Don't Lose Yo Mafia - Page 11

On January 18 2011 11:21 Impervious wrote:
You want a serious discussion? Ok, here it is.


This post, and LunarDestiny's vote, is what made me change my vote. And here's the thought process:

As the Vigilante, you'd want to have as many people left as possible, to draw hits instead of yourself. As a Stalker, you'd want to do the same. His vote + modkill mentality seems to indicate that he wants as few people left as possible. From that, I kinda threw those two roles off.

As a Townie, you'd want to eliminate any masons, the Tracker, or the Vigilante. Which is why a coinflip would be a terrible idea (way more likely to hit a fellow townie than anything else at that point in the game). I figured it was possible, but less likely than the remaining roles.

As a Tracker, you want to find the Stalker (possibly the Vigilante as well, but the key target is definitely the Stalker) and then be converted to a Mason (more useful role once you have the information you're looking for), so having as few people as possible left are what you'd want, to increase the chance of finding the Tracker (+ Vigilante) and a Mason. As a Mason, you'd want as few people involved as possible, so you can influence lynches to go your way.

Because of that, and what LunarDestiny said and did, I figured it was likely he had one of those two roles. However, there was no way we'd get a vote on him at the time. He voted for OriginalName. As much as I find him very suspicious, because he has such an original name (yes, I am joking here), my thought was that if we had to lynch one of the two players (since the momentum was already there), the one he voted to lynch would be the best one to keep alive, and the one he wanted to keep alive was the best one to lynch (small chance of getting a fellow mason or tracker if the tracker had found the masons already).

Changing my vote is what ended up getting the majority at the end of the day, which eliminated one of the roles that I figured chaoser might have had, if LunarDestiny had one. If it was just a fluke, it was just a fluke. However, if my thought process is right, LunarDestiny is a mason.

His in-depth analysis of the two schools of thoughts that the Masons could be using seem harmless, but it really seems like a ploy to throw attention away from himself now. Alot like that "coin flip" comment he made before picking someone to vote for, rather than voting for no lynch.

I wanted to wait another day before putting these thoughts out there, to see what LunarDestiny did, but if I'm gonna have some suspicion and votes thrown on me already, may as well put it out there before I die.

On January 18 2011 13:56 LunarDestiny wrote:
I was typing my long analysis and people start bandwagon on me.

Let me clear the confusion why I say those plans could try to use:
Hesmyrr, who said he left a plan for his fellow mason to follow, IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THIS GAME. He plan is therefore the best. There is no way that any of us can come out and say that he can top Hesmyrr. If we want to win with stalker, then we will have to debate want Hesmyrr's plan is and how to defeat it.

Let me ask those who voted me:
Do you think what I say to mason is better than what Hesmyrr (the best player) had said?
If yes, I will take pride.
If no, then I only try to guess what mason's plan is and how we can counter it. It does not give town (or mason to be specific) any benefit whereas it gives more information to those who are not in any group.

On January 18 2011 13:48 LunarDestiny wrote:

Your analyze on how different roles play the game is incorrect. There is no way that vig and stalker would want to have the similar amount of people alive because THEY ARE OPPOSITE ALIGNMENT.

As unconverted traitors, your current winning condition is winning with stalker. If you think you will be converted in the future, you want to win with town. As I pointed out earlier, because masons don't want to risk converting the stalker, you aren't likely to be converted so you should put winning with mafia as your current goal.

For town:
If you can get to the late game with good amount of allies, your chance of winning is high. Also you want to get to the late game as soon as possible because you don't want stalker to rolecheck any town roles and kill them the following night. Then mason would have to risk converting the stalker if one of them is killed.

For stalker:
Opposite of town.
You actually have two choices of plan.
Plan #1) Get to the late game slower if you can trick mason into recruiting you.
Plan #2) Get to the late game faster if you doubt mason will recruit you.
This is because the mason group won't die by the lynches and night kills. The probability that there will be 2 correct mason lynch and nightkill. (refer to THIS)
When I say faster and slower, I mean the choice of using your nightkill to reduce the number of players.

As of now, traitors should be on stalker's side. Mason don't need a lot of people to stay alive. They can convert more people if they are in danger of being annihilate. Though, they could try recruiting more people in the early game since the risk of recruiting stalker is smaller.

I suggest traitors and stalker should vote for NO LYNCH to get the late game. Doing this because town want to get to the late game as fast as possible so we should do the opposite of what they want. I know my reasoning for No Lynch is iffy and glad to discuss if not lynching is the best way to win with stalker (not likely that mason would want to risk if they don't have to).

##Vote: No Lynch

On January 18 2011 22:13 SouthRawrea wrote:


That's quite cynical of you. So your logic behind this is because Hesmyrr is an experienced player (and in fact the best in your opinion) that his plan is near-immaculate and we must band together to destroy it like some sort of hardcore raidboss. You're going overboard here buddy. Just because you play mafia well does not mean you are some sort of schemer. There are different strengths a player can have in mafia and that usually doesn't involve coming up with some sort of elaborate plan. (Ex: Scumhunting) WHY ARE YOU SAYING THINGS TO MASONS ANYWAYS? Your so called plans were redundant and as I had previously stated you could hardly call them plans.
This is counter-productive and is the exact kind of behaviour that I was pointing out in my earlier post.

1)Undying Weeds
Mason only have to maintain a group of 2 to survive.
-The only chance of them dying is that one of them is lynched. (1 remains)
-Mason convert occurs before Stalker Nightkill. (2 remain)
-Stalker nightkill another mason. (1 remains)
-And another get lynched next day. (dead)
The chance that this happens is very small. This plan reduces the number of times that mason convert another and so it reduces the chance of converting the stalker.

2)Overwhelming Majority
This plan requires masons to maintain a group of 3 or 4 (depending on the number of players).
Even with the group of 3, they can influence the vote since last lynch only took 4 players. The drawback of this plan is that it puts all masons in danger because masons have to convert more times and therefore increasing the chance of them converting the stalker. But if they are able to maintain their numbers and get to the late game, they can easily win

Really? They may be opposite alignment, but they have similar roles, respective to their actual alignment - they are the ones with power to kill at night. They need to outmaneuver eachother, and the first one to find the other nets a considerable advantage for their side.

Wait, what? Until you're converted, the last thing you should be doing is trying to help the masons, because unless you actually get converted, you're helping the wrong side.....

As unconverted traitors, your current winning condition is winning with stalker. If you think you will be converted in the future, you want to win with town. As I pointed out earlier, because masons don't want to risk converting the stalker, you aren't likely to be converted so you should put winning with mafia as your current goal.

Exactly why we should be trying to lynch masons right now - put even more pressure on them.

If the masons were going with the pair mentality, then there were only two last night. One got killed. Meaning there is one left. If we lynch that mason now, we've got a solid chance of winning. If they were going for the larger group mentality, and we can lynch another one right now, we've knocked them down to 1, which puts a lot of pressure on them, possilbly forcing a slipup.

No, they probably won't die from lynching and nightkills, however, the more lynches and nightkills you successfully do, the more they have to convert, and that means they are more likely to slip up. We should be actively hunting masons for that reason - not necessarily to kill them off completely by lynching/nightkilling the last one, but by forcing a slipup.

Then why did you not go for a "no lynch" during the previous day?

I'm sticking with my gut instinct here. Something's fishy.

On January 19 2011 04:06 LunarDestiny wrote:

Winning condition as stalker: All town roles killed.
Winning condition as town: Stalker killed.
Unconverted traitors: Win when stalker wins.
Since vig is a part of town, he wins with town. So their choice of longer game or shorter game is the same. But you also say that Stalker's choice of longer game or shorter game is the same as the vig. Then that means that stalker and town's choice of longer game or short game is also the same. This is not logical. The only way that they all want the same length of game is that some of them have misinformation which affects them to misinterpret the game.

As I pointed out. Unconverted traitors do not know if they will be converted or not. Also mason would not want to make unnecessary conversion, so they should play the current game to win with stalker.
If this is a defence on my behave, thank you.

Lynching people when you are not sure if they are mason (or town) will have high risk that the one being lynched is traitor or even stalker.
If we are using active lynching as a plan to kill town roles, we first have to discuss how many traitors and masons there are. We also need to discuss if vig is truly converted. If the raw probability (not taken into analysis into account) of town lynch is higher than the raw probability of traitor or stalker lynch. Then it is a very viable tactic. But you also have to taken account of how much masons can influence the voting.

This is gambling. We can't be sure that it will be a successful town lynch. Look at game is the past where scumhunting often lead to bad lynch. If we are lynching someone, it must be very, very good reasons behind.
Look at it another way, if we decide to use no lynch as the general tactic. No one will die because of the lynch. Stalker have the ability to rolecheck every night. If the rolecheck is town positive, the nightkill next night will be good. We still not sure if vig is holding fire or converted, so town may or may not have the ability to shoot. Also, voting for no lynch also put pressure on Mason to convert because it is the only chance they have to win. If we use this tactic, when someone call for a lynch, then they are mason (not very certain on this sentence).
There are draw back to this plan because we are leaving everything to the stalker.

Then why did you not go for a "no lynch" during the previous day?

I'm sticking with my gut instinct here. Something's fishy.

You can't really have much misinformation in a short game. A short game can lead to mistakes made due to lack of information as well. There's not as much difference in the overall results as you're making it out to be.

Trying to help the masons while you're a traitor is flawed thinking..... Almost every traitor could be converted to a mason by the end of the game, but if we initially try to help them before being converted, and they win while you're still a traitor, you lose.

Yes, we should have good reasons behind it. I thought your initial posting was a little suspicious, and your actions during the first vote were as well. I decided to vote the opposite of your vote, for the reasons I already stated (momentum for a lynch + chance at hitting a role). Maybe it was a fluke, maybe you're a mason and knew about chaoser, maybe you're the vigilante and chaoser had already found you, I dunno. But there was something wierd about how you reacted in that first vote, and have acted since.

I initially went for no lynch..... In the post prior to yours.....