EPTWorld at War Mafia - Page 4
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
I don't want to be presumptuous and somehow insinuate that I should have the last word on the matter. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
When I started proposing plans and posting, I had hoped that there would be other players who would participate as much as or even more than I have. But for better or worse, I have by far the most posts in the thread. Allow me to flatter myself and claim that at least some of my posts have been useful and beneficial to the town, such as being the first to lay out the importance of not initiating nukes. Usually I look down upon those who publicly ask for medic protection, as I think the ego of such players cause them to overestimate their contributions and importance to the town, but in this game I do think I stand out as a target for the mafia to kill at night, if only to significantly reduce the amount of discussion that takes place in the game. Please consider me as a protection target if you have not already done so. But of course, the final decision is in your hands. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
~OpZ~: 36 Elemenope: 35 haster27: 28 XeliN: 26 Versatile: 24 RebirthOfLeGenD: 22 johnnyspazz: 18 JeeJee: 17 Fishball: 16 Amber[LighT]: 14 iNfuNdiBuLuM: 14 Iaaan: 13 Caller: 10 Nikon: 9 meeple: 9 d3_crescentia: 9 Abenson: 7 nemY: 6 tree.hugger: 4 Phrujbaz: 2 L: 2 One final post tally before I leave. If you hadn't nuked someone RoL, there surely would be better lynch targets now. But you did. @RoL. I changed my mind because originally I thought about game setups from my own point of view, and my definition of balance, which in my mind is the definitive way to balance (I calculate the probabilities for each team if they acted randomly, the number of lynches required and mislynches allowed, and more, for goodness's sake). But Versatile reminded me that I should be thinking from Ace's point of view and not my own. And Ace definitely has a different view of balance than I do, so I should not bring my assumptions about how I would balance a game (which I had been considering the definitive way) into a game where Ace is hosting. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 13:53 Bill Murray wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 25 2010 13:48 Zona wrote: Hey, if you're a medic, please read this: When I started proposing plans and posting, I had hoped that there would be other players who would participate as much as or even more than I have. But for better or worse, I have by far the most posts in the thread. Allow me to flatter myself and claim that at least some of my posts have been useful and beneficial to the town, such as being the first to lay out the importance of not initiating nukes. Usually I look down upon those who publicly ask for medic protection, as I think the ego of such players cause them to overestimate their contributions and importance to the town, but in this game I do think I stand out as a target for the mafia to kill at night, if only to significantly reduce the amount of discussion that takes place in the game. Please consider me as a protection target if you have not already done so. But of course, the final decision is in your hands. 'Please Vote me MVP' I'm sorry that you're interpreting it this way. There's no way a real MVP can be decided this early in the game, there's still a lot to be played out. Maybe later in the game someone will somehow read the entire mafia team and get them all lynched one by one (like what citi.zen did in incognito's mafia 16). Now that would be legitimate MVP material. I would just like to point out to any potential medics out there that it's possible I would be considered a higher value target to the mafia when compared to another player randomly chosen from the player list. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:04 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Regardless of how the game is thought of, the fact is the least influential role in a game of mafia is a townie, Sigh. This is the kind of viewpoint that leads to weak towns. Mechanically, it's true that the townie has the fewest abilities. But that means all the more that townies should often be at the forefront of discussion, as if they are targetted, the town won't collectively lose a special power. Would the team rather lose a blue? Townies are the core of the town team. If townies are discouraged by the role they receive and play passively because of it, then the town's chances of victory are greatly diminished. In any case, you seem to have nukes. So you aren't a plain townie. Unless you plan to now claim that the nuke is fake. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:22 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Holy shit, are you that dense Zona? You just completely ignored what I said, or at the very least misinterpreted it entirely. I understand that an active green/townie population plays a strong role in the town, its why regardless of my role I never shut the fuck up. I was saying from a BALANCE PERSPECTIVE which is WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. A townie has the least impact on balance in the game as opposed to say adding me in as lets say in normal game terms a Vigi which increases town KP, another Mafia, another godfather which rape the town (I am purposely going to extremes here) or lets say adding an entire third role on the spur of the moment giving me an entire different agenda without having thought it through entirely which would either make my objective impossible or too easy which would essentially ruin the game. Or a townie, who kind of just adds one to the town and overall looking at the ROLE itself not the people playing it is much LESS influential on the outcome of the game. This has nothing to do at all with "Me thinking greens are worthless" but to say they are of equal importance to a medic would be foolish. You've already shown you're not a plain townie by launching a nuke and implying it was real. Unless you plan now to reverse your stance and say it is fake. So your argument that balance implies you are a plain townie is null and void. And yes I did go off on a tangent there, because I wanted to make the point to the rest of our readers that townies shouldn't stay inactive, and you provided an opportunity for me to do so. And it's interesting you call me dense, when you are the superstar who read the rules and didn't comprehend their implications. Read the thread and somehow missed the entire discussion on how nuking first was anti-town. Read the thread and also missed all but 6 of my posts the first time around. Ugh. I can't believe I'm still arguing with you. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:19 Ace wrote: He can't. I addressed it in the thread.. Can't he at least share the ideas they discussed? If he doesn't copy-paste the wording from the PM? | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:33 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: I also never said whether or not my nuke was real or fake, You didn't say whether it was real or fake? On March 25 2010 13:59 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: At this point letting caller die is the only way to do this. What's this? You say he'll die from your nuke? I wonder what sort of nuke would be able to kill, real or fake? | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:04 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Regardless of how the game is thought of, the fact is the least influential role in a game of mafia is a townie, hence if you had to add another role that would effect the game in the smallest way possible it would be a townie. Which is the reason why I pointed out that with your nuke, and the claim of death that it would bring, means that you are not claiming to be vanilla town, which is what you have implied by adopting the 'balance purposes' argument, and which is now shown to be false. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:12 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Seriously? Who the fuck ever expects even 55% of the town to agree on nuking a single person? You do realize if we never reach >50% consensus on lynching, we'll never get to lynch? So the policy on nuking is identical to the mechanics of lynching. The policy is there to use nukes as extra lynches when the town is desperate and feels it might be on the verge of defeat. Using nukes otherwise brings us towards the situation where no one wins (except for my guess on a third party which wins when radiation is too high). On March 25 2010 14:59 meeple wrote: I've said before that I don't agree usually with lynching most inactive, I mean it tells us nothing about the person or possible ties. I don't know why Zona was so pushy for it, since there are obviously some better targets when we consider that we have two basically confirmed townies and a better choice would be to sift through the votes for Abenson(yes I know I'm on that list...) and see who tried to push the bandwagon. For a day 1 lynch I thought he was the best target, as once we had the mason claim from Opz on behalf of himself and Abenson, he was the least active poster other than those two and the banned L, and his few posts were garbage. Only after he had many votes on him he began to contribute...and launch that nuke. If YOU think there are obviously some better targets for the day 1 lynch target you should have been here to promote it. You're actually here AFTER the original day 1 lynch deadline, which was extended because of the nuke. Actually, I see no good reason for you to delay naming your "better targets" so perhaps you could kindly name them now? It will give the town the benefit of your analysis and show how I was mistaken to focus on inactives. Please give the town the benefit of your insight. It definitely would not do for my voice to be the only one out there, as I have my blind spots. I would like for you to contribute what criteria you think was better than just inactives for the day 1 lynch and which players are lynch candidates based or these criteria. My words may seem forceful but I am not against changing my mind when other players give me reasoning superior to what I have proposed. One example of that is amending my original "revenge-nuke" proposal to a "lynch the first nuker, and revenge-nuke only later nukers" which incorporated other players' superior ideas. Also let's look at this: On March 25 2010 14:59 meeple wrote: Having said that I'm rather glad that RoL launched the nuke ... However, I'm not totally against him being lynched, seeing as he did violate the "Nuking without town consent" policy. You seem to agree with the "nuking without town consent" policy, so I will assume you have considered the REASONS why this policy was put in place, since I expect that you make decisions based on reasoning. (A very-cutdown-summary: launching new nukes doesn't help the town, and could lead towards defeat. I don't want to repost our entire discussion on this.) Then why are you glad that RoL launched the nuke? The extra time is not worth it when weighed against all the arguments against launching nukes in the first place. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 14:59 meeple wrote: I've said before that I don't agree usually with lynching most inactive, I mean it tells us nothing about the person or possible ties. I don't know why Zona was so pushy for it, since there are obviously some better targets when we consider that we have two basically confirmed townies and a better choice would be to sift through the votes for Abenson(yes I know I'm on that list...) and see who tried to push the bandwagon. I see no good reason for you to delay naming your "obviously better targets" based on criteria other than being inactive, so perhaps you could kindly name them now? The biggest strike against tree.hugger seems to be that he hasn't posted much, along with the vote for L without a post to back it up. It will give the town the benefit of your analysis and show how I was mistaken to focus on inactives. Please do recall that I pointed out RoL when he only had 3 posts, all of them content-free. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On March 25 2010 15:52 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Lynching is not the same as nuking and the dynamic is different as YOU just ADMITTED in your followup where you changed your mind from retaliation nukes to lynching the nuker. The damage caused by the nukes makes it harder to get a consensus compared a lynch where the only risk is killing an innocent as opposed to raising radiation and killing a innocent as POTENTIAL risks. Meaning I don't see how you expect to get EVEN 55% of the town to agree on something more controversial than a lynch. Wait, the consequences of nuking are GREATER than lynching, so we should LOWER THE BAR on how easily they can be used? It's precisely because the consequences of nuking at greater than lynching we also demand that the town agrees before they are used. On March 25 2010 15:52 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: The suggestion for nuking seemed like a large majority not just 55% to be okay with it, meaning you want ideally like 75% good with the lynch. Now you're just putting words in my mouth. In no post at all have I mentioned 75%, three quarters, or anything along those lines. On March 25 2010 15:52 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Anyway if you also act stingy with nukes you allow the Mafia to be more liberal with them later on, since there is no radiation threat yet. Part of the policy is to reserve anti-nukes precisely to deal with the threat of late game mafia nukes. But just because some other team can bring us to the radiation threshold doesn't mean we ourselves should approach it first. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
If you claim I implied something, you should find my words where you derive that implication. Otherwise anyone can attribute any point of view to someone else by saying "it was implied". In my posts where I claim you have implied something, I have included a quote where the implication can be drawn from. On March 25 2010 15:52 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Whoever reaches the threshold first has successfully increased their overall KP. Whats the problem here? KP is only useful to the town if the town has some insight on how to use it. Look at the very recent Caller's game where every town player had a kill. They used their kills in an undisciplined manner and the game was won by scum, with many of the townie deaths coming from town's use of kills. And if the mafia uses their nukes to increase their KP, they're revealing a ton of information that we can use. Especially if town members agree to refrain from nuking, as most of us have. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
We definitely want to go to the late-game with some anti-nukes, so I think we shouldn't force anti-nukers to come forward. It's true mafia might have anti-nukes, but that doesn't mean we should risk outing a town anti-nuker. Keep in mind, if we ignore the presence of anti-nukes for the moment, nukes are stronger in the hands of mafia than town, because mafia already know who is not on their side. Town nukes may or may not hit mafia, and if fired off at random, are more likely to hit town-aligned than not. I am not in favor of a stance where nukes are used more freely. If town members start regularly using nukes, then the mafia can blend in and get a few extra guaranteed town kills by launching nukes of their own, while the town in return gets a few marginal chances to hit mafia. (And of course if there is a third party that wins by high radiation, all of this advances this player's interests.) Since mafia nukes are much more likely to hit their enemies than town nukes, keeping town anti-nukers alive is a bigger concern than getting rid of mafia anti-nukers. Anyways, it's only when town keeps their nukes in check that mafia cannot nuke freely, as people who nuke in this situation are suspect. I'm repeating myself from earlier on for the next point, but once we reach lategame, if there are only a few more town members than mafia left, it's possible the mafia could use nukes to reduce the number of town members so that mafia have a majority and win. So anti-nukes need to be reserved for this situation. As for the role of anti-nukes in a game where nukes are used freely. If the anti-nukers aren't sure which nukes are launched by town and which are by mafia, then it's just a random crapshoot whether or not the mafia nukes are nullified. I highly doubt there's as many anti-nukes as nukes. So the existence of anti-nukes is not enough to make it beneficial to follow a policy where nukes are used more freely. | ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
I doubt that's the case though. | ||
| ||
