|
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. Top players are no more likely to have roles than inactives. With respect to hitting roles, this targeting is completely arbitrary. The rest of this argument just collapses from this fact.
I would argue that top townie players are easily as powerful as less skilled players with roles. Having people who know who they can trust among those who are skilled at deceiving is a valuable thing.
Regarding the pseudovote roleblocking: Roleblockers should be free to choose their own targets at will rather than putting it to a pseudovote. At least for now. First, we don't know if we have multiple roleblockers. I'd hate to waste town power by forcing them to overlap. Second, pseudovotes would allow the mafia to directly manipulate who is getting 'outted' by the roleblocks. Further, if we were comitting to lynch (or even just continuously roleblock) people who came up scum by this test, every time a medic successfully blocked or a vet took a hit, we could be lynching (or roleblocking) an innocent.
In short, it is a slow and ineffective method. The one benefit it gives us is that we can have the roleblocker target someone with reasonable certainty without the roleblocker being outted. It may be something to use eventually, but definitely not an every day thing.
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. This is a bad plan. If I were scum about to be lynched, I'd totally claim free mason to force them to out. First off, the scum have nothing to lose by making such a claim and 'forcing' a real mason to out themselves. Second, the masons lose a lot of their power when they are 'out'. The #1 power of free masons is that when the godfather recruits them, the recruiting fails. This is why I also have to object to L's plan.
If we're about to lynch a mason, if the masons feel it's worth it to out both masons to divert the lynch, they should both claim. This way if scum lies to do so, they're giving something up. Yeah, doing this for the town will reveal our masons, but it's better than lynching them. No sole mason claim is going to convince me of anything - nor should it of you. It gives up 0 information, scum can do this at will.
On July 01 2010 14:18 L wrote: 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. I'd take 1% if I could get it. 10% certaintly isn't paltry. Having a single confirmed townie does not gain us all that much. Further, I would rather not have to necessarily tie up our jailkeeper to a particular target. Consider also that the jailkeeper can target a person they choose at random tonight, and assuming they chose someone town aligned, they can be sure that that person remains town aligned. Regardless of who gets jailed, so long as it's town, that's another person that can't be recruited. This plan throws two of these 'free blocks' away.
Multiple jailkeepers makes this plan even worse similar to the roleblock pseudovote plan.
To masons I would say that the only condition under which you should claim is if you are about to be lynched. In this case you should both claim - that's what gives it credibility.
On July 01 2010 14:41 Korynne wrote: Why should we try to roleblock a good player rather than someone we think could be mafia and potentially blocking a night kill? -.- You always go after the red first. This goes without saying. It's similar to our lynch inactives policy. We're not about to lynch an inactive if we just had a DT point and say, "Yo! That guy's the godfather!"
|
On July 01 2010 17:12 Bill Murray wrote: We are doing L's plan. There is nothing else to discuss. We should not do L's plan. Please see explanation above. Please post your agreement after thinking it over. L probably will too.
|
Neither of the plans presented by Korynne or L should be pursued. Take the advice that I've outlined (unless anyone sees any flaws in it - none have voiced any yet) and apply it to yourself as appropriate.
But most importantly be active.
|
To put some numbers on it, if we have 1 jailkeep and 1 pair of free masons, the jailkeep targets a random target, the godfather targets a random target except the mafia already recruited: The godfather will fail due to hitting a mason 2/18 11.1% The godfather will fail due to jailkeep protection 1/19 5.3% After accounting for overlap of these effects, the godfather will fail 15.8% Outing a mason and jailing them drops the godfather failure to 5.9% This is the 10% L refers to.
Consider that a second jailkeep increases the jailkeep protection effect by almost as much as the first. Now L's plan is losing us 15%.
Also keep in mind that this 'paltry' 10% goes into effect every time the godfather recruits. The mason effect gets larger over time as well since the godfather won't target the same person twice (assuming the godfather didn't hit a mason previously - if they did, we've won a significant victory). Having free masons unknown to the populace is an enormous boon to the town.
|
A quick note to those of you trying to analyze my behavior:
If you read through the games I've played here (this is the fourth), you will find I have opened each game differently. This is for a few reasons which I might discuss in a general mafia thread, but it is primarily to make me unreadable.
There is no one strategy that 'convinces' people that one is town. If there were, scum would use it and town would be reduced to random voting and this game would be very boring. The best one can do is never be obvious scum. So that's all you're seeing.
On July 01 2010 18:45 Bill Murray wrote:yellowink, take the time away from your empty mafia IRC channel and answer my question Yo, obviously (lol) not scum here. Some people need to sleep. And no, I'm not on with the A5J wagon.
|
On July 02 2010 01:00 Korynne wrote:+ Show Spoiler [recent big post] +Like honestly BM, if you've read any of my games, you know that other than the game where I was scum in your game (though that doesn't really count because that was f11) I've tried to propose some sort of lengthy strategy at the beginning of the day.
Also I was going to bed, you're way too sensitive to the vote on you and you don't usually seem like the OMGUS kind of person. Like I said, which you have not addressed in any way, you're playing differently this game than all others. You could at least have said, well gee thanks I try to help out for real now and I get voted on for that? You just completely ignored that part of my post. So yeah, heavy FoS on you.
What's wrong with my idea? If we implement it we can do up to 3 actions a day instead of just 1. Actions: #1 Roleblock a mafia, this can block all 3 KP if we hit the mafia. I highly doubt mafia is going to pretend to not kill anyone when a townie gets blocked, they could just kill that townie and 2 others. Even when mafia has 1 KP it's between not killing and letting the one guy (we chose) die, and just killing the person that they feel like is most detrimental to town. #2 DT check a GF, since that's the only way we can find the GF and a GF to DT trade is like, absolutely worth it especially since we have a system for mafia now. #3 Lynch an inactive, since we have to lynch everyday, if the roleblock and DT check don't work out then we just lynch an inactive, like we can do today since we haven't started DT checking and roleblocking.
So how do we implement this plan?
#1 Pseudovote in this thread for mafia and GF, like ##mafia: A ##GF: B #2 At night, roleblocker blocks the person who got the most votes for mafia (even if they don't agree on the person being mafia, and of course they don't have to roleblock themselves, but they can't roleblock anyone else at night if they are the one designated to be roleblocked) and detective checks the person who town voted on as most likely to be GF (with the same clause as above, except if the town voted for the DT then he can check whoever he likes) #3 In the morning, if the DT found GF, we lynch GF. If no night kills happened, we lynch the person that was roleblocked. If neither of those happen, then we lynch an inactive (they don't contribute to us very much, and they're harder to read, and this forces people to talk) We can also vote for double lynch if there's a lot of people we want to kill (like we got a GF and there was no night kills, vote for double lynch the next day). This way we get through 3 things a day. Now for everyone who doesn't understand how this is beneficial to us, let me spell it out for you.
Above method: Up to 3 actions a day Normal method: We have to choose to either lynch someone we think is mafia (to lower their KP), choose to lynch someone we think is GF (to stop the recruiting), and probably have no power to threaten the inactives because we're too busy hunting scum.
Okay peoples? This sounds like a wonderful idea. Knowing that you are very logical, have you carefully read all of my posts?
|
On July 02 2010 01:15 Korynne wrote: Give me a second to go through all the stuff I wanted to, and then I will go through all of your posts if that's what you'd like me to do. I ask because I countered your plan a while ago. I am surprised you're still pressing it.
|
On July 02 2010 01:18 Korynne wrote: Well I've read some of it YInk and I don't think I saw anything breaking my plan. But just give me a couple secs to get through everything else I wanted to. I'm headed out in a minute for a couple hours. Give it some thought and reply.
|
On June 27 2010 03:34 DarthThienAn wrote: If you try to recruit a Free Mason, that person will remain a townsperson (will not become mafia), and no new mafia will be recruited for that night. They will notified that the Godfather tried to recruit them that night. You will never be notified the results of your recruitment . DTA can you please clarify/fix the italicized OP please?
On July 02 2010 02:04 lakrismamma wrote: You have not responded to any of my accusations either. My thread speaks volumes more than your accusations.
On July 01 2010 03:35 YellowInk wrote: Has anyone noticed how much information Korynne has been providing us? On July 02 2010 01:28 Korynne wrote: Oh yeah, you should explain this post btw. I forgot about it. xD This was in reply to:
On July 01 2010 03:13 Korynne wrote: we don't want to give the godfather more information than he already knows when you had posted: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132755¤tpage=7#133 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132755¤tpage=7#134 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132755¤tpage=8#144 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132755¤tpage=8#148 which holds a wealth of information. It was a cheap jab much like my shot on Chezinu.
On July 02 2010 04:07 Bill Murray wrote: heavy fos on me after i made a half page post putting heavy fos on you first? your play is trash.
On July 02 2010 04:09 Bill Murray wrote: jeez, you're still on me?
your play is so bad.
how about you learn how to scumhunt? take notes. You're not convincing anyone like this. You may want to try a different tact.
@Korynne roleblock plan discussion: There are really two major points of contention I have about this. First, I don't believe it is safe to assume that we have precisely one roleblocker. If we have 0 or 2, we're losing a lot of ground with this plan. I think we are in agreement on the loss of ground, we just disagree in our assumptions. The second is that if we use this plan, whenever the mafia fail to hit we are using this as a scum tell for our pseudovoted blocked guy. The mafia could have just tried to hit whomever was in jail or a vet. If we use this as significant evidence of scum, we're going to be randomly wasting our lynches whenever the mafia happens to fail to hit.
My suggestion to roleblockers is this: Choose your own roleblocks. You can follow my ideas about blocking top players if you don't feel that you have a better target. It's just like lynching inactives - it's something you do when you don't know what better to do. If there is no mafia hit on a given night, roleblock the same target again. If the target is scum, this buys the town another safety from KP. Mind you that this isn't perfect, but it is a large scum tell if you block the KP twice in a row. If there are two roleblockers, both roleblockers will think their target is scum by this plan - but even in this case it at least helps slow down the mafia KP.
@Korynne DT plan discussion: Voting on a target and DTs aligning by this will create perfect overlap if we have multiple DTs. This is the most inefficient way to find the godfather. Here we gain no public information by directing our DTs like we do with the roleblockers, so why even bother? By all means, if you believe someone to be the godfather for any reason, post in thread so that the DTs can take it into consideration. But railroading DTs to particular targets will not help us.
My suggestion to DTs: Target whomever you like. Take all of our ideas into consideration, but also realize that if there are two DTs you want to minimize overlap with them. This is a double edged sword since suppose town strongly suggests a target for the GF, I would hate to see a single DT shy away from investigating them because they figure the other DT is obviously going to investigate. I would prefer to have DT overlap than DTs failing to investigate - I just don't want to have perfect overlap as Korynne's plan forces.
|
On July 02 2010 05:12 Korynne wrote: I was just pointing out why we shouldn't talk. Because townies are stupid and don't do what they're told unless you spell it out for them 5 times. As I've learned in this game. I think it's a rather safe assumption that we have at least one roleblocker. And I think it's probably safe to say there's not two. Even if there was two, it's not a big deal. I don't think we should be throwing roleblocks all over the place, because they usually screw up normal night actions. So if someone's claiming something but then oh look, it didn't happen, then a roleblocker would have to out themselves to be like, yo, he's cool, I did roleblock him. This is a good point. The only blue role that goes over to the mafia is the roleblocker. By having it be directed, we'll always know that people can't claim to have been roleblocked unless the mafia got their hands on a roleblocker.
The whole point is that we're using it as an alternative to lynching the person who we think is most scummy. So if we're not doing this plan, HE WOULD BE DEAD ANYWAY. More importantly than this, it means that we have to convince the town that every single lynch needs to be based ... inactivity, I assume? Or, of course, DT/roleblocking info.
I don't think we would start with two DTs either, but even if we do. I think it's more important that we can confirm people as not GF. I disagree with this statement. The DT will not be outting themselves at the finding of scum like in a normal game. They will only finger when they have a godfather or perhaps 2x scum depending on the game situation. A DT 'confirming' someone as not the godfather doesn't mean that they're a bad target for a lynch. It just means they're not the godfather. They could still be scum.
This way a detective does not need to reveal himself to confirm people. That keeps our detective hidden! If we had two DTs they'll just spend forever metagaming themselves on whether to check the obvious or someone else. So let's just make it simple, we gain one piece of information per night, guaranteed. Rather than possibly not gaining information if DT is killed. Also like I said before, dream catchers who get DT should check people who have not been checked by the DT yet. A much more guaranteed less overlap. I definitely agree that any dream catcher DTs should be doing their own thing regardless of the plan.
In summary, I'm giving the role block plan some consideration to aligning with you. DTs should definitely be left on their own. The consequences of this plan are still much harsher than the gains if we're ever at 0 or 2 roleblockers (whether by design or due to recruiting).
|
Since it hasn't been discussed extensively, I would like to talk a bit about the coroner role. I would not be surprised if we have at least two of these. For this reason I don't think that any town voting type activation is appropriate. That being said, of course people are going to say 'oh this would be a good time for a coroner'. Use your own judgment.
This ability should be used to help generate new momentum in the town. If we have good leads already, this power would generate additional information that we might not be able to act on. Instead use it when we're in a situation that is more stale. The longer this power is held on to, the more powerful it becomes.
I definitely would not use it before night 3 under any circumstance. Probably not until at least night 4. Also, just because a DT fingered a godfather and we lynch does not mean that this power needs to be immediately used. Sure, it'd be satisfying to know for sure, but game play only changes somewhat because of it. If we already have a good lead on other scum, it may be more valuable to hold out an additional day. If you were to wait another day and it turns out that it wasn't a godfather, we're still going to lynch the lying DT.
|
On July 02 2010 09:21 youngminii wrote: The truly inactives will be modkilled. So would we be lynching someone that hasn't posted too much content? I don't think we're going to find someone likely to be GF or scum on D1. Yes. When we say 'inactive' in thread, we mean people who have been posting/voting but not contributing.
|
While I'm still undecided about the Korynne role block plan, my vote is going to zeks. We're more than 450 posts deep and he is usually far more active on day 1 than this. He has made one post with no substance.
|
@DTA I think this was asked earlier but we didn't get an answer. What is the order of priorities in night actions? For instance, if you role block and recruit a given target, does it block the mafia KP? If you recruit and night kill a given target, does their body show up as mafia or town aligned?
|
On July 02 2010 10:35 rastaban wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2010 10:28 YellowInk wrote: @DTA I think this was asked earlier but we didn't get an answer. What is the order of priorities in night actions? For instance, if you role block and recruit a given target, does it block the mafia KP? If you recruit and night kill a given target, does their body show up as mafia or town aligned? For the 1st one it does not block the KP if they are blocked on the night they are recruited, (mod stated this a few pages back) so jailing them as well may be required. Ok, thanks. Also, still looking for that OP edit requested earlier.
|
People who support L's plan, I think you are over valuing having a confirmed townie. Just because someone is confirmed town does not mean they will necessarily make the best decisions. This would be a worthy plan if PMs were allowed as roles could be organized.
After giving K's plan some final thought, I have to stand against it. I still believe that it could be used on occasion when circumstances warrant, but the drawbacks are too great to use every day.
Townies - play smart, be active.
|
zeks = silent -> claiming mason supposedly forcing us to L's plan?
I don't buy it.
|
On July 02 2010 13:25 L wrote: YI, I want you to explain in detail why you don't buy it, because you just made the fishiest post in the first 25 pages by far. It's really quite simple. I call out zeks for being abnormal and quiet. zeks responds by posting in a manner that advocates your plan and effectively clears him if the masons agree with me that your plan is not better than remaining secret.
Now zeks is in a position where you will defend him and the jailkeeper may protect him (and so he can never be DT'd). Even with this, I'm not sure that it's best for a real mason to come out if zeks is lying.
Your plan was only effective if you had town alignment on it before a mason coming forward. There definitely was not alignment on it. At this point, even if I agreed with you, it doesn't mean the masons do. So now the whole thing is fishy.
All this being said, it only screws the town over somewhat. The question is whether the jailkeeper wants to commit to protecting zeks. If zeks is for real, obviously we want to cover. If zeks is a fake (and if he were, I would figure him to either be traitor or goon, not godfather), we'll be wasting a bunch of jailkeeper actions up until when the real masons decide to come out.
|
On July 02 2010 09:35 Divinek wrote: oh my god ive been working 12 hour shifts and just been skimming to stay alive i will post something more useful after i sift through all these new pages, of which i assume are 70% bm spam Still need to hear from you. Moving vote here until satisfied. Work sucks. =\
|
On July 02 2010 14:24 Korynne wrote: Also like I said, zeks, you should post an encrypted message in the thread, and give the key to your mason partner. If you die and we ever need to verify your partner, we will be using that key to do it. I agree with this. But mind you, everyone, that if zeks isn't a mason, he's probably either the traitor (in which case no one will pick up his key - which is fine), or the goon (in which case he'll pass the key on to his team tomorrow). So the key won't hold too much weight until we have a coroner check out zeks' corpse.
Because of this fact, you could say that the key holds weight if someone decodes it since it's putting scum at risk whenever a coroner flips zeks' corpse. However, the tool would still be there for the goon to use should they desire to put weight into some particular argument at some particular time if this came up.
|
|
|
|