|
Can someone clarify what this means
The Nuclear Phase will end 12 hours after the launch of the first nuke, or barring that, 24 hours. Then, votes from this time will be tallied up for both Campaigns and Lynches.
Lynch: This occurs after the last nuke has fallen or 24 hours, whichever occurs later. Votes accumulated during the nuclear phase are used to process a lynch. In addition, the Allied Campaign for the cycle will be activated and upon the following Day its effects will be implemented:
Does that mean that if a real nuke is launched early on, the day will be shorter?
|
On July 06 2011 03:02 Kurumi wrote:
##Operation Watchtower
So we do have:
Operation Gunnerside, which gives us no mission tomorrow.
Operation Dunkirk which probably will have a counter-operation for Axis during the night so I think it is a waste.
Also Palmar nice false-nuke to stir the shit up, I approve it.
That's a nonsensical assumption. If counter operations exists, it's just as likely such an operation would counter the other campaigns. For instance, I think it's likely there will be a campaign which gives axis more nukes.
|
Right, so definitely voting for that
##: Dunkirk Operation
|
On July 06 2011 03:58 sinani206 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 03:44 Caller wrote:
I will say though that not all missiles are created equal. So scum missiles do more damage? ##Operation Gunnerside
What's with people making wild assumptions just to avoid voting for objectively the most pro-town campaign
|
It would be nice if we knew how much time we've until lynch, nukes affecting deadlines is really confusing and can make people miss votes or at least be forced to vote too early
|
I'm not happy with how quite a few approached the campaign options (by the way GMarshal, do you still think Gunnerside is the best one?), but I'm going to highlight Sinani206 first as he has been lurking.
On July 06 2011 03:58 sinani206 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 03:44 Caller wrote:
I will say though that not all missiles are created equal. So scum missiles do more damage? ##Operation Gunnerside
Many players were guilty of this kind of hasty/shallow/poor analysis, but this seems particularly worrisome as it looks like an attempt to gain town cred rather than a town person voting for the best option. All nukes are lethal without nuclear resistance/extra lives and I think it's safe to assume few roles will have such perks. Thus, these "special" nukes aren't really a bigger threat than regular ones, especially as scum doesn't know who is resistant. Moreover, there's no reason to think only scum roles could have such nukes or that the campaign would prioritize "special nukes".
Sinani206 would you explain why you put so little effort into this?
Kurumi's analysis of the options was strange as well.
##vote Sinani206
|
Mataza did you really nuke Sandroba not because you thought he was scummy, but because he might be the conspirator? The odds of actually hitting the conspirator with everyone in the game still alive aren't very good. I also don't know why everyone assumes the conspirator being gone will remove the radiation issue considering it says in the op EVERYONE DIES once we hit the cap. WaW had no conspirator and had the cap.
|
Palmar isn't playing like his RTM meta, at all. At first I thought he was suicidal because he didn't really want to play (he has a new job), but he has been very active so now I'm leaning more towards to his behaviour being plain scummy.
|
I'm pretty sure Mataza is town. This is the weakness of the plan; dumb townies.
|
I'm not going to lynch someone I think is town, especially if the nuke didn't actually get launched
|
Palmar that's just making me more suspicious. I recall we didn't policy lynch you either for actually launching a nuke, dud or not. Policy lynching likely townies is terrible and if Mataza's nuke didn't actually go off, we should not nuke/lynch him, but rather convince him not to actually go for it tomorrow. The deterrent needs to be there of course, but we can determine on a case by case basis how to proceed if someone breaks the policy. I think still Sinani206 is a great lynch, but as that's not happening, I'm going with the next best thing: you.
##vote Palmar
|
So with the options being lynching a scummy player (Palmar) and policy lynching a likely townie (ask yourself, is mafia ever going to be doing that on day 1 after we we had agreed to policy lynch anyone for it), why are so many of you going for the latter
|
Are you going to lynch him even if the nuke didn't go off due to the nuclear phase being over
|
The focus on killing Conspirator is misguided. Killing him brings us no closer to winning the game and does not allow us to use nukes freely. It's possible he has some anti-town powers, but we'll likely know that soon enough
|
Palmar also nuked, but is that okay because it turned out to be a dud? What's the motivation for announcing you've no nukes as a townie and even demonstrating it
|
Why would you vote for someone who is going to get modkilled
|
Anyone wanting to lynch a townie is scum. The ones voting to lynch Mataza better believe there's at least a decent chance of him flipping red
|
I don't think you are anti-town because you don't agree with policies, I think you are anti-town due to what you argued for and due to not playing as you do as town. Not to mention that dud nuke/claim
|
Mataza: It's day 1 in a caller game. I wouldn't be surprised if there are stealth nukers, compulsive nukers or campaigns that force nukes, or whatever. A bit too early to call it boring.
|
By the way is there any reason why we wouldn't mass name (not role) claim? Even if it's not currently possible to determine scum purely based on the gimmick names, it might be after we get some flips. That does sound like game ruining though, so it's hard to believe it's something Caller overlooked
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
