|
On July 01 2010 13:54 DCLXVI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:43 Korynne wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 01 2010 13:35 DCLXVI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:25 Korynne wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 01 2010 13:16 DCLXVI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 12:49 Korynne wrote:
So I don't think that idea works very well... but if we go ahead and pretend there's at least one roleblocker, we can roleblock instead of lynching someone. If mafia doesn't kill that night, we lynch the guy, if mafia does kill that night then we don't lynch the guy. So if mafia wants to get the guy killed they have to sacrifice their night kill to get the guy killed, so basically it would be like us not lynching and mafia nightkilling that guy. I think that's a valid plan. But that requires a roleblocker... so... I don't know how confident we are on that matter. =\
So if we go ahead with this, it means we should pseudovote in this thread, and only vote to kill someone in the other thread when a night kill doesn't happen. I don't think this plan would work very well. Even if we did have a roleblocker on our side and we declared a target for him/her, we could not guarantee someone as town for more than a day. The godfather could always recruit the roleblocked person the next night. Also, can the mafia choose not to kill at night? If so then the mafia could choose not to kill when the roleblocked player is townie so that the town lynches the townie the next day and throws off our numbers for a bit. I don't understand why you say that the mafia have to sacrifice a night kill to kill the roleblocked guy, he is only safe for a day unless you plan on having him roleblocked for the whole game. That would hurt if he/she was a blue role and the chances that we have a roleblocker drop each day. This method uses our lynches to find the mafia, but unless we find the godfather we are just fighting a losing battle. Keeping the mafia numbers down is good though, so there is merit to this strategy. I suppose the longer the town can keep ahead of the mafia the more the godfather will have to say and the easier he/she will be found. Man, do I have to explain everything 5 times before people get it? xD It's not to declare that person as town, it's to not waste lynches on townies. At that point, they are not mafia, so at that point, killing them is lowering town power. We want to keep as many people around as possible. If mafia chooses not to kill that night, then they wasted a night kill! So instead of killing someone they choose, they have to not kill someone, so that the person we chose dies. That sounds like a pretty friggin awesome deal to me. We vote to roleblock one person every night, and we vote to lynch that person if no night kill went on at night. So at most 1 person dies per day/night cycle, which prolongs the game which should be good for townies. We're not really using lynches to find mafia as much as like, forcing mafia+town down to 1KP. And we never let a mafia go unlynched unless it's GF. This is a perfectly awesome idea unless we have no roleblocker or roleblocker is mafia'd. Umm... all of this is fine except the GF recruits another mafia each night so the KP is essentially 2. I don't understand how you think that the mafia not killing someone is a good thing in this scenario - we roleblock someone GF recruits (please not a blue role) no deaths show we lynch a townie overall we lose two townies with no chance of hitting a mafia. The only possible benefit is a lucky blue role like DT finding mafia Yes prolonging the game is a good thing, but not at the expense of having more mafia recruited while killing 0 of them. How are we not wasting lynches on townies in this situation? We are only killing townies. Can people please think for themselves instead of making me do all the thinking? -.- Think of a specific example if you don't get it. Now I'll do it for you. >_> Normal scenario: We lynch T, mafia kills B at night, GF recruits C at night. We lynch M, mafia kills B at night, GF recruits C at night This scenerio: We RB T, mafia kills B at night, GF recruits C at night -> we have one more townie than normal (T) We RB T, mafia doesn't kill B at night, GF recruits C at night -> we have one more townie than normal (B) We RB M, mafia can't kill at night, GF recruits C at night -> we have one more townie and we killed the mafia (kept B, killed M) Why are there no lynches in the first day of this scenario? DTA just said that we cannot not lynch. So we do have to kill someone each day, which will either be a townie if the mafia did or did not kill, and a mafia if we roleblocked a mafia, who we could have lynched in the first place instead of relying on a filter that is slower, relies on the assumption of a role included, and kills mafia a day slowerOkay people? Use your brain! and do you have to act so condescending?
I'm being condescending because I'm pissed that people can't use logic.
So if we have to lynch, we lynch the person who is most likely to be GF. And we roleblock the person who we pseudovote in this thread to be most likely mafia.
|
On July 01 2010 13:55 BrownBear wrote:
Korynne, what do you think about the slight modification to my plan (we can roleblock twice in a row, so if a roleblock happens and nobody dies, keep that person alive and roleblock them again, THEN lynch them the next day)?
This is all still assuming there's a roleblocker in the game, obviously. I've decided your idea is worth trying at least on night 1. If it fails, then it fails, and we don't do it again.
Oh shit my bad, it says can't do so more than twice in a row. We'll have to clarify with Darth whether he means can't do so twice in a row or can't do so more than twice in a row. If it is in fact can't do so more than twice in a row then I agree with your plan.
|
On July 01 2010 13:56 rastaban wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:55 BrownBear wrote:
Korynne, what do you think about the slight modification to my plan (we can roleblock twice in a row, so if a roleblock happens and nobody dies, keep that person alive and roleblock them again, THEN lynch them the next day)?
This is all still assuming there's a roleblocker in the game, obviously. I've decided your idea is worth trying at least on night 1. If it fails, then it fails, and we don't do it again. We can't role block twice in a row 
On June 27 2010 03:34 DarthThienAn wrote:
Roleblocker
You have the ability to prevent a player from performing a night action. You must inform me of your roleblock target before the night begins, and your target will be blocked for that night. Your target will be informed that they have been role blocked only if they can perform a night action. You may not roleblock the same player more than twice in a row. You do not lose your ability upon recruitment.
Au contraire 
|
On July 01 2010 13:47 DarthThienAn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:41 BrownBear wrote:
Given that the two best mafia players on the site aren't in this game (although one is hosting), it's possible that we might be able to catch people saying nothing, or catch them slipping up.
If you mean me, I think you give me too much credit.Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:42 DCLXVI wrote:On July 01 2010 13:31 DarthThienAn wrote:On July 01 2010 13:21 DCLXVI wrote:
question - we still have to vote in the other thread to not get modkilled unless we can vote on no lynch - is that possible?
Also, is there a list of these basic rules that never appear in the OP of games?
Yes, you have to vote in the other thread to avoid being modkilled. No, you cannot vote for no lynch.
What basic rules are you looking for? I think the OP covers everything o.O.
questions like this and the ones I've asked in other games. weird situational questions I suppose. Like, can the mafia choose not to kill (answered:yes) I didn't see either of these in any OP for a game, maybe I'm going blind... That particular question is totally in the OP for this game.
I meant more of a "can you vote to not lynch?" sort of like how you can vote to double lynch except it applies to that day and you don't need to name a player. I know that you need to vote -.-
|
On July 01 2010 13:58 Korynne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:55 BrownBear wrote:
Korynne, what do you think about the slight modification to my plan (we can roleblock twice in a row, so if a roleblock happens and nobody dies, keep that person alive and roleblock them again, THEN lynch them the next day)?
This is all still assuming there's a roleblocker in the game, obviously. I've decided your idea is worth trying at least on night 1. If it fails, then it fails, and we don't do it again. Oh shit my bad, it says can't do so more than twice in a row. We'll have to clarify with Darth whether he means can't do so twice in a row or can't do so more than twice in a row. If it is in fact can't do so more than twice in a row then I agree with your plan.
Why would we have to clarify? It seems pretty clear cut to me in the role post.
|
On July 01 2010 13:58 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:56 rastaban wrote:On July 01 2010 13:55 BrownBear wrote:
Korynne, what do you think about the slight modification to my plan (we can roleblock twice in a row, so if a roleblock happens and nobody dies, keep that person alive and roleblock them again, THEN lynch them the next day)?
This is all still assuming there's a roleblocker in the game, obviously. I've decided your idea is worth trying at least on night 1. If it fails, then it fails, and we don't do it again. We can't role block twice in a row Show nested quote +On June 27 2010 03:34 DarthThienAn wrote:
Roleblocker
You have the ability to prevent a player from performing a night action. You must inform me of your roleblock target before the night begins, and your target will be blocked for that night. Your target will be informed that they have been role blocked only if they can perform a night action. You may not roleblock the same player more than twice in a row. You do not lose your ability upon recruitment. Au contraire
Thanks, thats what I meant but didn't say. oops.
|
As of right now Town has the advantage:
Godfather: Recruited one person and doesn't know their role. Thus can't really coordinate.
Traitor: Knows nothing.
Recruit: Knows nothing.
What we know as town:
We have lovers... I did not intentionally fish Darth into revealing this information.. but know town knows!
So if we have free masons then we know that it is possible that if lovers/masons confirm each other via role claim 4 proven innocents right off the bat. This reduces finding traitor,recruit, and GF to 3/16 chance. Only GF can fake claim lover/mason by confirming recruit and hoping that he plays along. To prevent this, true masons/lovers can pm each other to and post exact same time.
If we want to make this move, we have to do it today while mafia numbers are low and lack communication/information.
With Jailer/Roleblocker available we can extend the lives of lovers/masons. Having 4 confirm townies to start the game would only benefit the town. I would suggest masons to claim first. I can't see any fault with this plan. This plan will work if free masons exist. So if you are the masons please consider this plan.
|
Well sure, but like logically I would think it should read can't pick the same person twice in a row to make more sense and not let us abuse it that way.
I think L makes sense with the one mason roleclaim, I agree with that plan.
Comment on my plan plz L. xP
Also bum I think you missed me in a game I replaced Fulgrim for, but no biggie. BM was mafia in that game I believe.
Also if we want to kill an inactive we could make DT check the pseudovote for GF, roleblocker block the pseudovote for mafia, and lynch the inactive. xD
|
On July 01 2010 13:56 L wrote:
I want to know what people think about the following idea; We have one of the two masons claim. Given that we have verrrrry likely have medic(s), they can prot him and keep him alive during the game. If the player is lying, one (not both!) of the real masons can call him out. Given the fact that there are only 2 total mafia members today, it would cost the mafia essentially half their team to contest the mason claim. This is also a reason why claiming immediately would be more helpful than claiming at a later date. The downsides of this? Godfather now has a person he knows not to recruit, and the mason might die once mafia kp gets over 1.
If we do that, we have a confirmed townie who can essentially drive our vote; if he's wrong, cool beans, it happens. If he's right; awesome. Either way, it'll prevent exploitable intra-town conflicts.
I don't like this idea. The 2 masons are going to be a thorn in the mafia's side until they die. Giving one of them up only gives us the benefit of having a confirmed townie who can do... what? We should use our collective thoughts to out the mafia, not a single person. Now, if it looks like a mason is going to be lynched, the mason should definitely role claim... if a mafioso is doing this, one of the real masons will come out and say it which would be a good trade.
|
Chez I like L's plan with the one mason claim better. Less roles out in the open the better. Less chance for mafia to snipe other roles.
|
On July 01 2010 13:52 Korynne wrote:
I see, someone will always be lynched. In that case we pseudovote in this thread for mafia, and vote in the other thread for godfather. So whenever no NK happens, we kill the mafia the next day. If NK happens, then we just lynch whoever we think is likely to be GF the next day.
Also roleblocking top players is lame YellowInk. FoS on you. That means all the best players can't use their roles... so the potentially good jailkeeper/detective/etc. can't do their thing... good job. Besides mafia can then get our top players killed by not killing at night (since they probably want to kill the top players anyway if they can't recruit them). So like, not good. And we'd have to be continuously roleblocking the top players, not just once and it's done with.
Not sure I agree with the roleblock part being a bad idea. The only negative combo is blocking the DT for 1 night. The jailkeeper being RBed 1 night would be annoying but isn't critical since he would be guessing at first on who to protect. The veteran, lovers, masons, coroner etc.. wouldn't really matter losing 1 night of powers or am I missing something?
|
and the same thing with the lovers as well.
Btw, I'm assuming there are not more than 1 pair each of lovers/masons, otherwise this would fall apart.
|
AcrossFiveJulys, you are forgetting the whole like, town is likely to flip shit on itself that L is wanting to prevent.
Cuz like, town flipped shit on L when he tried to kill Ace. =P
|
On July 01 2010 14:07 rastaban wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:52 Korynne wrote:
I see, someone will always be lynched. In that case we pseudovote in this thread for mafia, and vote in the other thread for godfather. So whenever no NK happens, we kill the mafia the next day. If NK happens, then we just lynch whoever we think is likely to be GF the next day.
Also roleblocking top players is lame YellowInk. FoS on you. That means all the best players can't use their roles... so the potentially good jailkeeper/detective/etc. can't do their thing... good job. Besides mafia can then get our top players killed by not killing at night (since they probably want to kill the top players anyway if they can't recruit them). So like, not good. And we'd have to be continuously roleblocking the top players, not just once and it's done with. Not sure I agree with the roleblock part being a bad idea. The only negative combo is blocking the DT for 1 night. The jailkeeper being RBed 1 night would be annoying but isn't critical since he would be guessing at first on who to protect. The veteran, lovers, masons, coroner etc.. wouldn't really matter losing 1 night of powers or am I missing something?
Are we only doing this night one? Like, I think we should roleblock the most suspicious person. If that person ends up being one of the top players, then sure it's all good. I mean the top players are most likely to make a correct choice first night compared to anyone else.
If we only do this night one it doesn't really help since that does nothing to confirm or prevent top level players from doing anything...
|
Chez, minor flaw in your thinking: Lovers are absolutely recruitable by the GF. So we only have 2 confirmed townies, not 4.
|
Btw, having masons (hopefully) and lovers (confirmed?) is going to be huge for us as long as they are alive. Since they can confirm themselves as townies in the event they are going to be lynched, we end up with 4 less people that can be mislynched.
|
On June 30 2010 12:33 DarthThienAn wrote:
Side note cuz I know it will come up: Roles were given out randomly.
Specifically, I took a deck of cards and designated X cards to be X roles, put in enough cards to equal 20, shuffled, etc. Then I took the signup list and put it into a randomizer (tournament style). Took that list top from bottom as my new 1-20. Started flipping cards and assigning roles chronologically with that new list. Shuffled 19 cards (no Godfather) with 2 sets of 2 designated cards for the Free Masons / Lovers. Repeated the flipping + assigning process.
TL;DR - it were r4Nd0|\/|.
It is pretty much confirmed that there is 1 lover and 1 mason pair, at least in my mind.
|
On July 01 2010 14:07 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
and the same thing with the lovers as well.
Btw, I'm assuming there are not more than 1 pair each of lovers/masons, otherwise this would fall apart.
Let's scrap Chez's plan and just look at L's. No lover roleclaims, just one mason.
|
On July 01 2010 14:06 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2010 13:56 L wrote:
I want to know what people think about the following idea; We have one of the two masons claim. Given that we have verrrrry likely have medic(s), they can prot him and keep him alive during the game. If the player is lying, one (not both!) of the real masons can call him out. Given the fact that there are only 2 total mafia members today, it would cost the mafia essentially half their team to contest the mason claim. This is also a reason why claiming immediately would be more helpful than claiming at a later date. The downsides of this? Godfather now has a person he knows not to recruit, and the mason might die once mafia kp gets over 1.
If we do that, we have a confirmed townie who can essentially drive our vote; if he's wrong, cool beans, it happens. If he's right; awesome. Either way, it'll prevent exploitable intra-town conflicts. I don't like this idea. The 2 masons are going to be a thorn in the mafia's side until they die. Giving one of them up only gives us the benefit of having a confirmed townie who can do... what? We should use our collective thoughts to out the mafia, not a single person. Now, if it looks like a mason is going to be lynched, the mason should definitely role claim... if a mafioso is doing this, one of the real masons will come out and say it which would be a good trade.
I agree with AFJ. Nobody should roleclaim, at least yet. It just creates targets only for the benefit of having one less person in the lynchpool.
Also, come on, guys, I said it already. Lovers are recruitable. Having them roleclaim means jack shit.
|
Lovers cannot claim, and if a mafia is recruited as a lover, they are a massive benefit to the mafia as even a sacrifice lynch gives the mafia an extra townie kill. Its to the point where even if there's a confirmed townie amongst the two lovers, its irrelevant because killing the other member is completely vote neutral when it comes to keeping mafia away from a vote superiority.
Masons can both claim, but we probably only have enough jail action to keep one alive, and we can't co-ordinate protection without jailer claims and frankly that's a non-starter.
Given that, it really doesn't make sense not to have a single confirmed townie confirm himself. If we do it at a later date, say around day 4, mafia might simply gambit and have 2 members counterclaim to control, say, a double lynch, which might end the game on us.
Having a mason claim isn't a game ender because we can't PM him role information, but it does give us one person as a base for analysis. Like I said, the tradeoff is halfing the chance that the GF tries to mason recruit, but that's a paltry 10% anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
