EPTKingmaker - A New Game - Page 5
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
And no, I do not agree with the King not revealing himself once chosen. We need to find out what the king is thinking. We have a different king each day, and the game setup does not have any day kills. So there is absolutely no disadvantage to the king being revealed to the towns, and it will only give the Assassins, with their ability to PM, an even better chance to plot behind their backs. Remember - there are -no- PMs for townies! the only ones that really "need to find out what the king is thinking" are the assassins. | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On November 09 2010 16:34 Coagulation wrote: the only ones that really "need to find out what the king is thinking" are the assassins. How so? Note that there are no actions from the assassins before the king decides who to kill. The assassins will just have to post and discuss like the rest of town. It's a small game, shouldn't be that hard to keep active and post at least semi-constructively. So. I just woke up, and I skimmed through the thread. I agree that we should really push inactive players to talk, but I disagree that king should listen to town. It should be pretty obvious if he goes with the general "stream of thought" that the town is going with, or if he just chooses to lynch someone who seems completely random to the town. So no, excuses like "I had a gut feeling" won't really hold if 8 people are voting for someone and the king choses to kill someone else. That would be an obvious tell. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
In fact please explain how "t should be pretty obvious if he goes with the general "stream of thought" that the town is going with, or if he just chooses to lynch someone who seems completely random to the town" somehow turns into support for the statement "I disagree that king should listen to town." | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On November 09 2010 18:56 Hesmyrr wrote: WTF are you keep talking about. So if there is 5-3 split and king goes, "oh guy with 3 votes seem more suspicious imma hammer him" do you have any idea what chaos would ensure thereafter? At the point where king makes a decision where town opinion is not so decisive as your example, everything goes to shit whether the king turns out to be town or not. Like I said, if the king has valid excuse behind his push, then it should be enough to convince the majority into believing his case. In fact please explain how "t should be pretty obvious if he goes with the general "stream of thought" that the town is going with, or if he just chooses to lynch someone who seems completely random to the town" somehow turns into support for the statement "I disagree that king should listen to town." Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm sorry, but the king is a cool role. Why do we have to spoil it? It's the player's chance. IF there's a 5-4 vote split, (king's vote is on the 4) the king can lynch whoever he wants, no? That's fair, the imbalance is not that big. If there's a 5-3 vote split (assuming one player died), then the king has one of those 3 votes. So in fact, it's just a 5-2 vote split (not counting king's vote), so the imbalance is fairly obvious. King has the option of going with the majority, or taking a huge risk and killing the "2-vote". If the 2-vote turns blue, then the king will have a lot to explain for, and it won't be an easy way out. Also, the other 2 voters will be in trouble. So no, given the fact that there are only 9 players, I don't think there's any way for the king to explain un-town-like moves. I fail to imagine a scenario where the king could justify a "gut feeling" blue kill, unless the votes are actually quite close (note the 5-4 split I was talking about earlier). | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On November 09 2010 14:52 orgolove wrote: Amber seems more scummy by the minute. Here you give no actual substantive response to both me and several others in the thread that point out the enormous advantages given to the town, and instead rely on a weak defense that I'm stretching your words. How is it remotely a good idea to give the reds any possibility to kill a townie without consequence? As Hesmyrr mentioned, following this pattern means we will simply default to the standard F9 setup, which has been proven time and time again to be reasonably balanced for the town despite the mafia's ability to influence the arguments. Right now it just appears that you're just trying to leave room for the reds to kill a town without consequence when a red mayor comes around. In your haste, you yourself proved why we should not allow the king to kill whomever he wants, as he can then And no, I do not agree with the King not revealing himself once chosen. We need to find out what the king is thinking. We have a different king each day, and the game setup does not have any day kills. So there is absolutely no disadvantage to the king being revealed to the towns, and it will only give the Assassins, with their ability to PM, an even better chance to plot behind their backs. Remember - there are -no- PMs for townies! So, here I ask again: King, who are you? You have some incredible invested interest in me, and I'm flattered. I also find it ironic that we're sitting on complete opposite ends of the spectrum, and as you try and incriminate me you're also looking for the king. This leads me to believe that you are not the king. So I know the kingmaker did a good job picking a good and reasonable king. King, despite what the above says, roleclaiming so quickly is not smart. Stay in the shadows and decide for yourself. Feel free to post, but don't outright claim. PMing is not something we should worry about. You're using a game mechanic to justify your faulty reasoning for a roleclaim. The ability to PM was an incredibly strong mechanic in the hands of the town, not the assassins. You are twisting facts with mechanic discussion, all while trying to push for my death. You got balls. There is an incredible disadvantage to the town knowing who the king was. I stated it already, but you shrugged it off. So I'm going to shrug your nonsense off. If you want I'll continue to discredit you all game. I have no problem doing this, and I'd be more than happy to play the game this way. You should probably pick a plan that's going to benefit the town in the long run, not gun for a player and hope things get better tomorrow. Hope everyone is seeing what exactly is going on here lol. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On November 09 2010 18:56 Hesmyrr wrote: WTF are you keep talking about. So if there is 5-3 split and king goes, "oh guy with 3 votes seem more suspicious imma hammer him" do you have any idea what chaos would ensure thereafter? At the point where king makes a decision where town opinion is not so decisive as your example, everything goes to shit whether the king turns out to be town or not. Like I said, if the king has valid excuse behind his push, then it should be enough to convince the majority into believing his case. In fact please explain how "t should be pretty obvious if he goes with the general "stream of thought" that the town is going with, or if he just chooses to lynch someone who seems completely random to the town" somehow turns into support for the statement "I disagree that king should listen to town." If there's a 5-3 split chances are the mafia influenced a decision. This is such a small game where math can actually be used to determine alignment. Want to vote? Fine lets vote. It's going to give the assassins one extra opportunity to get their camouflage set up to remain unnoticed. The assassins have a lot of power here. They can manipulate the vote count in either favor. They can push on the majority (5-3 2 mafia votes on majority). This means that the town would know that 2 people on the list of 5 are probably mafia. They can push on the minority (5-3 2 mafia votes on minority). This means that the assassins are looking to assimilate themselves into the town. They're going to use this to their advantage. They could split votes (5-3 1 mafia vote on each). This means we have no shot of knowing where the assassins want their votes to go. We just know that our 2 choices were bad. In this scenario using the merlin ability on Day 1 is highly advantageous. This cancels the day 1 vote and gives us shifty intel. Whether we choose to use the information gained is up to us and the king at the time, ultimately. They could also vote for someone completely different. This would be highly unlikely and easy for the town to spot if they look carefully. Problem is a villager will flip and the town will accuse the two major parties. The voting system is incredibly flawed in this type of a game. Giving the King ultimate say relieves a lot of the burden of analyzing the game simply on voting trends. The King makes a decision, and we hold the King accountable depending on the analysis of the day. We can vote, but the King should not be bound to the majority. He's a King after all, and we didn't vote for him. | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
Both of these are somewhat bad to the town in the long run: 1. The kingmaker dies -> New kingmaker -> Could be better, could be worse, but in the end it's one blue dead so overall it's bad for the town. 2. The hero dies -> This is obviously bad because in the event that one of the kings decides to kill the hero, it will blow up in their faces, and we'll also have one (possibly two) blues confirmed. I'm just saying that statistically speaking, using a relic will most likely get a townie killed (if I understand this correctly). So I'm not sure it's a smart idea. On the other hand, I was lynched in day1 in the king-assassin game because I dared to defend myself, so I'm not sure if the "majority decision" is better.  | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Firstly, we need a united town. We need some sort of policy regarding the kings. If we're going to decide to let the king lynch people independently, we cannot make the argument later that 'you should have followed majority'. At the same time, if we force the king to follow majority, the must hold him accountable On November 09 2010 16:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I agree. The king should not roleclaim. This way the mafia can not manipulate the king directly and he can participate in the town discussion without being pushed in a direction intentionally. And we fear this because the assassins have sercretz mind control abilities </sarcasm> You are saying that 1) The king is smart enough to make his own decisions. and 2) The king is too easily influenced. Please clarify | ||
|
BrownBear
United States6894 Posts
On November 09 2010 16:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I agree. The king should not roleclaim. This way the mafia can not manipulate the king directly and he can participate in the town discussion without being pushed in a direction intentionally. Read my earlier post about why the king should roleclaim. | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
I'm thinking something in the lines of: players number divided to 3, rounded up if it's over x,5 and down if it's under x,5 So he'll have 3 votes on day one (but this includes his own vote as a townie, ofc), two votes on day 2 (assuming 3 people died), and so on. I fail to see the point in having a new king each day if he'll just have to 100% follow the majority. It would be just pointless. As for him revealing or not, I think it should be up to him. He will be revealed after he makes his move anyway, so you can't make a really strong argument either way. It should be up to them, actually. Overall, I think you guys are taking a lot out of this game by trying to make the king as non-powerful as possible. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On November 09 2010 13:30 Coagulation wrote: so whos king? oh and bite me pandain. On November 09 2010 16:34 Coagulation wrote: the only ones that really "need to find out what the king is thinking" are the assassins. Coagulation, could you please be a bit more active and join the discussion? Thanks Anyways, we should now move discuss whether or not we should use Merlin I am against using Merlin, as it is a waste of a lynch. Remember, lylo is not delayed when we use Merlin. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:28 LSB wrote: Okay. This is going to be quick Firstly, we need a united town. We need some sort of policy regarding the kings. If we're going to decide to let the king lynch people independently, we cannot make the argument later that 'you should have followed majority'. At the same time, if we force the king to follow majority, the must hold him accountable And we fear this because the assassins have sercretz mind control abilities </sarcasm> You are saying that 1) The king is smart enough to make his own decisions. and 2) The king is too easily influenced. Please clarify Unless the king is Coagulation I think he should be allowed to scumhunt on his own. most of the players in this game are decent or good. No I'm not saying the assassins have secretz mind control. But if both get active, they can manipulate the shit out of the town. If they know the king then they can push him directly and put pressure on him directly to do what they want to do. If they don't the king, then they can't. They have to focus manipulation on the town as a whole which is much more difficult. Honestly just one good scum poster can totally change the direction of a bandwagon. Early game bandwagons are very often directed by scum when the town has no real viable scumtargets, that's why I think the king should act somewhat independently. If the town doesn't know the king, it doesn't bust their balls at all. At the end of the day, the king is held accountable for what he does and he must reveal himself eventually. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On November 09 2010 19:29 CubEdIn wrote: Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm sorry, but the king is a cool role. Why do we have to spoil it? It's the player's chance. IF there's a 5-4 vote split, (king's vote is on the 4) the king can lynch whoever he wants, no? That's fair, the imbalance is not that big. If there's a 5-3 vote split (assuming one player died), then the king has one of those 3 votes. So in fact, it's just a 5-2 vote split (not counting king's vote), so the imbalance is fairly obvious. King has the option of going with the majority, or taking a huge risk and killing the "2-vote". If the 2-vote turns blue, then the king will have a lot to explain for, and it won't be an easy way out. Also, the other 2 voters will be in trouble. So no, given the fact that there are only 9 players, I don't think there's any way for the king to explain un-town-like moves. I fail to imagine a scenario where the king could justify a "gut feeling" blue kill, unless the votes are actually quite close (note the 5-4 split I was talking about earlier). Remember, it is quiet easy to state a few reasons why someone is probably scum. In every single game, scum are accused, town are accused. Take this post in the Micro Game http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161868¤tpage=8#145 Each are reasons why the king could have killed someone. If we allow the king to go against majority, all that's going to happen is the assassins are going to be able to crowned, write up an analysis against a random player. Post the analysis and get the town to waste a lynch. I don't buy the 'the king should have fun' argument. Remember, the problem is that the King is a very big danger and hold lots of power. Play to win, not to 'roleplay' | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:56 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Unless the king is Coagulation I think he should be allowed to scumhunt on his own. most of the players in this game are decent or good. No I'm not saying the assassins have secretz mind control. But if both get active, they can manipulate the shit out of the town. If they know the king then they can push him directly and put pressure on him directly to do what they want to do. If they don't the king, then they can't. They have to focus manipulation on the town as a whole which is much more difficult. Honestly just one good scum poster can totally change the direction of a bandwagon. Early game bandwagons are very often directed by scum when the town has no real viable scumtargets, that's why I think the king should act somewhat independently. If the town doesn't know the king, it doesn't bust their balls at all. At the end of the day, the king is held accountable for what he does and he must reveal himself eventually. This is assuming that the king decides to go with his 'gut decision'. The king being influenced wouldn't be an issue if he is following the vote of the majority. This problem only arises if we allow an independent king. I don't understand what you mean by Early Game bandwagons. Sure, if this was micro mafia iv where people ran around not knowing what to do. But this town is pretty experienced. We are talking about people with multiple games underneath their belt. People aren't going to jump on a bandwagon because it looks cool. Lastly, you forget the town. We can stop manipulations. In fact, public discussion is best because it show manipulations and brings light to the mafia. In games where not much discussion occurs, mafia easily lay back and watch the town turn on themselves. Let's look at your plan. The king should stay hidden, and 1 hour from the end, pop up, and kill someone because 'he thought he was scummy'. This is extremely mafia favored. To me, all it seems like what you are doing is trying to create a mafia favored environment where the town has no control over the lynches This is the big issue. Making sure the town has control over the lynches Town KP is Always Always Always better than mafia KP | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:59 LSB wrote: Remember, it is quiet easy to state a few reasons why someone is probably scum. In every single game, scum are accused, town are accused. Take this post in the Micro Game http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161868¤tpage=8#145 Each are reasons why the king could have killed someone. If we allow the king to go against majority, all that's going to happen is the assassins are going to be able to crowned, write up an analysis against a random player. Post the analysis and get the town to waste a lynch. I don't buy the 'the king should have fun' argument. Remember, the problem is that the King is a very big danger and hold lots of power. Play to win, not to 'roleplay' Fair enough. You don't have to explain the easy bandwagons, as I said, I got raped for simply counter-attacking the guy who attacked me in the Assassin game. Nobody even bothered to read my posts and see if they made any sense from a Bodyguard point of view. But I digress. However, the king is only a big danger if he's on his own. There is NO way that a king who will go against the majority will not be held accountable. I think that it's very well worth having the king go totally against town and kill a blue if in return he will get killed day 2 and flip red. So no, I don't think it's very easy for someone to get away with killing whoever they want, and bandwagons can be started by anyone, king doesn't have much to do with that. At the very least king should have one extra vote or something. You are only judging from the perspective of being a townie, but what if there's a king who is really sure (based on a gut feeling) that someone is an assassin? What will he do? He might even invoke Merlin or do silly things like that just out of frustration of not being listened to by the town. Either way, I'll go with any decision, but forcing king to be normal townie will probably cause more bad than it does good. Just my two cents. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On November 10 2010 03:07 CubEdIn wrote: Fair enough. You don't have to explain the easy bandwagons, as I said, I got raped for simply counter-attacking the guy who attacked me in the Assassin game. Nobody even bothered to read my posts and see if they made any sense from a Bodyguard point of view. But I digress. However, the king is only a big danger if he's on his own. There is NO way that a king who will go against the majority will not be held accountable. I think that it's very well worth having the king go totally against town and kill a blue if in return he will get killed day 2 and flip red. So no, I don't think it's very easy for someone to get away with killing whoever they want, and bandwagons can be started by anyone, king doesn't have much to do with that. At the very least king should have one extra vote or something. You are only judging from the perspective of being a townie, but what if there's a king who is really sure (based on a gut feeling) that someone is an assassin? What will he do? He might even invoke Merlin or do silly things like that just out of frustration of not being listened to by the town. Either way, I'll go with any decision, but forcing king to be normal townie will probably cause more bad than it does good. Just my two cents. Exactly. The issue I'm seeking to prevent is what if the king goes against majority. If we have no definitive statement, there will be no way to tell if a king is scum or town. But I see your point about a frustrated townie. Although I usually would say "suck it up and do what's best". I just thought of this. New thought How about this. The king can announce, at least 24 hours beforehand who he is going to lynch. And then he must defend his lynch and reasoning, and satisfy the town, or go with the majority opinion. I am okay with this, as it's a lot more transparent, and we can easily tell if the king is trying to find scum, or if the king is just trying to make a flimsy case against someone. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On November 10 2010 03:16 LSB wrote: Exactly. The issue I'm seeking to prevent is what if the king goes against majority. If we have no definitive statement, there will be no way to tell if a king is scum or town. But I see your point about a frustrated townie. Although I usually would say "suck it up and do what's best". I just thought of this. New thought How about this. The king can announce, at least 24 hours beforehand who he is going to lynch. And then he must defend his lynch and reasoning, and satisfy the town, or go with the majority opinion. I am okay with this, as it's a lot more transparent, and we can easily tell if the king is trying to find scum, or if the king is just trying to make a flimsy case against someone. I am on board with this idea. The King could probably give a list of 2 people that should be up for a lynch. This might encourage more discussion. By putting on player under the radar you're going to have 1 player vs. the town. No one is going to step up and defend someone unknowingly. Giving the King the task of identifying and examining 2 players means that his analytical reasoning should remain constant, and it gives the town more leeway. I could only imagine an assassin King coming up with some BS as to why candidate X should be lynched, and the town just idly agrees while candidate X is screaming at the other players that they aren't being reasonable. This is where the King should absolve his power. When it comes to discussion, he should remember that he is still just another townie. When should the King announce his presence? Right at the start of day? Wait 24 hours after each day post? | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
sorry bout that :/ | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
listening to the "town" 9 times out of 10 is listening to the mafia. the king should not be a robot that does whatever the "town" says, he should of course seriously consider the town discussion but do you really think the assassins won't manipulate the shit out of bandwagons? the whole point of the king is to take that away from scum if we just have the king do whatever the town says, we're handing the mafia the power to control our lynches not the opposite | ||
| ||
