EPTOn March 08 2010 14:22 d3_crescentia wrote:
The more I think about this game the more I feel that it's a glorified probability problem.
Generalized scenario: There are only town and mafia. If we just run through the players on the list by having them try to shoot each other while the mafia try to whittle us down 2 at a time, we'll have basically checked everyone by Day 6. Assuming that the town continuously hits other townies, we'll have 16 dead (10 by mafia, 6 by us) which leaves the 6 who shot AND THEN, presumably 4 mafia. This is the worst-case scenario, but it also gives us the most information possible.
Obviously it gets slightly more complicated with CIA in the way, for in the above scenario the town HAS to be ready to execute faster than the CIA can.
I don't even think we really NEED to consider DTs/medics too much because the execute-by-list system gives us WAY more information than a vote/lynch system. One DT gives us another day of wiggle room; two DTs gives us another day. I actually think medics protecting during early game can be actually a bit detrimental then, because we don't get any confirmed information.
Triggerhappy is a different case, in which case they should roleclaim.
Of course, the problem remains that the mafia can choose to kill LESS townies to keep us confused... but in which case we still continue to pair people off and have them shoot each other. At this point, argument isn't really necessary, because we're all just fodder.
The real problem is going to be in hunting down the CIA agent(s) in the end-game - but DTs won't really be important in that scenario; only behavioral analysis and (maybe) medics.
So, my proposal:
Two people (who have not previously executed people) will attempt to execute each other as fast as possible, giving us confirmed information about the killer, who is either green or CIA, and the killed, who is green/blue/red. DTs can go ahead and check an arbitrary 3rd person that hasn't been checked/killed before.
If we have a pair of people that are incapable of killing each other, we split them up and have them killed by a different set of townies. It honestly doesn't matter if we even HAVE a list, let alone having it be public/private; we just have to be careful not to reuse anyone. For that reason I now think shooting Malongo/BM is now a bad idea (though shooting BM may still have some merit as he could fuck things up later).
The two problems I see are that either we have MORE mafia than 4 - in which case I believe we'll end up killing them rather quickly, so no biggie - or if we have LESS than 4, in which case the remaining 4 will simply have to shoot each other.
So, tl;dr: it doesn't matter if we have a list or a plan just so long as we continuously rotate in new shooters and shootees.
The more I think about this game the more I feel that it's a glorified probability problem.
Generalized scenario: There are only town and mafia. If we just run through the players on the list by having them try to shoot each other while the mafia try to whittle us down 2 at a time, we'll have basically checked everyone by Day 6. Assuming that the town continuously hits other townies, we'll have 16 dead (10 by mafia, 6 by us) which leaves the 6 who shot AND THEN, presumably 4 mafia. This is the worst-case scenario, but it also gives us the most information possible.
Obviously it gets slightly more complicated with CIA in the way, for in the above scenario the town HAS to be ready to execute faster than the CIA can.
I don't even think we really NEED to consider DTs/medics too much because the execute-by-list system gives us WAY more information than a vote/lynch system. One DT gives us another day of wiggle room; two DTs gives us another day. I actually think medics protecting during early game can be actually a bit detrimental then, because we don't get any confirmed information.
Triggerhappy is a different case, in which case they should roleclaim.
Of course, the problem remains that the mafia can choose to kill LESS townies to keep us confused... but in which case we still continue to pair people off and have them shoot each other. At this point, argument isn't really necessary, because we're all just fodder.
The real problem is going to be in hunting down the CIA agent(s) in the end-game - but DTs won't really be important in that scenario; only behavioral analysis and (maybe) medics.
So, my proposal:
Two people (who have not previously executed people) will attempt to execute each other as fast as possible, giving us confirmed information about the killer, who is either green or CIA, and the killed, who is green/blue/red. DTs can go ahead and check an arbitrary 3rd person that hasn't been checked/killed before.
If we have a pair of people that are incapable of killing each other, we split them up and have them killed by a different set of townies. It honestly doesn't matter if we even HAVE a list, let alone having it be public/private; we just have to be careful not to reuse anyone. For that reason I now think shooting Malongo/BM is now a bad idea (though shooting BM may still have some merit as he could fuck things up later).
The two problems I see are that either we have MORE mafia than 4 - in which case I believe we'll end up killing them rather quickly, so no biggie - or if we have LESS than 4, in which case the remaining 4 will simply have to shoot each other.
So, tl;dr: it doesn't matter if we have a list or a plan just so long as we continuously rotate in new shooters and shootees.
i think this is actually a good idea, lets have the two most scummy people in a stand off.
