EPTClosed Casket Mafia - Page 7
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Fishball
Canada4788 Posts
On June 26 2011 08:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Hey fishball, have you ever been lynched in a game yet? How can you forget? You had half a hand in it. In DrH's experimental game, I purposely got myself lynched as a social experiment and player profiling. Then I was also lynched in PYP3 where I was the Traitor, which was to be expected after lynching you confirmed a Traitor existed in the game and it was only a matter of time people worked up the list. My main purpose at that time was to waste as many lynches as possible. In short, I was never lynched as a real Mafia candidate ever since the start of TL Mafia in Feb 2008. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
Well, I guess I don't have to push your lynch just to make that statement not true anymore  | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7464 Posts
On June 26 2011 01:36 GMarshal wrote: I won't pretend to know your reasoning, but I'll answer your question. I think my favorite moment was probably watching people (notably bill murray, smurfing as gryfindor) react to my cell organization plan in mafia XXXVII. I also really enjoyed being a Mole in PTP, particularly forcing the Palmar mislynch, as I felt that was the first time I really successfully pushed a lynch. I look forward to hearing your reasoning behind the question. I was going to go with "Seeing I got VT as my role in any game" but I feel like that would be a cheap answer to an interesting question. Also what is your favorite mafia moment? ^_^ The reason behind the conflict between policy 1 and 2, is that the town is pretty much unable to ignore a DT claim, especially considering how vociferous some DTs can be. With that policy we have a clear guideline of how to handle these situations. Am I going to adhere to them strictly? No, I'm not, but having them there discourages actions we don't want to see. I don't want anyone claiming, since its essentially all WIFOM, by establishing this policy I keep people from claiming without excellent reasons, as they know they will most likely be ignored if they do. The same goes with the DT policy, by doing this I avoid any kind of shenanigans where mafia decides to claim DT. Obviously we aren't going to adhere to these policies no matter what, but by establishing them as the basic procedure we follow, barring exceptional circumstances, we basically avoid those situations. Would you like it better if I called them "guidlines" rather than "policies'? I just feel like the word policy carries more weight. Addressing Radfeild, I fully agree with killing an inactive/lurker day 1, and am opposed to no lynching, just on principle. Sure with a no flip setup its going to be difficult to obtain as much information from the lynch as it would be in a open flip setup, but if we don't lynch then our chances of hitting scum are 0. If we do lynch and we analyze, then they are significantly higher than zero. To win we need to kill scum, not lynching does not lead to killing scum, it just gives scum more time to shoot at the town. Yes, sure they only have one KP, but the more we no-lynch the easier time they have controlling the lynch. Also if people want to see games with majority lynch, I do believe the first PYPs required a majority to lynch. This is a mechanic almost as significant as no flip, so really pay attention to it. The reason behind the question was to initiate small talk. I was hoping to get a conversation started where the atmosphere was relax. That way your guard would be down and I could get a good feel of your posting tendencies. However, you decided to go to sleep last night so I didn't have anyone to talk to.. As for my favorite moment in mafia... geez, so many! I will have to answer this more broadly. My favorite moments in mafia is when everyone in the game thinks I'm horrible or crazy and then I used my super abilities and shock the town. That and Trolling, making stories, videos, riddles, encrypted codes, hidden messages, establishing my own top secret groups, dodging lynches at the last second, random voting, being unreadable, creating games within games, redefining the normal approach to the game, being on the suspect list the entire game and not dying, taunting mafia as town, taunting town as mafia, PM land, taunting in pm land, pretending I have bombs or am some imba role which I have never ever gotten.. just you wait.. pm threat letters, killing to form a message, escaping death when it seems all is lost, making pictures..../sigh I love this game../cry its been so nice to me... It would be a shame if someone decides to kill me.. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
| ||
|
Fishball
Canada4788 Posts
On June 26 2011 09:27 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: haha, I feel proud of that. I remember I looked at everyone above me and was like "fishball, that bastard" you were the only one in that list who was stupid/crazy enough to do that. Shame it got me killed. I don't recall you getting lynched in DrH's game, but I got subbed out halfway into Day 1 for that shit with aidnai. Well, I guess I don't have to push your lynch just to make that statement not true anymore You can still push to lynch me. It does not matter to me, but other players might question your motives, whatever that motive is. Anyways, who are you killing tonight? | ||
|
youngminii
Australia7514 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
Let's see here, first of all Radfield's plan is pretty legit in my eyes and makes sense. While I was playing RoL's first experimental, my teammate and I just lurked our way through the game, saying only as much as was needed, sometimes even nothing for 24 hour stretches. I definitely feel like, in no-flip games, even more so than others that policy lynching lurkers is key. Now there's still a difference between lurker and inactive but in this group of people I think the lurkers will stick out like a sore thumb. I completely agree with the vigi of people who vote and then leave. At this point I'd say I agree with most Radfield's points and the rest are just minor semantic details. As such, I think having a medic on him for Night 0 would be pretty good. At the same time, I want to ask Scamp what he saw in Radfield's plan that suggested to him that it was pushing a no-lynch policy. You kinda posted a one liner and then never came back to respond to it so I was wondering if you could clarify. | ||
|
Scamp
United States1086 Posts
And later he follows it up explaining that a no-lynch is not terrible sometimes. I mean, I guess that's true, but the only time that really is true is when the town is playing like complete crap. Only then is it a better alternative. Speaking of this, ILJ's explanation of the same thing is boggling my mind. We should start with lynching but later in the game when we have more information we start applying no-lynches? Why the hell is someone put up for lynch that we decide is probably townie? And furthermore, why is the no-lynch applied there instead of, y'know, someone scummy put up for a lynch? | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On June 26 2011 11:14 Scamp wrote: Essentially Radfield's post was just a bunch of analysis on typical behavior and the like. His only advice for lynching is to lynch lurkers.inactives, and to have only a few suspects day one. And if the town can't agree on the few suspects then "a no-lynch is probably ok". I mean seriously, did this sound like a plan that'll get a lynch? And later he follows it up explaining that a no-lynch is not terrible sometimes. I mean, I guess that's true, but the only time that really is true is when the town is playing like complete crap. Only then is it a better alternative. Speaking of this, ILJ's explanation of the same thing is boggling my mind. We should start with lynching but later in the game when we have more information we start applying no-lynches? Why the hell is someone put up for lynch that we decide is probably townie? And furthermore, why is the no-lynch applied there instead of, y'know, someone scummy put up for a lynch? 100% Agree, we should not ever not lynch. Its giving the mafia free nights, by the time the end of day 1 rolls around we'll have 72 hours of information on people. Thats more than enough to make an informed decision on who we are going to lynch. Not lynching leaves us with no chance of killing mafia, that is unacceptable. I'll take a high chance of screwing up and missing over no chance of hitting scum any day. I agree with you fully on this one Scamp. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
| ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On June 26 2011 11:34 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: While I disagree with your reasoning, I agree with your conclusion. Lynching every day is most beneficial. Where do you disagree? What leads you to the same conclusion? | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On June 26 2011 11:27 GMarshal wrote: 100% Agree, we should not ever not lynch. Its giving the mafia free nights, by the time the end of day 1 rolls around we'll have 72 hours of information on people. Thats more than enough to make an informed decision on who we are going to lynch. Not lynching leaves us with no chance of killing mafia, that is unacceptable. I'll take a high chance of screwing up and missing over no chance of hitting scum any day. I agree with you fully on this one Scamp. The bold part. I explained above that I don't believe we are going to hit a mafia Day 1, and that information builds over time, and if we could guarantee that it would add another day to the game (essentially pushing back the lynch) then it would be beneficial to not lynch. However we can't guarantee that, so I'd prefer we use the lynch. The second part I disagreed with is your rationale of not lynching leaving us with no chance of killing a mafia so we should lynch. I think there is a disproportionately high chance that we will hit a townie Day 1, and I don't believe we have sufficient information to avoid fucking up after 72 hours. This goes back to my first point, If I knew a no lynch would add another day at the end of the game, I'd be for it since a hypothetical day 6/7 lynch has way more information than a day 1 lynch. But since we can't guarantee that extra day, I would rather risk the lynch. At the same time I know a day 1 lynch is prone to heavy mafia manipulation, I know that if I focus hard and pick out the right target with good analysis I will hopefully be able to out argue mafia manipulation. That is my rationale and it leads to the same conclusion you have, but for entirely different reasoning. | ||
|
youngminii
Australia7514 Posts
Night 0 ![[image loading]](http://wallpaper.hdesktop.com/big_thumbs/wallpapers-4/4f70c7c144c0889e2d92a36c57ca9526/The-Archangel-Tyrael-31661.jpeg) The citizens of Liquidia had lived in peace for hundreds of years, the mafia having been killed long ago by very brave men. The town prospered, no one got meaninglessly shot or lynched, people were finally happy. There was one man however, that could not stand the jolly town, a man that craved anarchy. youngminii would see to it that the mafia ruled once again. After decades of learning the dark arts, he was ready. youngminii stood in the middle of the graveyard by himself, chanting the incantations he had taught himself. That night, the dead rose. Every mafia that had been killed over the years were now alive with a burning desire for revenge. "Halt!" An archangel, Ace appeared in the sky. "You will not harm this town". To his side, he summoned Qatol, the God of War. Frightened only for a second, youngminii pulled himself together, "Two can play at that game". With that, he summoned Plexa, the God of Sheep. An epic battle ensued, too epic that it cannot be described in words. Neither side relented and were urged on by their respective summoners. Special effects were everywhere, explosions, fires, lasers, Michael Bay stood by the sidelines watching in approval. Finally, Ace pulled out his own sword and with one swing, pierced through the woolly armor of Plexa. In a moment of desperation, youngminii realised what he had to do. "Come, join me in the depths of hell!" The words boomed across the entire town just as a bolt of lightning struck the middle of the battlefield. A haze rolled in and by the time it cleared, only the Liquidians were left standing. Little did they know, the mafia were already hidden among them. Plexa is dead Qatol is dead Ace is dead youngminii is dead The mafia are back! Night 0 has been extended. You have another 24 hours to send your night actions in. Please read the rules if you haven't already. | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
I am heavily drunk atm so I shall play after work (i do a 9-? shift) and should have roughly a full day to catch up / participate. | ||
|
Scamp
United States1086 Posts
On June 26 2011 05:02 Radfield wrote: This doesn't really make sense to me. Scum already have a deterent to false claiming dt, in that they will be trading 1 for 1. There is only potential upside to lynching the dt second, as we may be able to verify via a coroner. Yes it's possible/likely that we won't be able to verify the dt, but it's worth trying. Obviously at LYLO things change though. I can't see any potential upside to killing the dt first. I don't see the deterrent in false claiming DT. From what I'm reading we'll lynch the DT and whoever he claims is mafia (assuming he claims he found a mafia. And why else would you claim DT?) and if he's a false DT then his claim is a townie, and I think that's the 1 for 1. But it's not 1 for 1, because to lynch two people the mafia also get two night phases to kill. Even if we speed up the killings by using vigilantes (assuming we even have some) the mafia take away town KP. Maybe the false claimer has some kind of power if he gets targeted. The mafia potentially have very good reasons to false claim DT. Then to verify anything the coroner would have to out himself. And he could be a false coroner. All the potential WIFOM is making my head hurt. Plus we don't even know what roles we have, let alone a coroner which I've never even heard of before I read this thread... I really don't see how it matters what order we kill the DT and the target. We kill the DT and then verify him, maybe? If he's verified first or second we know we have a dead DT and a dead mafia in the same amount of time. If it's a false DT then verifying that first is more beneficial than verifying that second. I think the point is that we really don't want people to claim anything in this setup, knowing what we know now. Perhaps that will change with more information later, but for now if you claim DT you die. I think that's a good thing for now. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On June 26 2011 11:14 Scamp wrote: Essentially Radfield's post was just a bunch of analysis on typical behavior and the like. His only advice for lynching is to lynch lurkers.inactives, and to have only a few suspects day one. And if the town can't agree on the few suspects then "a no-lynch is probably ok". I mean seriously, did this sound like a plan that'll get a lynch? And later he follows it up explaining that a no-lynch is not terrible sometimes. I mean, I guess that's true, but the only time that really is true is when the town is playing like complete crap. Only then is it a better alternative. Speaking of this, ILJ's explanation of the same thing is boggling my mind. We should start with lynching but later in the game when we have more information we start applying no-lynches? Why the hell is someone put up for lynch that we decide is probably townie? And furthermore, why is the no-lynch applied there instead of, y'know, someone scummy put up for a lynch? I feel like you've misinterpreted what I'm trying to say: First off, I forgot that this was a N0 start, so that changes things. Having enough information to actually build a case against someone Day 1 becomes much more likely with a N0 start. However, in the absence of a scummy player presenting themselves, it makes sense to begin clearing out lurkers, as this set-up relies almost exclusively on post-analysis. Lynching a lurker lets mafia hide on the day 1 lynch, but a majority + no flip set-up already allows mafia to hide very well(consider that in a majority lynch set-up you don't even have to vote). Assuming that all players are active and contributing, this is where I am putting forward that a no-lynch makes sense. If we get to this stage we have only two options: Gather up 9 votes and lynch an active poster, or no-lynch. To lynch a mafia member we would need 9 of 13 townside votes on Day 1. Which is very unlikely given that there will be 4 red players actively pushing either another player or a no-lynch. The only way I see us getting a day 1 lynch on an active player is if mafia join the bandwagon, which means we're lynching a townie. On the other hand, a no-lynch in this situation(no lurkers, no N0 results, no major scummy targets) is not nearly as terrible as players are making out it to be. Yes it has a 0% chance of hitting a red, but the chance of hitting a red is already very miniscule Day 1 anyways. Much more likely is us killing a scummy blue or bored green. However, the other positive to a Day 1 no-lynch is that it has a 50% chance(2 deaths per cylce) of giving us an extra lynch in the future (A future lynch where our chances of hitting red go up dramatically). Now, it's probable that we will have more like 2.5 deaths per cycle, but the general reasoning is that there is a decent chance we are not even losing a lynch opportunity, only postponing it to a future date. Anyways, I'm not saying a no-lynch is optimal, because it's not and there are better options. But a no-lynch is much better than piling onto whatever target seems likely to be lynched, solely for the reason of making sure we lynch. I would argue that that too has a 0%(or close to) chance of hitting a red. Also, a no-lynch only makes sense in the context of Day 1. After that I agree that lynching almost always makes more sense than a no-lynch. + Show Spoiler + On June 26 2011 19:37 Scamp wrote: I don't see the deterrent in false claiming DT. From what I'm reading we'll lynch the DT and whoever he claims is mafia (assuming he claims he found a mafia. And why else would you claim DT?) and if he's a false DT then his claim is a townie, and I think that's the 1 for 1. But it's not 1 for 1, because to lynch two people the mafia also get two night phases to kill. Even if we speed up the killings by using vigilantes (assuming we even have some) the mafia take away town KP. Maybe the false claimer has some kind of power if he gets targeted. The mafia potentially have very good reasons to false claim DT. Then to verify anything the coroner would have to out himself. And he could be a false coroner. All the potential WIFOM is making my head hurt. Plus we don't even know what roles we have, let alone a coroner which I've never even heard of before I read this thread... I really don't see how it matters what order we kill the DT and the target. We kill the DT and then verify him, maybe? If he's verified first or second we know we have a dead DT and a dead mafia in the same amount of time. If it's a false DT then verifying that first is more beneficial than verifying that second. I think the point is that we really don't want people to claim anything in this setup, knowing what we know now. Perhaps that will change with more information later, but for now if you claim DT you die. I think that's a good thing for now. I'm not sure I follow your logic here. A false claiming dt is still a 1 for 1 trade, because presumably the mafia would have gotten those night kills anyways. Yes, if it's a potential end game scenario then maybe things change around, but for the most part a false claiming dt is still a 1 for 1 trade. The absolute optimal scenario if a dt claims is that somehow we come out of it with a verified dt and don't have to use a lynch on a power role. The only way this can possibly happen is if we first lynch the target, and then hope to confirm the dt during the night. The only way to confirm the dt is if we have a role which can reveal the alignment of the previous lynch in the day post. If that happened then the medic would then be able to protect the dt in future nights. Mafia would never shoot the dt during that first night, as the dt was up for lynch the next day. Of course we may not have any type of coroner role, and in that case we end up in the same situation: dead claimer and claimant. But we might as well at least give ourselves a chance of coming out of a claim with the optimal scenario. I agree that late game(9/10/11 players) we may want a different strategy to prevent shenanigans, but for now I think lynching the dt second makes sense. That being said, everyone agrees that no claims should be happening anyways, so presumably the situation will never arise. | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
If You don't die this night or next I will be highly disappointed with our Mafia in Liquidia. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
| ||
