladin is the fact that he is (or should be) the most dangerous innocent in the game.

Oh, ok. I didn't realize the Paladin Economy gave a Bonus to Phantoms, so I get what your saying, Though I guess it does make since that it does.

Though I still like my Idea of the Paladin's being able to see the current bonus Phantoms have. However to be honest I haven't tested the new version enough to know how the current Stats are for Phantom vs Innocent wins, so I guess this idea should be on the back burned until I play a bit more.

[mead]

Though I still like my Idea of the Paladin's being able to see the current bonus Phantoms have.

Well, indirectly the paladin can tell. He sees his own bonus (at least he'll see in 1.7b), and knows that this bonus is 45% (1.7a) of the phantom's bonus - so the phantom bonus is roughly twice of what he gets himself.