World at War 2 Mafia
|Forum Index > TL Mafia|
On July 05 2011 09:01 GMarshal wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 05 2011 07:18 Palmar wrote:
I can't have you waiting like this
Oh, well then.
My work here is done. (seriously, I'm considering the possibility of starting the game with nuclear war. For giggles)
The best part is I'm planning the same.
On July 05 2011 09:14 Kurumi wrote:
You know that You'd help Conspirator win more than Yourselves?
And there is the person I was planning on nuking!
GMarshal's plan is dumb, even scummy.
Chaos13 makes sense. Just treat your nukes like vigi shots.
On July 05 2011 18:18 prplhz wrote:
I think the whole idea that nukes can be used in a controlled way is absurd .. it may work but if it backfires it could really mean disaster and I don't think it's worth the risk. I suggest we just go about this game as if noone would have any reason to nuke ever unless they are conspirators. The whole "I think maybe we can use this many nukes before the earth self destructs" is a pretty bad gamble. Imagine if someone suggested it irl.
So far I'm pretty skeptical towards sandroba and GMarshal 'cause they are quite foolishly proposing that we use nukes in a controlled way, something that can only lead to disaster. Not so much about Chaos13. Also stop talking about confirmed scum.
That's a bad idea too btw.
Nukes are vigi shots.
Vigi shots are a great asset to town because they cannot by influenced by mafia, and it has statistically a tiny bit higher chance of hitting mafia than lynches. Just read RTM mafia to see what independent and good vigi shots can do to a mafia team.
GMs plan is soooo bad, retaliatory nuking is basically stupid. If someone launches a dumb nuke, then the absolutely worst way of tackling the problem is nuking him right back. Unless of course you think that person is scummy, then by all means nuke him.
Sandroba's is slightly less bad, but still wrests control away from townies. I'm a big advocate of the "shoot early, shoot independently, shoot scum and shoot often" vigilante policy. Clearly with the radiation thing this has to be scaled back a little bit, but for the most part, it still applies, just chill a bit and think again before you shoot.
So, without further ado, I introduce an alternative to all the dumb shit that's been going on. I will require every major nation in the world to sign this agreement.
The Palmar Agreement:
- Nuke Scum
- Don't be an idiot
On July 05 2011 18:52 sandroba wrote:
@palmar except that if this game is like the previous both scum and town have nukes. Nukes are not like vig shots because they lead to 3rd party win. Also probably have a fuckton of players with nukes and if every one "tries to hit scum" with it we are screwed.
That's why I said "just chill a bit" in my text.
yes, scum probably has nukes.
You're working under the misconception that somehow allowing people to vote or agree on a nuke is bending to the town's will, this is incorrect.
The town is, and will always be, controlled by few vocal members that are charismatic and convincing enough to lead the rest along with them on crusades. Vigilante shots (or nukes) provide a great alternative to that. If the town "council" of people who lead the town are missing something or even in worst case being messed with by scum, that's when we really need independent vigilante shots.
Don't try to control town.
Also, if everyone signs my agreement, then there's a clause that says "Don't be an idiot", and thus we will not have stupid or useless nukes.
On July 05 2011 19:12 sandroba wrote:
@Curu Based on last game. I thought I read it in the op, but it says "night kills", so I'm probably wrong. Still all the more incentive to have double lynches every day.
Vigs work well because they are hidden and can claim their shot in thread afterwards to confirm themselves etc (since they are protown in most setups). Nukes are NOTHING like that because they have to be announced in thread, which tends to generate hate and retaliation when the player flips green and turn into a chain reaction of townie deaths. Independant thinking is gonna lead us to disaster, you can mark my words (or read WaW 1). If you want to nuke a player that badly just fucking explain us why and we will vote on it.
I'm not gonna shit up the thread by discussing a bad plan, I'm going to rely on people not being dumb as fuck.
But hey, if anyone wants to play your little stifling game, then all the power to you.
I read Caller's soviet game, yes it was infested with retards trying to troll the game. I'm just going to trust that people learn from mistakes and try to use critical thinking to further our cause.
But hey, I adhere to my own plan though, I'm not going to nuke anyone unless I have a really good reason to, cause you know, I'm actually going to try and win this thing.
You see, the plans we're arguing about are in effect quite similar, we both plan to only nuke scummy players. The difference is only the method we want to use to apply this. And of course we lynch players who launch outright stupid nukes, and preferably shoot down their nukes.
The mafia already cannot use their nukes, because we will spot it immediately if it's a bad nuke, shoot it down and lynch the launcher. I just don't want it to be directed by the town council.
On July 05 2011 20:05 syllogism wrote:
The OP specifically states that
"Each player has a random amount of nuclear weapons (from 1-2)（unless otherwise specified） that they may shoot on any person they wish during this phase"
It may be possible that there are a few special roles with no nukes, but the vast majority of players should have at least one
I'll just immediately dispel that.
I have no nukes.
@MiG, I don't think I personally would be more likely to hit scum, but I know a little secret I'll share with you:
The best convincing people/town leaders != the best scumhunters
I consider myself in the former category, I can get people lynched, but I'm not great at hunting scum. If a great scumhunter has a good case that's being ignored in a shitstorm of town discussion, then I want that player to be able to shoot his nuke without fearing to be owned.
However if a terrible nuke is launched, I completely agree with shooting it down and lynching the launcher.
On July 05 2011 20:35 Mig wrote:
Palmar yes it would be unfortunate if there were some great scum hunter who was shitty at arguing and couldn't get his point across but at the same time we are preventing all the people who are shitty scum hunters from firing randomly into the town.
You are basically arguing it is better for everyone to work alone instead of as a team, which cannot possibly be correct.
I want the option to be there.
As I've said, if it's a terrible shot, we'll stop it. And for the most part, the discussion will be focused on the lynch. I don't agree, can we now drop it, as it certainly looks like no one is going to be firing their missiles like retards and we're shitting up the thread?
In general terms, working as a team is the better options, but we don't know who's leading that team, there needs to be induvidual thought. But as I said, I have much less problems with the plan you've proposed than GM's original one which was basically:
"Let's nuke the fuck out of everyone who lurks, and everyone who nukes too"
That really bothered me.
But I'll agree to disagree if you will.
I'll pretend to go with your plan at the moment, as I'm a non-factor in it anyway.
I sure as hell hope that people have the balls to nuke later in the game before a mafia infested town council leads us to hell.
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.
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?
On July 05 2011 22:08 chaos13 wrote:
(Your Name)'s Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator Win
Fire/Don't Fire under the following circumstances:
This is what happens if you break the rules:
Explanation for why this is the best plan:
How does this plan compare to WaW 1? How could it have affected the results of that game?
Anything else you want to say.
##Vote: (Your Name)'s Plan
Chaos13 is the one person who's not been derping so far, but I'll humour the planners and do this.
Palmar's Plan for Not Letting the Conspirator Win
Fire only when you have a strong scum read on someone. You must in addition provide an analysis to support your launch. Remember, it's a good thing to bring up an analysis and try to get the person lynched instead, but if the town council shoots it down due to bads (like I did when people wanted to lynch VE on day 2 in RTM), then you should launch.
In addition, if you're a newer player, or a bad player, you should probably not launch anyway. Leave the nuking up to the pros.
There will be NO retaliatory nukes.
If you provide an analysis that gets shot down because it's bad, not because the town is bad, and then you nuke anyway, the town will take swift action and lynch you.
Yes, we are policy lynching dumb nukes.
Because it gives good people free hands on nuking, essentially giving us an additional way to deal with mafia. There is a chance that the will of the town is being manipulated by a good scum, this is where good analysts have a chance to show their worth.
Removing the opportunity for independent action is removing a tool from our arsenal to fight scum.
In addition, the "we lynch you if your launch is bad" policy should be enough to provide deterrent from nuking badly.
WaW1 had much more trolls and idiots than this game has. I'd like to compare it to RTM where independently working vigis and hatters provided a great service to town.
Like, if we ever end up in a scenario where people are trolling, we hold our fire and lynch them all.
Not really, I've said what I wanted to say.
##Vote: Palmar's Plan
On July 05 2011 22:30 sandroba wrote:
@Palmar It's not a council when anyone can vote. Nice try btw.
Are you intentionally trying to be thick? You know just as well as I that the lynches are always led by some people. VE was never going to be hanged in RTM on day 2, because I was leading the town in the wrong direction. OpZ saw this, and fixed it, sparing us a fuckton of trouble.
@Chaos13, what more deterrence is there than being lynched? I am proposing exactly the same plan as GMarshal and Sandroba, just removing the voting process. If you can think of a better way, I'm all ears, cause I don't want stupid people nuking.
In essence, we are discussing the same plan three times, just with variable amount of agreeing by the town.
I'm not saying Sandroba's plan will autolose, it's actually a pretty decent plan for what it's worth, I'm just saying we have a better alternative.
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.