|
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.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:00 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:08 chaos13 wrote:Show nested quote +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 WinNuke PolicyFire/Don't Fire under the following circumstances: PunishmentThis is what happens if you break the rules: WhyExplanation for why this is the best plan: SupportHow does this plan compare to WaW 1? How could it have affected the results of that game? Other TidbitsAnything else you want to say. ##Vote: (Your Name)'s PlanAnd 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
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:20 sandroba wrote:
@chaos13 as you can see my plan is extremelly pro-town and is gaining momentum. Now is the perfect time to discuss plans since the game has not even started. Most reasonable people are agreeing with it and others are trying to shut it down for no sane reason. If you don't agree with it you better provide some reason. We will not leave it to be discussed day1 when we have to focus on who to lynch. Also if you think I haven't done scum hunting so far you are in for a surprise.
Just agree to the majority lynch part of it, trust me. There's a reason why in games with double lynch the town doesn't always use them all up by the end of the game, there aren't always clear targets, we need an option for no nuking, and by having a majority lynch system we ensure we don't go through with stupid lynches.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:23 sandroba wrote:
@GM can we agree to reduce that to 40%? Considering 20% of people will most likely lurk this is going to be the majority of the active. I don't want us wasting an oportunity to lynch because players were not active enough. That's a nice compromise on my part and if you are reasonable you will agree =).
Im not content with it, but compromise is acceptable I suppose. 40% it is, although higher vote still wins, e.g. if I have 55% of the votes and you have 45% only I am getting nuked. This is the minimum threshold to be able to nuke, ok?
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 22:33 sandroba wrote:
24 hours is plenty of time. 2 well thought out lynches>1 any kind of lynch. Radiation is not going to be a problem as I've argued extensively already.
Radiation could be a huge problem, which is why I want us to be able to no lynch as we move into later into the game.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 06 2011 01:46 youngminii wrote:
i was about to nuke gmarshal
i want to nuke something
please let me nuke someone
Once we elect the nuke target, we can let you nuke it I suppose...
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 06 2011 02:04 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 01:53 JeeJee wrote:On July 06 2011 01:49 syllogism wrote:
You were also mafia and mafia benefited from people not following this plan. This game has a different player base and people failing to adhere to it in one game does not mean different people here will as well. If anything, we should learn from that example. this isn't unique to WaW1. Ace's game where everybody had a gun? Same outcome. I would be very surprised if it doesn't happen here. As of now I'm considering everybody a triggerhappy idiot. Prove me wrong. I actually have far more belief in this playerbase. As you can see on my crusade against the "only nuke when it's agreed upon" idea. But yes, I really don't think we have to worry too much about random nuking in this game. With that in mind, I'm going to go completely against what I usually suggest and just throw this out there: Assumptions: a) too many nukes and we lose b) nukes become more accurate late-game Conclusion: Should we perhaps just... not nuke today? Sandroba's plan assumes the nuke is a double lynch, which is perfectly fine, but this is also a double lynch on a timer, one that ticks every time we nuke, and we can assume that every time a mafia is up against the wall he will nuke everything he can. So, how about it, I say we just ignore the nukes, for now.
Actually I agree with this, day 1 lynches are hard enough as is, lets not make it a 24 hour day 1 lynch on top of that, theres a reason why games with double lynches wait till day 2 before they can be activated.
As far as the campaigns go, I think the nuke destroying one is best, we want to cut down the enemy's arsenal, again a lategame scenario scum are working towards is one where the town is out of anti-nukes and low on nukes and the mafia holds enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the town. The extra lives only apply to "Boreritish commanders" which I doubt is all of us.
Plus I'm much more scared of nuclear Armageddon than I am of night kills.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 06 2011 02:17 syllogism wrote:
Even if there are only 2 or 3 boreritish commanders, it still looks better than the alternatives. Destroying 3 nukes is pretty nice, but mafia likely can't use nukes until mid to late-game and it's quite possible for them to die without using all their nukes. Moreover, nukes can be shot down
And medics can protect at night.
Anti-nukes are our only salvation against a doomsday operation on the part of the axis powers, we cannot afford to waste them, reducing the number of nukes is essential to doing this. Assuming the scum team is 6 people, and assuming 1.5 nukes per person, they have around 9 nukes, destroying 3 is taking out one third of their capacity to launch a major nuclear strike.
Lets cripple the bastards.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 06 2011 02:13 deconduo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 02:13 chaos13 wrote:
Keep in mind the extra lives are granted only to Boreritish Commanders. There are plenty (probably majority) of Allied players who are not Boreritish Commanders. I would guess we have at least 3 however.
...
where did that number come from?
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 06 2011 02:22 syllogism wrote:
Extra lives work against nukes as well, no?
No.
A nuke wipes you from the face of the earth.
Night kills are like invasions, and extra lives are additional troops/fortifications.
Nukes don't give a damn if you have a mechanized division instead of cavalry, its still going to kill you.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 06 2011 02:25 deconduo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 02:21 GMarshal wrote:On July 06 2011 02:13 deconduo wrote:On July 06 2011 02:13 chaos13 wrote:
Keep in mind the extra lives are granted only to Boreritish Commanders. There are plenty (probably majority) of Allied players who are not Boreritish Commanders. I would guess we have at least 3 however. ... where did that number come from? 5 Allied teams, 29 players. Three seems like a safe lower limit to pick.
Fair enough, I was just curious ^_^
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:24 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 02:24 GMarshal wrote:On July 06 2011 02:22 syllogism wrote:
Extra lives work against nukes as well, no? No. A nuke wipes you from the face of the earth. Night kills are like invasions, and extra lives are additional troops/fortifications. Nukes don't give a damn if you have a mechanized division instead of cavalry, its still going to kill you. false.
extra lives count against missiles launched.
it will be expended if the missile is a real nuke OR a dud.
Well in this case I think veteran lives are best, I was off the mark on this one, but thats almost as good as three anti-nukes in the case of a doomsday operation, assuming the vets are still alive.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 06 2011 08:33 JeeJee wrote:
Well, let's see, lurker-wise I'm looking at
Mataza
One post, out of nowhere suggesting existence of weird nukes. To me this stands out because it's such a strange thing to think about, unless you of course have special nukes. Later confirmed by Caller that "not all nukes are created equal", so weird nukes may indeed exist.
No other posts.
Would townies have special nukes -.^?
##Vote:Mataza
That is really, really wifom, sure townies might have special nukes, pressuring him for lurking is fine and dandy (I'll even vote for it). but the possibility of having "special nukes" is not cause for killing anyone remember role =/= alignment.
That said, lets pile the death threats on, see if that causes some chatter
##Vote: Mataza
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
