EPTTeam Mini Mafia III BCE
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
/in Vet | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On December 23 2010 06:35 Nemesis wrote: I just looked at the setup and saw this: What would be the point of a roleblocker if there are no blues? Since the setup is randomized, the mafia shouldn't know the amount of roles either. Without the roleblocker in this instance, there would only be one setup with a roleblocker. Therefore the presence of a roleblocker would alert the mafia of the presence of a DT and Medic. By having a roleblocker, mafia can't tell these two setups apart 1 Mafia Role Blocker, 1 Mafia Goon, 5 Town, 1 Medic, 1 Detective 1 Mafia Role Blocker, 1 Mafia Goon, 7 Town | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
All right, to start discussion. Will Teh Cobbler actually play this game? Failing to find a mafia day 1, how about lynching inactives? | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Wait! RoL! Change korr role to be a nurse! On January 03 2011 15:20 Ace wrote: What makes you think we won't find Scum on Day 1? And since when have we actually lynched an inactive day 1? Its an ice breaker. Like, dude the day post was awesome! | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about:
Inactives: A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. Plan Firstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity plan One plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
But even if we are in setup #2, the plan still can accomplish it's goal. The big point of the plan is its there to try to encourage activity. It's to try to change play so that people, and the mafia, will become more active. Just the threat of DTs checking lurkers should be enough for the mafia to start posting a bit. And just the threat of medics protecting active people should be enough for the mafia to try to either A) get protected. Or B) not hit actives. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 04 2011 05:24 Foolishness wrote: From TL Mafia XXXV: From this game: Copy paste ftw? I actually copied it straight from Pokemafia, but no one noticed :D! Still its suppose to start discussion. Which isn't happening. What do you think? I think if nothing happens day one, lynching inactives isn't a bad idea. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
But either way, we shouldn't count on a role being there. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 04 2011 10:46 Nemesis wrote: Although, I myself do not like inactives, our goal is to lynch mafia. So unless we can't come up with any good target to lynch by the end of the day, then I don't advocate the lynching of inactives, but lynching them might be a good idea if we have nothing else to go on. As for dts checking inactive people(if we do indeed have dts), I think that might be a lot better plan than lynching inactives as we would be wasting town's greatest weapon. Lynching inactives is basically the same as RNG, a random chance of lynching scum. The only good thing is it prevents inactivity and encourages acitivity. I wouldn't say that encouraging activity is isn't that important. It's crucial. Right now the mafia would love if we all just kept silent and tried not do do anything. Lets start making this real. Drastic inactivity calls for drastic measures Well Team 3 and Team 9 Haven't posted yet. And I've been poking at BC all the time. So I guess lets start off by pressuring them until they speak ##Vote Team 3: Beneather/Bloody_C0bbler + Show Spoiler [LSB Awesome PBPA] + Nothing to analyze really | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
##Unvote ##Vote Team 9: Flamewheel/Orgolove No idea about BC, don't expect too much activity from him. Feel free to discuss plans and activity though. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 04 2011 16:25 Subversion wrote: i dont really see what the point is of DTs checking inactives if its publicly announced. Surely then mafia will just make sure they're not inactive to avoid being detected? Exactly. That's the plan. That way the mafia will forced to stay active where it is easier to find them. You can't analyze an inactive mafia. But you can analyze one that talks On January 04 2011 17:29 orgolove wrote: no. Bad idea. In a game such as this, planning to lynch an inactive just allows the reds to guide the discussion to whichever inactive green they know isn't a part of them and leads to the town's disadvantage. I'm not going to post any votes until there's something more concrete to go on. Someone hasn't been paying attention. Remember, we aren't planning on lynching an inactive. It's a last resort situation if we don't find any mafia. Think of the votes as a magic wand. We wave the wand and suddenly people start talking. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Let's break down the list 1. LSB Active/Kavdragon Active 2. TheMangoIn Pokemafia/GmarshalInactive/FoolishnessInactive 3. BeneatherInactive/Bloody_C0bblerInactive 4. DeconduoActive/ChezinuInactive 5. Meapak_ZiphhIn Pokemafia/AceInactive 6. KingJames01Inactive/AidnaiActive 7. IncognitoInactive/SubversionActive 8. ChaoserInactive/NemesisActive 9. FlamewheelInactive/OrgoloveActive Now, we'll take out all the spam posts. And the post that are responses to other people prodding them. Leaving us with unprovoked posts 1. LSB Active/Kavdragon Active 2. TheMangoIn Pokemafia/GmarshalActive/FoolishnessInactive 3. BeneatherInactive/Bloody_C0bblerInactive 4. DeconduoActive/ChezinuInactive 5. Meapak_ZiphhIn Pokemafia/AceInactive 6. KingJames01Inactive/AidnaiActive 7. IncognitoInactive/SubversionActive 8. ChaoserInactive/NemesisActive 9. FlamewheelInactive/OrgoloveInactive | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:29 orgolove wrote: I'm not going to post any votes until there's something more concrete to go on. You don't just 'wait' for concrete posts. People should be trying to make concrete posts. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Team 9: Flamewheel/Orgolove - 1 Kavdragon Team 2: TheMango/Gmarshal/Foolishness Orgolove Aidani It would really suck if everyone got modkilled and Orgo/Aidani were actually mafia. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 03 2011 15:20 Ace wrote: What makes you think we won't find Scum on Day 1? Discourages Day 1 Discussion on Inactives On January 05 2011 01:43 Ace wrote: You should just vote for whoever you think will not help you win the game. Suggesting we shouldn't even scumhunt On January 05 2011 02:31 Ace wrote: Yes it's still killing a townie but it gets you closer to your win condition. Doing it later in the game has major consequences but it's Day 1 and I don't see people trying to really do much. Alas I can't vote. Oh well. See above, continues to discourage actual discussion or scumhunting. Insteads supports killing off people who don't matter On January 05 2011 08:15 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: ##Vote Team 9 sorry forgot formatting Randomly comes in and votes | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
(would that count as PMing?) | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
I wouldn't call Meapak's post a reason. I'd called it dodging a modkill. As for Ace, he really did kill early day 1 discussion and hasn't been helpful at all. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 05 2011 09:51 Ace wrote: LSB where did I say lets not scumhunt? Are you sure you aren't reading my posts for what you want to see over what is actually there? Lets see what you suggested to do today 1. Not discuss lynching inactives. This is a great way to kill discussion. You've played many games and you know that the inactive talk, although repetitive, is a way to get people to start discussing things. 2. To kill someone who plays poorly You're suggesting that we should just kill someone who you know won't help the town win. Firstly, why is this different from killing an inactive? Which you so easily dismissed Secondly, what does killing someone because of meta considerations have to do with scum hunting? | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 05 2011 10:21 Ace wrote: How does "What makes you think we won't find Scum on Day 1?" = being Scummy? Yea I don't want to discuss lynching inactives. Doesn't make me scum just because I don't want to do what you want. Your analysis is so bad it seems as if you're trying to force yourself to find something to nitpick at here. You even blamed me for killing discussion when let's face it - it was dead before I posted and dead after. You are really trying to push for something that didn't happen. So I should just go your route and come to the conclusion that you must be Scum because your analysis is terrible. The discussion was not dead. It was just beginning. And the reason why it was dead afterwards was that people like you were reluctant to discuss anything If my analysis and motives were so terrible, why is the majority of discussion based off of what I've been doing/saying? I could have just handed the baton to Kavdragon and say "Hey, I don't have to play, I'll just advise". But instead I've actually tried to do stuff. Yes, kill people who we know are terrible. What's the problem? It's different from killing an inactive because one of them is bad and won't help you win no matter what, the other is in active. You didn't really need me to explain that did you? So you'd rather kill an active than an inactive? Meta considerations come into play here because YOU want to kill in actives. Correct? So if orgolove says he's busy but doesn't have a history of being in active then hey - he really might be busy. Don't kill him just yet. Clear things up right now. I'm suggesting we should kill an inactive. You are suggesting we should kill someone who plays scummy and has a history of not helping the town. Right now Meapak isn't active, and you aren't much of a help. You team falls under the inactive category. Who do you suggest that we should kill that plays scummy? | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Team 9: Flamewheel/Orgolove - 1 Meapak_Ziphh Nemesis Team 3: Beneather/BloodyC0bbler - 3.5 Gmarshal (.5) Deconduo Aidnai Subversion Team 5: Meapak_Ziphh/Ace -1 Kavdragon | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On the other hand, Ace is such an interesting candidate. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Well, day is over | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 05 2011 12:41 kingjames01 wrote: To be honest, I think Kavdragon is Red and, by association, you. That still doesn't awnser the question. Your comments on Beneather are made assuming that Subversion should be distrusted. Can you explain why? | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 05 2011 23:02 orgolove wrote: I apologize - my schedule is really off right now.  I promise I'll be here more often.Gmarshal (.5) Deconduo Aidnai Subversion Huh - wait a minute - town had nothing to go on. Why did you guys vote? Why didn't you vote? On January 06 2011 00:34 TheMango wrote: I think it was the whole 'vote for the inactives' strategy that LSB brought up, since there wasn't much else to go by. (aka the same strategy we are currently using to poor effect in the other mafia game). I would have voted along with my team mate Gmarshal, but I was busy yesterday and missed the vote t.t. Not sure how different it is, but in the games I play in real life, if we dont have a clear suspect, we usually pass on voting, since in the beginning of the game the chances of voting off a town sided role is much higher. So my question is, is voting off the inactives early a more viable strategy in this type of game, or is the strategy flawed? Well, remember, we can't abstain. So in reality, the vote was a vote of confidence for Ace. Since we only had one scum candidate, it was either vote for Ace because you think he's scum. Or don't vote for Ace and try to redirect the lynch. On January 06 2011 01:10 orgolove wrote: >>>> Vote for inactives strategy is... not beneficial at all for the town, to say the least. The reds can subtly direct to whoever they would know is not a red and yet inactive. :/ We as town have no information, and reds can use that to lynch a green. If we don't have any information, pressuring is fine.. but just hitting someone because they're inactive is not a good strategy at all. This is why I also like the mayor idea for the first day, as it gives a way for town to get useful info on day 1... Great Idea about pressuring someone. Have you been doing this? | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 06 2011 05:06 TheMango wrote: well, I think those advocating silence during the night Umm... What do you mean by this? Are you saying that we shouldn't try to generate activity during the night? Are you implying that other people have advocated this position? | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 06 2011 05:31 TheMango wrote: the only point of discussing during nighttime is to help our blues make their decisions, and without knowing the setup, you run a serious risk of helping scum team (on who they will kill/avoid killing due to possible medic save, and a possible wasted DT check due to roleblocker.) At least that's my take on it, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Can't we scumhunt, or discuss the greenness/redness of Ace's team. Speaking of which, what is your opinion of Ace? | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 06 2011 05:01 Kavdragon wrote: Persons that have been FoS'd Kavdragon (By KJ. Would like to hear more on this) Nemesis (By Aidnai. Would like to hear a better reason than "I got bad feelings from him")\ Orgolove (By Kavdragon. Explination/analysis to come.) Besides my push against Ace. (Ace you still have to answer my questions!) I don't believe that there is anything substantial in the three points. Obviously Kavdragon is town aligned. Nemesis has about 2-3 posts talking about lynching inactives. Although this does indeed seem like lurking, Nemesis isn't the only one doing this, and I'm also intrested in Aidnai's FOS Orgolove- The thing with Orgolove is that Day 1 he literally only had one post, and after the lynch accused others of making an uninformed lynch. On the other hand, from what I glanced at his play in Mafia XXXV (Note, I don't know his alignment), it seems very similar. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
For Example On January 06 2011 05:15 aidnai wrote: yes, nighttime is not town time. No reason to generate discussion or information that we can't act on yet. Aidnai wishes for complete silence (Assuming his post isn't sarcastic) | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On January 06 2011 12:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Thanks again to LSB for the day post, kind of ironic that you wrote out your own death  Figured actually. That's why me and Kav are world renowned! | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
| ||
