|
On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:
[quote]
I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box.
I have no idea what that last line means.
Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town.
|
On December 10 2010 10:51 Infundibulum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:47 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. Chances of finding scum D2 > Chances of finding scum D1 always just purely on the basis that amount of information available will increase as the game progresses. Although lynching inactives is always a start, we shouldn't discount the power of day one analysis I've seen it many times actually. Kenpachi/Coagulation (Almost, but we switched)- Deconduo's Don't lose your village game Me/Pyrr- TLMMM 2 Masq- Haunted Mafia Bill Murray (Almost, but Ace made us switch x.x)- Penalty Mafia And many others... I don't like lynching inactives Day 1 because we run the risk of lynching someone that is going to be modkilled. Unless I am mistaken, DocH is running a rather strict modkill policy: miss a vote = modkill. So if we lynch someone that wasn't going to vote anyway, it's rather redundant. I am a man that strives for efficiency.
On December 10 2010 10:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:Why?
Well. Why not? Its not like Infundibulum is a mafia newb to make that post.
|
On December 10 2010 11:00 zeks wrote:
Lynch inactives or eventually they'll burn us in the ass in the end when we're fighting amongst each other
6 scum + 1 third party = 7 / 31 = 22% chance of sniping someone. I haven't played for a couple months but most the player list looks relatively foreign to me so I'm assuming theres quite a number of new players (over half?)
From what I've seen from past games newb scum tend to lurk (correct me if I'm wrong) so we shouldn't give a free pass to inactives. And with new players we don't have any material from past games to work with.
And why don't you put your money where your mouth is and vote for an inactive instead of jumping on the bandwagon some clown started?
|
On December 10 2010 10:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:Why?
Some of us (me) carry friendly grudges (my first mafia game) ^^
|
LSB voted for Inf. before he even made the "efficiency" post..
|
Na, I voted for him before he even posted in the thread. Autovote Ftw!
|
Oh.
By Inactive, I mean someone who is lurking, maybe making one token post in the thread that isn't anything new and doesn't attempt to contribute anything at all, but still votes every day.
These are the uninterested townies, the lurkers, and the people studying for finals.
|
Obvious bandwagon is obvious. Zeks and Gabriel, speak up.
|
On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check.
Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town.
I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum  because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote.
|
On December 10 2010 11:06 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:07 LSB wrote:
##Vote:Infundibulum Why? Some of us (me) carry friendly grudges (my first mafia game) ^^
Oh haha, I forgot about that. If anything that should be like a compliment of sorts. Or something.
|
On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:
[quote]
At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote.
Hahaha are you serious? Votes shouldn't be placed, especially started, without some reasoning. According to LSB, it's some sort of old grudge. Methinks a little immature =P <3
Again, I would like to reiterate that the game just started. People will be jumping in at random times because people have lives outside the games on the forum. I hardly see this as a convincing reason to vote Infund.
|
On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:
[quote]
At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote.
ok well im basically the only person who has talked and is new, so you must be suspecting me
in which case i would respond by asking how i'm a "half decent" target
|
Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain
A) your vote
B) your deep posts?
On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D:
On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive.
On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all.
On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night?
On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course  I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think
On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2.
|
On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:
[quote]
At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote.
With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't?
|
On December 10 2010 11:15 tube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:
[quote]
Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. ok well im basically the only person who has talked and is new, so you must be suspecting me in which case i would respond by asking how i'm a "half decent" target
I was refering to the "im new i dont understand pose". May be actually new or not see my previous post.
|
On December 10 2010 09:33 Hesmyrr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:25 Node wrote:On December 10 2010 09:12 Hesmyrr wrote:On December 10 2010 09:05 Node wrote:
At the moment, the only situation that I can think of that would warrant a roleclaim anytime soon would be if you are mew and have found mewtwo. Until then, keep your damn mouths shut as far as your role goes. + Alakazam guilty result? And yes, PM or no PM, succinctness is critical. I'd prefer that a claim on a guilty result be used as a last resort -- push the lynch with analysis and if that doesn't work play the roleclaim card. Alright, I realized I forgot to put that into consideration though I really don't see what is different from detective trying to stealthily formulate case on his guilty to mew trying to stealthily formulate case on the mewtwo
The difference is that the Mew's only purpose is to catch the Mewtwo. Once he has found Mewtwo, he can claim because it doesn't really matter if Team Rocket knows his role after the Mewtwo is lynched. The Alakazam, on the other hand, very much wants to keep his role hidden, so he should try doing a more standard analysis to get his guilty lynched without exposing himself. Then he can survive and try to get another guilty.
About inactives; I've only played a couple of forum mafia games on another site, but I've played a bunch of Epic Mafia and lynching lurkers is a pretty standard strategy that works more often than not there. Of course, in a forum game with a lot of new players the dynamics are much different but that's my experience. Someone mentioned that it's harder to get a read on all these new players... for us new players, everyone is new!
|
On December 10 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:
Oh.
By Inactive, I mean someone who is lurking, maybe making one token post in the thread that isn't anything new and doesn't attempt to contribute anything at all, but still votes every day.
These are the uninterested townies, the lurkers, and the people studying for finals.
Oh i see, we were kinda using different contextual definitions. Yeah by inactive i was thinking of the people that just never show up, not the 1 post 1 vote lurkers.
In my experience most modkills happen during Day 1 or Day 2, a period during which it is difficult to distinguish true inactives from lurkers since they both exhibit similar behavior (i.e. very little). Lynching an 'inactive' Day 1 is always a nice neutral ground, but I feel that many people offer it as an excuse since they don't know what else to do (the same reason RNG always comes up, which is IMO worse than lynching inactives).
|
On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:
[quote]
Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't?
Is it really efficient at this point lynch an active player over the inactive that is going to die anyways?? Really? I mean mafia is not going to die because he doesnt vote, blues are not going to die because they dont vote. Meh i want to flip infundibulum badly.
|
On December 10 2010 10:43 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. Chances of finding scum D2 > Chances of finding scum D1 always just purely on the basis that amount of information available will increase as the game progresses. So let's increase the amount of information available now. Why aren't you a good lynch candidate? You've contributed virtually nothing to the thread and are encouraging us to take a passive role in finding scum.
I do not recall taking a stance that we should take passive role in finding scum; I am trying to state that while it is fine to give out your suspicion toward players, lynching inactives would be more preferable for the first day.
I've also perfectly made clear my position on lynch inactive issue which does count as contribution- I am not going to hand out random verdicts until there are more to read; if you want my input on some topic I am missing out upon, please feel free to question me.
|
On December 10 2010 11:25 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:
[quote]
Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie.
I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't? Is it really efficient at this point lynch an active player over the inactive that is going to die anyways?? Really? I mean mafia is not going to die because he doesnt vote, blues are not going to die because they dont vote. Meh i want to flip infundibulum badly.
It is stupid to lynch someone that is going to be modkilled because that is like not lynching anybody at all. That is what my first post was trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
