|
On July 05 2011 22:37 syllogism wrote:
Palmar: If there's no structure, it's quite likely your nuke will be shot down, gaining us little to no information and thus wasting a nuke and an anti-nuke. Stating you should nuke despite town objections if "town is bad" and then saying you shouldn't get lynched if "town was bad" makes no sense because presumably you will get lynched if the majority of town disagreed with your nuke and the target doesn't flip red. I do not see how this is in any way pro-town. Even worse, you may get retaliated. Nukes aren't exactly like vigi shots. Palmar plan is plain bad.
I'm reserving the "nuke only if town is being led astray" thing for pros and great analysts.
And my plan clearly said: "No retaliatory nukes", any retaliatory nuke is auto lynch.
|
Another problem with your plan is that because it's not up to the majority to decide when someone gets nuked, it's impossible to tell when you should role claim. Once the nuke is in air, role claiming will cost us an anti-nuke and if done prematurely, you role claim for no reason.
|
On July 05 2011 22:47 syllogism wrote:
Another problem with your plan is that because it's not up to the majority to decide when someone gets nuked, it's impossible to tell when you should role claim. Once the nuke is in air, role claiming will cost us an anti-nuke and if done prematurely, you role claim for no reason.
This is a great point, I hadn't thought of that.
Like, this point is actually so good that I'm retracting everything I've said. Despite concerns of independence, allowing people to explain their roles is even more important if they're up for a lynch.
Fuck me...
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:45 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:37 syllogism wrote:
Palmar: If there's no structure, it's quite likely your nuke will be shot down, gaining us little to no information and thus wasting a nuke and an anti-nuke. Stating you should nuke despite town objections if "town is bad" and then saying you shouldn't get lynched if "town was bad" makes no sense because presumably you will get lynched if the majority of town disagreed with your nuke and the target doesn't flip red. I do not see how this is in any way pro-town. Even worse, you may get retaliated. Nukes aren't exactly like vigi shots. Palmar plan is plain bad. I'm reserving the "nuke only if town is being led astray" thing for pros and great analysts. And my plan clearly said: "No retaliatory nukes", any retaliatory nuke is auto lynch.
I think you are way overestimating the towns ability. People like to tunnel, and won't hesitate to nuke if they think you sanction it/they are right. That's why we need a voting system, so people know that if they fire a nuke without town consent, EVEN IF they hit red, they are still dying.
We aren't going to ignore great analysis, if someone can come up with a great analysis chances are we are going to follow it, agree with him and nuke, what I'm afraid of is the "leading the town astray" part. Look at what happened to BC in PTP, you can be extremely pro-town, and all it takes is one misguided townie thinking you are leading the town astray to get rid of a town asset. I'm working off the assumption that my allies are all stupid and my enemies are all brilliant, its the only way to play reasonably.
Plus how do you judge who is "pro" enough to shoot? What happens if a "pro" misfires?
Its not a good idea, and it generates no information, as we aren't forcing people to make up their minds on nukes, since they have no control on how another player uses the nuke. We need a voting system, its the only way to make *everyone* accountable for deaths.
|
Stop. There is no way to guarantee that those you deem "pros and great analysts" are pro-town, and if they, as you say, can sway town to vote for a player to be nuked, they also have no problem posting a decent bullshit analysis and justifying their nuke. That will just ensure that mafia can safely use their nukes if they post a convincing case on someone.
What you can guarantee is that the majority of the players are pro-town and while you can't guarantee that the majority will vote for a mafia, you can guarantee that we are playing skill vs skill in an extremelly town favored field.
Blue roles are still free to act how they want and use their night actions how they see fit. You just eliminate the nuke-fest factor from the game completely AND get 2 lynches a day in the process.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:49 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:47 syllogism wrote:
Another problem with your plan is that because it's not up to the majority to decide when someone gets nuked, it's impossible to tell when you should role claim. Once the nuke is in air, role claiming will cost us an anti-nuke and if done prematurely, you role claim for no reason. This is a great point, I hadn't thought of that. Like, this point is actually so good that I'm retracting everything I've said. Despite concerns of independence, allowing people to explain their roles is even more important if they're up for a lynch. Fuck me...
Oh, no we are not going through *this*.
In WaW1 caller had a series of insane roleclaims that won him the game by people letting him survive. In this game IGNORE all roleclaims. Pretend they didn't happen, as they can be easily faked and they really don't provide us with much information. I will ignore all claimants, as there could be mafia cops, and mafia doctors and who knows what the hell else, roles =/= alignment and we will NOT allow people to squeak by by claiming.
|
On July 05 2011 22:57 sandroba wrote:
What you can guarantee is that the majority of the players are pro-town and while you can't guarantee that the majority will vote for a mafia, you can guarantee that we are playing skill vs skill in an extremelly town favored field.
If this was true, town would win vanilla games majority of the time (they don't)
But as I said, it's a non issue. Syllo actually pointed out something that none of us had thought about, and with that information in mind I retract my opinions.
|
Gmarshal: at least early on some role claims can be somewhat trusted because "Each Faction has a gimmick in the name of their players" and mafia may not be able to convincingly fake them. After some flips things get murkier
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 23:02 syllogism wrote:
Gmarshal: at least early on some role claims can be somewhat trusted because "Each Faction has a gimmick in the name of their players" and mafia may not be able to convincingly fake them. After some flips things get murkier
I'm not banking on that, nor should you. I've seen too many people confirmed by information that "only townies should have" and then later seen them flip red to trust that.
We should all agree, right now, that we will ignore claims, before we get the famous I am Israel/japan the insane cop whose checks got bussed. (yes this *happened* and he got away with it).
I am 100% distrusting claims, and so should everyone.
|
I never trust claims, I just figure out what part of them I can use to my advantage
|
On July 05 2011 23:00 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 22:57 sandroba wrote:
What you can guarantee is that the majority of the players are pro-town and while you can't guarantee that the majority will vote for a mafia, you can guarantee that we are playing skill vs skill in an extremelly town favored field.
If this was true, town would win vanilla games majority of the time (they don't) But as I said, it's a non issue. Syllo actually pointed out something that none of us had thought about, and with that information in mind I retract my opinions.
Stop being silly and read what I posted. Not every game we have 2 lynches per night cycle. I also didn't claim town would win 100% of the time under those circumstances, I said it's extremelly town favored and town should win most of the time given the same skill.
|
On July 05 2011 23:09 sandroba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 23:00 Palmar wrote:On July 05 2011 22:57 sandroba wrote:
What you can guarantee is that the majority of the players are pro-town and while you can't guarantee that the majority will vote for a mafia, you can guarantee that we are playing skill vs skill in an extremelly town favored field.
If this was true, town would win vanilla games majority of the time (they don't) But as I said, it's a non issue. Syllo actually pointed out something that none of us had thought about, and with that information in mind I retract my opinions. Stop being silly and read what I posted. Not every game we have 2 lynches per night cycle. I also didn't claim town would win 100% of the time under those circumstances, I said it's extremelly town favored and town should win most of the time given the same skill.
you sure about that in a vanilla game? I'm pretty sure the scum can easily win even if there are double lynches and no night kills.
But let's drop it, your plan allows for roleclaims and mine does not, so let's roll with yours.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 23:07 Palmar wrote:
I never trust claims, I just figure out what part of them I can use to my advantage
I was going to bring up the "lets let drazek live" deal, but you know what, i'm not going to argue little things ^_^
I will ignore all claims, plain and simple, if you are on the chopping block and claim medic, don't expect mercy.
In bold so everyone can see it role is not related to alignment one more time, for the sake of repetition. Role is not related to alignment, role-claims mean nothing
With that tangent done. Palmar, I take it you support the GMroba plan now?
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 23:09 sandroba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 23:00 Palmar wrote:On July 05 2011 22:57 sandroba wrote:
What you can guarantee is that the majority of the players are pro-town and while you can't guarantee that the majority will vote for a mafia, you can guarantee that we are playing skill vs skill in an extremelly town favored field.
If this was true, town would win vanilla games majority of the time (they don't) But as I said, it's a non issue. Syllo actually pointed out something that none of us had thought about, and with that information in mind I retract my opinions. Stop being silly and read what I posted. Not every game we have 2 lynches per night cycle. I also didn't claim town would win 100% of the time under those circumstances, I said it's extremelly town favored and town should win most of the time given the same skill.
I disagree. Town usually sucks at hitting scum, double lynch is situational, which is why we implemented the threshold system. Remember double lynch means LYLO comes much faster. We shouldn't be afraid to double lynch, nor should we shy away from not nuking if the situation doesn't call for it, there is no reason why we *have* to lynch if we don't have a decent target.
|
reluctantly, yes.
I'm still thinking how we can introduce the possibility for defense without launching nukes, and yet keep people thinking outside of the dominant town council.
But yeah, until we have a better solution, I can go with it. As I said, it isn't terrible, it's even pretty good, just there is a flaw that I thought I could fix, but that fix apparently introduced an even bigger flaw in the fact that nukes can't be cancelled.
Despite this being the plan, I plead that everyone keeps thinking individually from the loudest town players.
|
It's quite nice to read as I catch up that everyone has thought it is a good idea to do a no-nuke unless absolutely necessary AND agreed upon by town as its policy, to stifle the chances of the Conspirator winning as the town tries to take out the Mafia. While right now, I do agree with Palmar's invocation that we should keep independent thought on our targets, at the end of the day, one has to show WHY it would be a good idea to nuke someone, then as the person who proposed it, take the shot themselves if they have a nuke at hand. Could someone update me on how long there is time left before the deadline?
|
On July 05 2011 23:14 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 23:09 sandroba wrote:On July 05 2011 23:00 Palmar wrote:On July 05 2011 22:57 sandroba wrote:
What you can guarantee is that the majority of the players are pro-town and while you can't guarantee that the majority will vote for a mafia, you can guarantee that we are playing skill vs skill in an extremelly town favored field.
If this was true, town would win vanilla games majority of the time (they don't) But as I said, it's a non issue. Syllo actually pointed out something that none of us had thought about, and with that information in mind I retract my opinions. Stop being silly and read what I posted. Not every game we have 2 lynches per night cycle. I also didn't claim town would win 100% of the time under those circumstances, I said it's extremelly town favored and town should win most of the time given the same skill. I disagree. Town usually sucks at hitting scum, double lynch is situational, which is why we implemented the threshold system. Remember double lynch means LYLO comes much faster. We shouldn't be afraid to double lynch, nor should we shy away from not nuking if the situation doesn't call for it, there is no reason why we *have* to lynch if we don't have a decent target.
I agree with this btw, my entire argument was based around that sometimes town just doesn't seem to get the lynches done, so an alternative resource to pull from would be good.
|
On July 05 2011 23:36 Ciryandor wrote:
It's quite nice to read as I catch up that everyone has thought it is a good idea to do a no-nuke unless absolutely necessary AND agreed upon by town as its policy, to stifle the chances of the Conspirator winning as the town tries to take out the Mafia. While right now, I do agree with Palmar's invocation that we should keep independent thought on our targets, at the end of the day, one has to show WHY it would be a good idea to nuke someone, then as the person who proposed it, take the shot themselves if they have a nuke at hand. Could someone update me on how long there is time left before the deadline?
I essentially withdrew my suggestion after syllo pointed out a flaw in it. If someone has a role that we for some reason want to keep alive (ie, can easily confirm, or we think it's a legit pro-town claim), we'd have to waste anti missiles to stop the missile heading his way.
With the vote, the person can claim before the nuke launches, so we can then decide whether or not we decide to send the kill in, saving us potentially both a pro-town nuke and a pro-town anti-nuke.
So yeah, at the moment the vote seems like the way to go.
|
Day![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_49Bcbuc6ngM/S_waIc-zEUI/AAAAAAAAA9U/tsS13VE2KDs/s1600/Nuclear%252BExplosion.jpg)
Nuclear explosions. Many of them. The Suns sure are bright.
VisceraEyes, Jackal58, and Pyrrhuloxia were all incinerated by the nuclear strikes that landed directly on top of their heads, and in one case, his ass.
Radiation Count: Zero
Vote in thread with ##:Vote Player.
Nuke in thread with ##: Nuke Player.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
/confirm
Yay its finally started. I only had a chance to skim the thread during my lunch break, but I'll be able to post more once I get out of work. I would suggest everyone commenting on the setup. Pointing out flaws in Sandroba or GM's plan allows you to blend in, but proposing solutions is much more helpful. At least half the town hasn't blown each other up yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
