Ah. I see. I'll answer this in a few points:Herodotus wrote:@zoraster:
I mean that if one of the 13 teams gets 3 or 4 scum roles, that team probably has an advantage because scum generally win more often. Also, a perfect scum victory isn't nearly as impressive as a perfect town victory, nor is it probably any more difficult to achieve than a near-perfect victory.
Also, whether their team is intact is something that a given scum player can't necessarily control, while a given townie can do a lot more to prevent mislynches.
1. I did discuss the possibility of a team getting an overwhelming number of scum or town roles before. The consensus then was that while it's fairly likely at least one team will get 3 scum roles, that's not necessarily a great advantage. First, we're going to do our best to actually balance the games 50/50. We may not succeed, but that's our hope. Second, it's a high risk high reward venture. In any game where you're scum, if you win you've improved your team's standing as compared to most other teams. But the flip side is also true. If you lose, most other teams will have improved their standing as opposed to your team.
2. I agree the town perfect game is considerably more difficult to achieve, which is why I made it worth 12 points compared to 10 for the scum victory. That's probably not even enough to take into account how much harder it is. But the problem is basically this: I need the points to be mostly symmetric for this to be fair. If I offer a perfect game incentive for town, I should also have something similar for scum.
To put it another way, I want to expected value of drawing scum to be equal to that of drawing town. If I've balanced the game 50/50 and there's a perfect game bonus for town but not scum, then the expected value of getting town becomes higher than scum, and that makes the overall setup flawed.