Of course there are times when the imposter(s) or crewmates have an unfair advantage, such as little to no kill cooldown for imposters or very few tasks for crewmates.

My question is, what are some extremely fair conditions? What I mean by fair is that the chances at winning for crewmates is as close to 50% as possible. I’m sure there are ways to argue for or against certain gameplay settings being exchanged for others.

A perfect answer to this question would be: If it’s possible, some “point values” given to setting changes relative to others (also relative to crewmate advantages) such as +2 points for +0.25 crewmate vision and -1 point for +0.25 imposter vision. (Doesn't have to be numbers, it can just value certain setting changes over others in terms of favoring crewmates or imposters)

A good answer would be something that tells someone what a good “trade-off” would be, such as 2 imposters vs. 1 imposter could mean +0.5 crewmate vision or something like that

I just realized this gets really complicated really fast since changing something such as emergency meetings (or anything really) would change point values for each successive change in a setting since 2 emergency meetings would be Way better than 1, but 3 would be only slightly better than 2.

  • 4
    I think this is a very interesting question, but unfortunately unlikely to get much beyond opinion-based answers. I would love to see some data analysis done on game settings and outcomes. I don't know if that data is accessible to us or not.
    – pladams9
    Oct 27, 2020 at 15:53
  • Yeah, sadly it probably will be opinionated. My ideal answer would involve some numbers/point values, etc. kind of like they have for chess such as 8 points for a queen, 1 for pawns, higher point values for pawns near the opposite end of the board etc. Oct 27, 2020 at 15:55
  • Unfortunately, this sort of question isn't really answerable for games like this because of the heavy social aspect - the local gaming culture has a huge impact as well. It matters if the players know each other or have generally accepted rules of "of course this is how you act, and if you don't act that way, you're suspicious" and so forth. You might be able to build a list like that for a specific subgroup that put a lot of effort into doing that specific thing, but even so it would be imprecise for any other group.
    – Ben Barden
    Oct 27, 2020 at 16:47
  • While the 50% win rate part may be subjective, I think it is appropriate for an experienced player to discuss and weigh the bonuses and penalties in terms of how much it affects each side?
    – l I
    Oct 27, 2020 at 17:08
  • I'd say that having 2 impostors, 10 players, and the settings close to recommended would be ideal. You might want to tinker with the number of tasks a bit and with Confirm Ejects though.
    – John
    Oct 29, 2020 at 3:49

1 Answer 1


I don't think it's possible to quantify the conditions necessary for 50% win rates because the game has a non-quantifiable social aspect. In games like Chess every piece has a limited number of moves, which can be evaluated to a set number of points. In Among Us there is a limited number of kills, but unlimited variations of lies which can be told during an emergency meeting. This, coupled with the real-time gameplay means that the point system isn't feasible when every player's physical position and social cohesion is in flux.

I think that we can intuit variations of the settings to give an approximate 50% win rate: those are about the default settings. But changing this should be based on the skill level of the player group you're with, not on a point based system.

To give an example I set up an Among Us session with my coworkers, some of whom had never touched a mobile game in their life. These newcomers would step over bodies without seeing them and were incapable of telling a lie to save their life. No matter what kind of balance you create with the settings there isn't a way to quantify these skills in real-time gameplay. In the end, we tried aiding these coworkers by assigning two short tasks for a task-win but they were not able to argue fluently during emergency meetings - a skill that cannot be buffered with in-game settings.

There's a reason you don't typically point systems in real-time games like Call of Duty or Fortnite. You can evaluate players' skill levels against other players by comparing the two using leagues/ranks, but you cannot quantify the scoring system in games that rely on reaction speed and charisma in the same manner you would in a game with a limited number of turn-based moves.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .