EPTWorld at War 2 Mafia - Page 13
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 21:29 sandroba wrote: Also we are nuking just once a day, how does this help the conspirator? Over time we end up accumulating radiation, the number is "high" but I expect the mafia will try to go out with a bang when nuked, and I suspect there are more nukes than counter nukes, the more we nuke the more we help the conspirator. Especially if the end game is decided by nuclear Armageddon (which it might). Basically I want us to be able to not nuke if we can't all agree on a target, even with no-nukes we get information from interactions, who chose not to hammer, vote-switches, and interactions, and by requiring majority we make sure its a consensual decision, rather than a vocal minority controlling the nuke. Plus by making it majority we force everyone who wants to get someone nuked to be really active about it, which generates *tons* of information. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22634 Posts
##Nuke: Sandroba | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
| ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On July 05 2011 21:54 sandroba wrote: @syllo Ok explain to me in which scenario it is not beneficial to have 2 lynches per night cycle. We should absolutely have two "lynches" if it's based on majority voting. "Lynching" with nukes is different from normal lynches, however, because mafia may take down one or more of us and they may have nuclear resistance. If mafia only has 1 KP, I don't think it's possible for them to win without town misnuking a lot and them retaliating. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22634 Posts
On July 05 2011 21:53 sandroba wrote: Night has not even started and the nuclear phase is during the day after that. This is correct  And as I said, I don't have any nukes. Anyway, I still don't agree with the plan. All the mafia has to do is to not lurk and they will be able to sway the nuke votes in the wrong direction. We already have to deal with this problem for the lynch, so why the added reliance on outspoken players? Here's an alternative, since you guys like policies. a) Don't nuke unless you're sure. b) when you nuke, you must provide detailed reasoning of why you nuked c) If deemed satisfying, we proceed normally, if not, we lynch you. This is in effect the same thing you're suggesting sandroba, it just leaves a little wiggle room for independent thought. | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
I'm tired of arguing with you, because you are either scum or conspirator, so from now on I'll ignore your post till I can lynch you. I already have all the info I need to prove that you are not town aligned. | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:00 Palmar wrote: This is correct And as I said, I don't have any nukes. Anyway, I still don't agree with the plan. All the mafia has to do is to not lurk and they will be able to sway the nuke votes in the wrong direction. We already have to deal with this problem for the lynch, so why the added reliance on outspoken players? Here's an alternative, since you guys like policies. a) Don't nuke unless you're sure. b) when you nuke, you must provide detailed reasoning of why you nuked c) If deemed satisfying, we proceed normally, if not, we lynch you. This is in effect the same thing you're suggesting sandroba, it just leaves a little wiggle room for independent thought. Except this is what is really going to happen a.) Town player A comes up with the crappiest argument in existence of why player b is scum. b.)Town shoots him down and tells him not to shoot, etc, Player A is 100% convinced though and shoots anyway c.) Player B rages and sends out retaliatory nukes, counternukes go out. d.) Player B flips green in a pile of rubble, with who knows how many others being killed in the process e.) furious lynch mob kills player A, who also flips green. f.) Rage from the previous days carries over, more nukes flying about. g.) mafia giggles. If everyone has a say in whether or not the nukes are used, and its clearly established that its the will of the town (by a MAJORITY), then player B if he is town won't counternuke, player A will never fire in the first place, and catastrophes will be averted. | ||
|
chaos13
Canada885 Posts
On July 05 2011 21:41 Palmar wrote: Here's what I think about your plan ##Nuke: Sandroba Don't try to be a hero. Not only have you already stated you have no nukes, making this worthless and not about to help anything, but it's the night phase and you can't even use actions. If you don't agree with his plan, don't follow it. Simple as that. So far I'm seeing ten pages of "herp" "derp" "herp" "derp". I don't agree with any of the plans that have been proposed, and people didn't agree with what I suggested in lieu of them. All this arguing is doing is giving scum and conspirators a barrier to hide behind, and I can guarantee you that the conspirator(s) are somewhere in this discussion trying to influence our nuke policies. Have we done any scumhunting so far? No. So here's the deal. Come day 1, absolutely no more discussion about nuke policy. If we haven't decided on anything by then, too bad, but at that point we start scumhunting. This means that if you have a plan that you want put into effect, you need to be persuasive. If you have a plan, outline it as follows. (Your Name)'s Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator Win Nuke Policy Fire/Don't Fire under the following circumstances: Punishment This is what happens if you break the rules: Why Explanation for why this is the best plan: Support How does this plan compare to WaW 1? How could it have affected the results of that game? Other Tidbits Anything else you want to say. ##Vote: (Your Name)'s Plan And people will vote on your plan. The goal for these plans will be to have 12/29 players vote for them. This is relatively close to a majority, and is achievable for anyone. If we're getting close to the end of day and no plan is close to achieving it, you'll have to consider moving your vote to a different one. If no plan results in 12/29 votes, we don't follow through with it. If we do, every player is required to follow it, and if you do not, you are lynched. A plan must follow the format as outlined above in order to be eligible for voting. Now stop derping and get stuff done. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22634 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:03 sandroba wrote: @Palmar LOL? If that's so any game is auto won by mafia if all they have to do is not lurk and sway the votes. How do you propose we win the game if not by lynching scum. I'm tired of arguing with you, because you are either scum or conspirator, so from now on I'll ignore your post till I can lynch you. I already have all the info I need to prove that you are not town aligned. By your logic, the only benefit of having vigilantes is the self-confirm thing. I don't agree, I think the independent shot is also excellent for town. Also, nice twisting of my words, I didn't say the scum would auto-win, all I said is that they can win like that, and you're suggesting removing one tool to counter it. Does scum win all games that are vanilla v vanilla? Hell no. Would a vigilante (and let's assume he can't confirm himself) help the town in this situation? Hell yes. And sure, your plan can lead to victory for us, this is especially true if like in RTM the outspoken and opinion-giving people are all pro-town, are you just going to assume the mafia is playing badly? | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:03 sandroba wrote: @Palmar LOL? If that's so any game is auto won by mafia if all they have to do is not lurk and sway the votes. How do you propose we win the game if not by lynching scum. I'm tired of arguing with you, because you are either scum or conspirator, so from now on I'll ignore your post till I can lynch you. I already have all the info I need to prove that you are not town aligned. Don't be stupid, just because he has a different viewpoint doesn't mean he is scum. Remember bad plans =/= scum? I'm pretty sure he is just pushing a bad idea because he thinks its good, not as part of some scum agenda. | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:08 chaos13 wrote: Don't try to be a hero. Not only have you already stated you have no nukes, making this worthless and not about to help anything, but it's the night phase and you can't even use actions. If you don't agree with his plan, don't follow it. Simple as that. So far I'm seeing ten pages of "herp" "derp" "herp" "derp". I don't agree with any of the plans that have been proposed, and people didn't agree with what I suggested in lieu of them. All this arguing is doing is giving scum and conspirators a barrier to hide behind, and I can guarantee you that the conspirator(s) are somewhere in this discussion trying to influence our nuke policies. Have we done any scumhunting so far? No. So here's the deal. Come day 1, absolutely no more discussion about nuke policy. If we haven't decided on anything by then, too bad, but at that point we start scumhunting. This means that if you have a plan that you want put into effect, you need to be persuasive. If you have a plan, outline it as follows. (Your Name)'s Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator Win Nuke Policy Fire/Don't Fire under the following circumstances: Punishment This is what happens if you break the rules: Why Explanation for why this is the best plan: Support How does this plan compare to WaW 1? How could it have affected the results of that game? Other Tidbits Anything else you want to say. ##Vote: (Your Name)'s Plan And people will vote on your plan. The goal for these plans will be to have 12/29 players vote for them. This is relatively close to a majority, and is achievable for anyone. If we're getting close to the end of day and no plan is close to achieving it, you'll have to consider moving your vote to a different one. If no plan results in 12/29 votes, we don't follow through with it. If we do, every player is required to follow it, and if you do not, you are lynched. A plan must follow the format as outlined above in order to be eligible for voting. Now stop derping and get stuff done. Im pretty sure theres only like 3 hours to game start. Anyway we are using the sandroba plan with majority vote unless someone (other than Palmar) objects strenuously. GMrobas's Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator Win Nuke Policy One nuke is shot per day, if a majority of players (50%) agrees to it. no other nukes are fired for any reason Punishment Policy lynched, no excuses allowed, you fire, you die. Why double lynch, increased information, decent use of kp, no need to fire if its not necessary/an appropriate target cannot be deiced upon Support Its not a clusterfuck Other Tidbits Hi coag. ##Vote: GMroba's plan | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
| ||
