Redirector Role Policies: Discussion Wanted

[Makaze]

I asked the following question in Discord, and the results were about even. I'm taking the advice to post a feedback thread instead.

Redirector: A redirects B to C. B targeted C last night, and has a non-consecutive restriction. What should happen to B's action?

1. The action succeeds (restriction only applies to what was submitted, not what processes)
2. The action fails (redirect converts to Roleblock)
3. The Redirect fails (original submission is processed as normal)

I'd like to hear any arguments people have for either side, and see some reasons why the other side is wrong, if you think they are. How strongly do you feel about it, and why?

The best arguments will decide how Modbot should handle it.

[DkKoba]

1.
Too lazy to retype reasoning from discord. Also thats already fairly standard resolution.

[lute]

Option 1 because it's non-consecutive targeting. You're not doing the targeting, so no restriction. Some other bloke took your legal target and changed course. If you're not allowed to shoot JFK consecutively, so you aim at someone else and fire, but Magneto redirects the bullet into JFK, you followed your set of rules. This logic applies to both 2 and 3. Initial targeter is clear because they didn't shoot the same target consecutively and Magneto is clear because he had no restriction.

It's also just more fun to allow abilities through whenever possible. Not to mention Option 2 is unintuitive in the sense that anyone who is not already aware of this specific Modbot interaction will be confused about the sudden appearance of a Roleblocker. In closed setups this would lead to role speculations based on faulty evidence provided by the software, and that should be near the tippy-top of things to avoid. Option 1 is the cleanest.

[DkKoba]

1.
Too lazy to retype reasoning from discord. Also thats already fairly standard resolution.

To follow up the illegal target for next night remains whoever B initially targeted, and NOT C..

[Twice Shrunk]

Am inclined towards #2 - but it probably depends on interpretation of what "non-consecutive" encompasses.

If non-consecutive means "you cannot submit your action on the same player twice in a row" then #1 makes the most sense.

If non-consecutive means "you cannot visit the same player twice in a row" then #2 makes the most sense.

I personally do interpret it as the latter - hence why I think #2 makes more sense.

How is non-consecutive currently programmed into Modbot?

Edit: Took out "target" from 3rd line, meant it in another sense.

[DkKoba]

Am inclined towards #2 - but it probably depends on interpretation of what "non-consecutive" encompasses.

If non-consecutive means "you cannot submit your action on the same player twice in a row" then #1 makes the most sense.

If non-consecutive means "you cannot target/visit the same player twice in a row" then #2 makes the most sense.

I personally do interpret it as the latter - hence why I think #2 makes more sense.

How is non-consecutive currently programmed into Modbot?

it is a *targeting* restriction though. Never has a targeting restriction explicitly said that the action fails on the target only that the target cannot be chosen.

[Twice Shrunk]

it is a *targeting* restriction though.

This is one way to take it - but don't think you really actually have reasons to show that this is exactly and only the case.

[Twice Shrunk]

Ah, it seems Mak's programmed it to be taken as a targeting restriction.

Yeah, would recommend to follow that through, then, and do #1.

[Jaleb]

Surprised it's not a poll

I would say 1. I feel like non-consecutive should be a conscious restriction, while redirect would make the action unconscious.

If there was a restriction saying that target C cannot be protected from kp two nights in a row, then player B's action will fail. This is more referring to a global ruling than player B's role though.

[orangeandblack5]

Am inclined towards #2 - but it probably depends on interpretation of what "non-consecutive" encompasses.

If non-consecutive means "you cannot submit your action on the same player twice in a row" then #1 makes the most sense.

If non-consecutive means "you cannot visit the same player twice in a row" then #2 makes the most sense.

This

But prefer #1 because I read it as a targeting restriction not an action target restriction

Just make sure to be clear about which of these it really is and we good

[Ezradekezra]

I'm going with option 1 as the non-consecutive modifier specifically applies to targeting (or at least it seems to from the wording of the modifier)

[Hally]

option 1 feels most intuitive to me

[soah]

I start by asking myself why the non-consecutive modifier exists. It exists because some roles would be overpowered if they can target the same player every night. The most obvious example would be a doctor protecting the same player every night so that they cannot be killed until the doctor is found and killed (or blocked).

Option 1 would allow circumvention of the non-consecutive modifier to deliberately target the same player every night, but it would not be overpowered. It would require the use of two power roles to accomplish one task, and it would require the redirector to know the identity of the other role and who they are targeting each night. Realistically, this would only be possible with a wolf redirector targeting another wolf, and it would come at the cost of not being able to target a villager that night.

So it would seem to me that options 2 and 3 are trying to solve a problem which isn't really a problem.

[bopolis]

I would do option 2 only so the redirect can't be used to game the non-consecutive component of the action. For example, if wolves had a role that couldn't target the same person consecutively and a redirector, I would not want to allow for wolves to game the non-consecutive drawback with the redirect.

[DkKoba]

I would do option 2 only so the redirect can't be used to game the non-consecutive component of the action. For example, if wolves had a role that couldn't target the same person consecutively and a redirector, I would not want to allow for wolves to game the non-consecutive drawback with the redirect.

that is an extremely niche example that game hosts can easily bypass with a disloyal modifier

[bopolis]

I would do option 2 only so the redirect can't be used to game the non-consecutive component of the action. For example, if wolves had a role that couldn't target the same person consecutively and a redirector, I would not want to allow for wolves to game the non-consecutive drawback with the redirect.

that is an extremely niche example that game hosts can easily bypass with a disloyal modifier

i have no idea what that is

[bopolis]

I would do option 2 only so the redirect can't be used to game the non-consecutive component of the action. For example, if wolves had a role that couldn't target the same person consecutively and a redirector, I would not want to allow for wolves to game the non-consecutive drawback with the redirect.

that is an extremely niche example that game hosts can easily bypass with a disloyal modifier

i have no idea what that is

but assuming it does cover that issue then option 1 works

[DkKoba]

I would do option 2 only so the redirect can't be used to game the non-consecutive component of the action. For example, if wolves had a role that couldn't target the same person consecutively and a redirector, I would not want to allow for wolves to game the non-consecutive drawback with the redirect.

that is an extremely niche example that game hosts can easily bypass with a disloyal modifier

i have no idea what that is

but assuming it does cover that issue then option 1 works

disloyal means a role cannot work on a person of the same alignment, meaning that the redirector would only work on townies.

[Arapocalypse]

Hmm, one possibility would be to make the "default" mafia redirector disloyal, to address what Bopolis was saying?

By default, I mean have Modbot recommend the disloyal modifier when you add the Mafia Redirector role to your game's role list, like how the non-consecutive modifier is recommended when the Doctor role is added!!

[Amrock]

I trust bopolis

#i’mWithBop

[Arapocalypse]

Hmm, one possibility would be to make the "default" mafia redirector disloyal, to address what Bopolis was saying?

By default, I mean have Modbot recommend the disloyal modifier when you add the Mafia Redirector role to your game's role list, like how the non-consecutive modifier is recommended when the Doctor role is added!!

This is in the case that Makaze goes with option 1, that is!!!

Personally I don't really care that much which option is implemented, especially when you can alter it in Modbot anyway!!

[Kaiveran]

Hmm, one possibility would be to make the "default" mafia redirector disloyal, to address what Bopolis was saying?

By default, I mean have Modbot recommend the disloyal modifier when you add the Mafia Redirector role to your game's role list, like how the non-consecutive modifier is recommended when the Doctor role is added!!

This + Option 1 sounds like the best idea!

[Jaleb]

Should note that target A should be the only disloyal target. Target B should still be able to target a mafia member.

[euklyd]

(1) is obviously correct assuming that consecutive restrictions are submission based (referring to it as submission restriction rather than targeting restriction because the final target can be different than the submitted target when hijacks are involved). Not convinced this is how it should work in a game like NOC forum mafia though.

(2) probably has better play patterns - the only cases where it will come up are where someone is making a terrible / random mistake (town1 docs town2 n1, mafia thinks town1 is a vig and tries to get them to shoot town2 n2), or if there's something terribly degenerate going on with a role madness game (either maf/maf or a town play after a massclaim). Or it's OC role madness and the village leader is feeling cute. I don't think any of these are positive play patterns in forum mafia, where I'm assuming the goal of the game is not actually to gain advantage by abusing niche role synergies.

The concern about introducing bad info can be mitigated by making the results reflect what actually happened - "ACTION was redirected to PLAYER, but failed since you performed it on PLAYER last night."

How strongly do you feel about it, and why?

Obviously I can't feel that strongly about it because I don't play mafia on MU. I do feel pretty strongly that the mechanics of the game should be shaped to encourage the most enjoyable play patterns, rather than fitting pieces into the existing mechanical framework just because it already exists.

[Note that in games where subtle mechanical tricks are an encouraged form of skill expression I would go for (1) all the way.]

Edit: I do disagree with the assertion that it's not actually a problem. Whether or not it will cause a problem depends much more on the context of the setup and the role being hijacked than the negative action economy of using two roles to bypass submission restrictions. It will not usually be a problem, but...

Edit 2: Obviously it super doesn't matter because the number of times it will ever come up is minuscule, and it may not be worth it to put any amount of developer effort into doing anything but the most braindead simple option, but since the question is being asked...

[GGhana]

Option 1 because it's non-consecutive targeting. You're not doing the targeting, so no restriction. Some other bloke took your legal target and changed course. If you're not allowed to shoot JFK consecutively, so you aim at someone else and fire, but Magneto redirects the bullet into JFK, you followed your set of rules. This logic applies to both 2 and 3. Initial targeter is clear because they didn't shoot the same target consecutively and Magneto is clear because he had no restriction.

It's also just more fun to allow abilities through whenever possible. Not to mention Option 2 is unintuitive in the sense that anyone who is not already aware of this specific Modbot interaction will be confused about the sudden appearance of a Roleblocker. In closed setups this would lead to role speculations based on faulty evidence provided by the software, and that should be near the tippy-top of things to avoid. Option 1 is the cleanest.

theoretically doesn’t this open the setup up to being broken (such as forcing a doctor to heal a cop multiple times a night)

[GGhana]

I personally would probably just have the redirect fail

[Apoc]

Option 1 because it's non-consecutive targeting. You're not doing the targeting, so no restriction.

Ya, except the name "non-consecutive targetting" is a non-sequitur.


The intent of non consecutive targetting is to prevent a situation where a confirmed town PR can be protected indefinitely. People read the name and assume the "targetting" is somehow important, why would it be?

The correct way to process this manually, is that the second protection, from any source, ALWAYS fails.



Allowing redirects to circumvent consecutive protection is a massive flaw if allowed.


2c

[Apoc]

implementing non-consecutive targetting instead of non-consecutive protection/roleblocks is a fine implementation for simpler games where there is only one doctor.

But modbot is getting to a point where it can run pretty advanced stuff now, so if we end up in worlds where modbot games have towns with multiple protectives, scum with multiple roleblocks, and redirectors and other shenanigans are in the mix...

Then maybe we should try to implement non-consecutive protection/blocks instead of just non-consecutive targetting?



The other issue Makaze brought up in discord, is which option do you limit in the doctors UI dropdown on the night after the redirect?
Anything other than the original target leads to modspew. But technically the original target was not protected and should be a valid option.

[Apoc]

Of the options listed i go with 2)

but i think that should already be the case even without a redirect (e.g. a game with a doctor and JK targetting the same player sequentially)

[Makaze]

Option 1 because it's non-consecutive targeting. You're not doing the targeting, so no restriction.

Ya, except the name "non-consecutive targetting" is a non-sequitur.


The intent of non consecutive targetting is to prevent a situation where a confirmed town PR can be protected indefinitely. People read the name and assume the "targetting" is somehow important, why would it be?

The correct way to process this manually, is that the second protection, from any source, ALWAYS fails.



Allowing redirects to circumvent consecutive protection is a massive flaw if allowed.


2c

implementing non-consecutive targetting instead of non-consecutive protection/roleblocks is a fine implementation for simpler games where there is only one doctor.

But modbot is getting to a point where it can run pretty advanced stuff now, so if we end up in worlds where modbot games have towns with multiple protectives, scum with multiple roleblocks, and redirectors and other shenanigans are in the mix...

Then maybe we should try to implement non-consecutive protection/blocks instead of just non-consecutive targetting?



The other issue Makaze brought up in discord, is which option do you limit in the doctors UI dropdown on the night after the redirect?
Anything other than the original target leads to modspew. But technically the original target was not protected and should be a valid option.

:sparkleshrug:

Of the options listed i go with 2)

but i think that should already be the case even without a redirect (e.g. a game with a doctor and JK targetting the same player sequentially)

Currently modbot treats it:

If you submit an X-Shot power on A, and get blocked by B:
- You did not visit anyone
- You still lose your shot

If you submit a doc on A, but get blocked by B:
- You did not visit anyone
- You cannot target A next night

If you submit a doc on A, but your loyal or disloyal modifier causes your action to fail:
- You did not visit anyone
- You cannot target A next night

Someone tried to propose a non-modspew solution in "let them try to target A every night even if they can't, and have their abilities silently fail if they make a mistake". Would that be a better player experience?

[orangeandblack5]

I for one do not think it is

[lute]

what setups are you people playing with these glaring mechanical flaws you're proposing will come up

like at some point it's not a modbot problem

[Sett]

1

[Makaze]

Option 1 because it's non-consecutive targeting. You're not doing the targeting, so no restriction.

Ya, except the name "non-consecutive targetting" is a non-sequitur.


The intent of non consecutive targetting is to prevent a situation where a confirmed town PR can be protected indefinitely. People read the name and assume the "targetting" is somehow important, why would it be?

The correct way to process this manually, is that the second protection, from any source, ALWAYS fails.



Allowing redirects to circumvent consecutive protection is a massive flaw if allowed.


2c

implementing non-consecutive targetting instead of non-consecutive protection/roleblocks is a fine implementation for simpler games where there is only one doctor.

But modbot is getting to a point where it can run pretty advanced stuff now, so if we end up in worlds where modbot games have towns with multiple protectives, scum with multiple roleblocks, and redirectors and other shenanigans are in the mix...

Then maybe we should try to implement non-consecutive protection/blocks instead of just non-consecutive targetting?



The other issue Makaze brought up in discord, is which option do you limit in the doctors UI dropdown on the night after the redirect?
Anything other than the original target leads to modspew. But technically the original target was not protected and should be a valid option.

:sparkleshrug:

Of the options listed i go with 2)

but i think that should already be the case even without a redirect (e.g. a game with a doctor and JK targetting the same player sequentially)

Currently modbot treats it:

If you submit an X-Shot power on A, and get blocked by B:
- You did not visit anyone
- You still lose your shot

If you submit a doc on A, but get blocked by B:
- You did not visit anyone
- You cannot target A next night

If you submit a doc on A, but your loyal or disloyal modifier causes your action to fail:
- You did not visit anyone
- You cannot target A next night

Someone tried to propose a non-modspew solution in "let them try to target A every night even if they can't, and have their abilities silently fail if they make a mistake". Would that be a better player experience?

@Apoc ?

[Apoc]

Someone tried to propose a non-modspew solution in "let them try to target A every night even if they can't, and have their abilities silently fail if they make a mistake". Would that be a better player experience?

That's a big question

I won't pretend to answer for everyone, but that is probably how I'd run it at least.

idk maybe it's a mash centric interpretation? but i feel like it was probably mash hosts who invented this idea in the first place

[GGhana]

also I should note I’m not in favour of option 2 since if you redirect someone to the same target twice then you’d have a guaranteed roleblock on the second night

which seems silly

And if redirects don’t affect non consecutive targeting then that potentially leads to a chain where you can bypass your non consecutive restriction I think?

I think option 3 is the best imo

[Makaze]

Surprised it's not a poll

I would say 1. I feel like non-consecutive should be a conscious restriction, while redirect would make the action unconscious.

If there was a restriction saying that target C cannot be protected from kp two nights in a row, then player B's action will fail. This is more referring to a global ruling than player B's role though.

I start by asking myself why the non-consecutive modifier exists. It exists because some roles would be overpowered if they can target the same player every night. The most obvious example would be a doctor protecting the same player every night so that they cannot be killed until the doctor is found and killed (or blocked).

Option 1 would allow circumvention of the non-consecutive modifier to deliberately target the same player every night, but it would not be overpowered. It would require the use of two power roles to accomplish one task, and it would require the redirector to know the identity of the other role and who they are targeting each night. Realistically, this would only be possible with a wolf redirector targeting another wolf, and it would come at the cost of not being able to target a villager that night.

So it would seem to me that options 2 and 3 are trying to solve a problem which isn't really a problem.

I would do option 2 only so the redirect can't be used to game the non-consecutive component of the action. For example, if wolves had a role that couldn't target the same person consecutively and a redirector, I would not want to allow for wolves to game the non-consecutive drawback with the redirect.

that is an extremely niche example that game hosts can easily bypass with a disloyal modifier

i have no idea what that is

but assuming it does cover that issue then option 1 works

Hmm, one possibility would be to make the "default" mafia redirector disloyal, to address what Bopolis was saying?

By default, I mean have Modbot recommend the disloyal modifier when you add the Mafia Redirector role to your game's role list, like how the non-consecutive modifier is recommended when the Doctor role is added!!

This + Option 1 sounds like the best idea!

(1) is obviously correct assuming that consecutive restrictions are submission based (referring to it as submission restriction rather than targeting restriction because the final target can be different than the submitted target when hijacks are involved). Not convinced this is how it should work in a game like NOC forum mafia though.

(2) probably has better play patterns - the only cases where it will come up are where someone is making a terrible / random mistake (town1 docs town2 n1, mafia thinks town1 is a vig and tries to get them to shoot town2 n2), or if there's something terribly degenerate going on with a role madness game (either maf/maf or a town play after a massclaim). Or it's OC role madness and the village leader is feeling cute. I don't think any of these are positive play patterns in forum mafia, where I'm assuming the goal of the game is not actually to gain advantage by abusing niche role synergies.

The concern about introducing bad info can be mitigated by making the results reflect what actually happened - "ACTION was redirected to PLAYER, but failed since you performed it on PLAYER last night."

How strongly do you feel about it, and why?

Obviously I can't feel that strongly about it because I don't play mafia on MU. I do feel pretty strongly that the mechanics of the game should be shaped to encourage the most enjoyable play patterns, rather than fitting pieces into the existing mechanical framework just because it already exists.

[Note that in games where subtle mechanical tricks are an encouraged form of skill expression I would go for (1) all the way.]

Edit: I do disagree with the assertion that it's not actually a problem. Whether or not it will cause a problem depends much more on the context of the setup and the role being hijacked than the negative action economy of using two roles to bypass submission restrictions. It will not usually be a problem, but...

Edit 2: Obviously it super doesn't matter because the number of times it will ever come up is minuscule, and it may not be worth it to put any amount of developer effort into doing anything but the most braindead simple option, but since the question is being asked...

These posts + euklyd's last edit sold me on Option 1. The arguments about #2 coincide heavily with wanting a kind of role-transcending game mechanic that requires getting rid of the modifier period and making up new rules for the bot to follow for all roles regardless of the modifiers on the roles themselves. I'm not going to implement that any time soon, if ever.

Thank you for your opinions and arguments everyone!