EPTCan I give you Drunk Batman?
Pick Their Power Mafia 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Can I give you Drunk Batman? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 19 2011 02:10 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Only if its better than shitty batman from last game. No, it's the exact same, just with better flavour text to explain your ineptness. I wrote it down somewhere, but now I can't find it  | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 19 2011 03:11 GMarshal wrote: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! I wanted to play in this! *shuffles off to cry in a corner* If there are list checks I will laugh and laugh and laugh Maybe I'll make a compulsive anti-list-check role. Muhahahahahahha | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Alternate win condition then? Care to share? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 25 2011 10:41 Tackster wrote: Well: I didn't realise you had a role list... Last PYP i had a terrible vote effect. You imply it's negative they know possibly 5-8 roles but want to give them 25 to pick from. Mafia will know 25 roles and all of their mates. They can pick the killers, docs, checkers and predict what effects will be used against them. They can avoid wasting KP on bulletproofs. Town will know 25 roles and have to check 25 people.... Any pro-town secret mechanics (such as you can kill a mafia IF [condition]) will be void. Mass claim is a terrible plan... As well, mafia will be able to completely avoid things like veterans, bullet-proof townies, hatters, vengeance roles, etc. It doesn't seem like a good plan this early into the game. As well, if mafia picked for each other at all, that gives them a free fake-claim, with which they can skew things. Say they have a KP role, or a role similar to someone else, then they'd use that role in an anti-town way, and it would appear as though the other, non-mafia, player were doing it. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Does the no claiming who you made powers for follow the spirit or the letter of the law? For example, if we just asked general questions about a role, and someone else answered, without ever saying they actually made the role, does this circumvent the rule, or no, because it breaks the spirit of it? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
-We vote for the use of the wand KP along with the normal lynch. We also include the vote of "No Kill" -We stop discussing Voldemort and Harry Potter and try to scum hunt -We only bring them up again if they act scummy, (Read: Beyond talking about their roles) -If ON disobeys town wishes, we lynch him Thoughts? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 25 2011 11:41 redFF wrote: could be bus drivers and roleblockers... so no So, instead, we give a KP to someone who is questionably town, and let him use it however he wants? RBs makes no difference for whether or not we tell him who to kill, as if he announces his kill slightly before the day post (as he should), this problem is still existent. Mafia can still target him with RB just to keep the KP out of play (or choose not to RB because they don't think he can aim). If he announces his kill slightly before the day post (as he should), then he can still claim bus driver, if that person isn't dead and someone else is. This way, gives us more information about more people, for who they vote for. The fact that the kill might not go through, is secondary to that, because that problem still exists whether or not we follow this plan, and this way we generate more discussion. On July 25 2011 11:43 sandroba wrote: Yeah, I hate this idea, if mafia has a rb only kills that will go through will be townies. I want the wand back and I agree that we should stop discussing this. San, that's huge WIFOM, and even then, ties up a mafia RB with ON constantly, who only has 1 KP that we know of, and keeps the KP itself out of play (not necessarily a bad thing). Also, are you able to use the wand yourself? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Also, I'm wondering YM, because if you can use it today, it might be best to fire it off, and then WIFOM about your kill/protection. That's assuming you're town of course. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 25 2011 13:14 redFF wrote: erm i've read the books and seen all the movies except the new one, so average i guess? So... On July 25 2011 10:41 redFF wrote: Can the Elder Wand be used at any time or only at night? How did you know the "stick", or "wand" was properly called the Elder Wand? (That's the first mention of it by that name in the thread) This leads me to believe you're in contact with Jackal or one of the role creators of ON/Jackal | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
The Jackal thing is different though, because of the part where it says something about another player's alignment, so I'm trying to figure that out. Could ON actually be mafia, but just flips green, thus the "disguised as town" from Jackal's PM? Like a GF that keeps working after death. Other than that, I'm drawing a blank, besides that Jackal's scum. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
For example, if you reveal who you picked your role for or details about said role your penalty will activate. Outing supersoft's role, seems to make you look like town, acting in the heat of the moment that you think he's scum and killed YM, who was very likely to flip town. However, the seeming lack of a penalty so far, makes me think that you didn't actually create supersoft's role. It makes me think that you're in contact with the creator of supersoft's role (via scumteam), and outed it to buy cred, by exposing the killer, and possibly revealing a townie. This is why a penalty didn't activate, because you didn't actually create his role. Can we check him, please? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 04:58 BloodyC0bbler wrote: use a dt check on SS first. Don't trust someone whos suspect to give real feedback. Make him earn his damn check. You do not reward roleclaimers ffs. How contradictory. You think that having SS use his rolecheck is rewarding him (not town, just him) for roleclaiming, but then say we should wait for another DT to check supersoft to confirm him as town or not. Here's how that fails: -Framers -Fake DT claim to take out Day DT -Continual Role block after today on SS -Having to have an actual DT claim to confirm him So, you don't want to reward roleclaimers, but then want another DT to claim to confirm a known DT, who's alignment is unknown? That makes no sense at all. The best thing to do, is to use his check, and have him announce his result to town. The catch is we don't act just based on his check. We can check a lynch candidate if we want, but that gets dangerous if he's scum, though another 1-1 trade wouldn't be that bad. The other thing we do is check someone suspicious, who isn't necessarily getting lynched today and having him announce his check, and just leave it until we can confirm him. Then if he gets popped, we know all his checks and results, and if we can act on them, and if he gets confirmed another way, well we know all his results too. I'd actually suggest checking you or DB, and then leaving it for now. As well, why would we check people asking to be checked, and why would anyone be dumb enough to ask for a DT check on them without already being suspicious anyways? If they're asking to be checked, they're town or a covered role. Town wouldn't want to waste a DT check on themselves, as compared to suspicious people. Use the tool to hunt mafia, not to confirm town. An innocent check doesn't prove innocence, but the only way we're getting a red check back at this point is millers or a day-framer. Day 1 has the least chance of anything interfering with the check, and is the best time to use it. I'd rather have 1 check in, than have none and SS gets shot tonight. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 05:33 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Check the bolded part. In almost every case of someone asking or begging for a dt check they are town or covered role. Most people do this to confirm themselves and thus starting a blue circle that can rofl stomp mafia. It is very common practice for people to want to be cleared as to move through a game with 0 harassment from anyone. No mafia would willingly throw himself up for a dt check as it would screw him in the end. You say no townie would want it used on them, but that would again, leave you a pool of 0 people to check. you are then down to the idea of "we want you checked you let yourself get checked or lynched" which is a horrible way to play. Seriously, you all are talking about role use being the huge factor in catching people. I now say, everyone go back read pick your power 3 and realize playing lets analyze roles, or someones role means they are legit, etc.... and realize roles do not say shit about the players alignment. Who cares if SS's check is an alignment check if you don't know his alignment. Have a watcher/tracker check him. If he visits anyone at night at this point in time he is mafia. have a dt check him. Dt's could breadcrumb results, or the like. Seriously, before a plan is proposed you sort it out, you make it ideal, you account for multiple situations. So far the only situation proposed by you lot is SS is likely town for shooting a red. Likely town does not mean town. What? So, instead of using a check, and just leaving it, until we have a second DT out themselves or breadcrumb and die, you're saying never use the check? Did I understand that correctly? Please tell me how what you're trying to say is optimal play. How is not having a check better than having one? The only situation proposed by you, is that we don't use the check at all. That's asking a claimed and outed DT to not check people or reveal his checks, until another DT checks him. In what world does that make sense? Ask yourself how you would play this out in a normal game. If a DT claimed, would you ask him to not check anyone until another DT checked him and claimed it? That sounds really dumb to me. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 05:44 BloodyC0bbler wrote: In a normal game, on day 1, if someone claimed dt and said x was red, I would kill the dt first. Every time. In a setup where mafia, third parties, or town can be a dt, I will never trust the claimant ever on day 1. Nor should anyone else. Ok, so where's the part where we're trusting him by having him use a check on an agreed upon target? That's what I'm wondering about. You're saying that by letting him check, we're implicitly trusting him to be town, but that is not the case. We can let him sit in unconfirmed limbo for now, but why not use his check? It doesn't hurt us to use his check, the same way that killing the DT actually tells us whether the check is true or not. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 05:56 BloodyC0bbler wrote: By giving him a check we give legitmacy over time to his supposed alignment. Say he is mafia, he checks kita, kita flips town, he gives us a town. That makes him look better as he complied to the check. Say both kita and SS are red, he says kita is town it still gives both a look of legitmacy. One for complying for the check. Its subtle and its insidious. Someone who is not confirmed you do not let slowly insinuate they are. Had you guys outlined you planned on trusting his check with a grain of salt I would be less worried than i am now. Of course we'd take it with a grain of salt, I'm taking everything in this game with a grain of salt, because if I trusted everything I read, I'd be pretty silly. That's also why I'm saying we can also check people who aren't major lynch targets yet, and then just ignore the results until someone else confirms SS, he gets shot by mafia, or we even flip him ourselves with a vig. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 06:03 redFF wrote:  What about kita iS so scummy, yes he asked a lot of questions but it was a confusing time. I'd like to see him post a bit more before you Start acting like the whole town thinks he iS scum and wants him lynched.The thing about Kita's questions, is that they all serve to direct suspicion or distrust onto others, and that's why they look scummy. On July 26 2011 06:01 sandroba wrote: @Wiggles I was under the impression penalties are not revealed to us and not even the player who aquired them except when they really come into play. Hmmm, Are we allowed to talk about the penalties we suggested? Penalties aren't revealed to us, but it's stated in the OP that revealing who you picked for/their role will trigger them. That's the only trigger we know of, and it should have set off a penalty when DB revealed he picked for SS and his role. If we can talk about penalties, then we can maybe figure out if I'm wrong, but from what I suggested and inferred from the OP, they seem of a more instant nature, than something delayed. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 06:24 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Simple reasoning to your bit on no sense. Take a look at the game flamewheel wrapped up few weeks ago. As red I directed a town hatter at a member of the mafia who was most likely going to live? Why? Credibility. I then had the team split on two opposite ends of an argument pushing for a lynch where both candidates were town. Why? Because no mafia would do that, etc... Doing what makes the "least" sense as a red at points will end up with the highest reward. Its unexpected and thus accepted as legit as it would be insane for a red to perform the move. There are many players who like to make gambits, or do moves like this and it is very rough to just outright accept someones claim at face value. His shooting tackster has even added to the "validity" of his claim. Why would mafia kill a person so quickly into the day when they could cover it up, etc... If you can't trust his check, then why use it? He checks me, says i'm green. Town goes, well i think hes lying. I get lynched and flip green. It says nothing of his alignment. If he says x flips red and he claims they are red and the person dies and flips town, yes then hes screwed. But if hes red all checks will flip as green until the mafia hit a point wher elosing 1 red is worth the exchange for one town. If he is SK he will most likely out the reds, etc... We as town cannot trust his checks fully, but third party or mafia can. They get far more information from a check than we as a town do. They can fire their shots based on his checks, etc... Stacking hits is a normal strategy, they know who to rb, etc.... We are giving freebie shots to non town groups based on his checks if he is in fact town. If he is third party doesn't matter much other than it builds him credibility to live, and as red again builds credibility to live. On July 26 2011 06:28 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Thats because you guys are straight up not thinking. I am being logical, concise, and most importantly I am thinking on a level beyond "herp derp we got a blue". If I was red, why would I argue against his checks? Why would I throw myself into the fire of this nonsense and try to fix an obvious error in town judgement. Use your damn heads. Take a step back from the general "hes an alignment dt" and seriously think of motivations behind all sides for the move, how it benefits each side, which side benefits the most from all perspectives, etc... Town is almost always at the bottom of the list. His checks will hurt us more than help us at this point in time. I found this very funny. :p Also, what's giving you vibes that I'm an SK, foolishness? I'll agree to a check on myself if more people get behind it, but now if there's no reasoning there. I'd say check BC, who was arguing against using a DT check at all, or DB, who should have suffered a penalty for outing SS' role, but didn't. Other than that, I'd say to check some low-key people. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 07:45 BloodyC0bbler wrote: And now someone isnt talking about lynching based off his checks, I think some lightbulbs might just be going on. I've been saying that for a while -_- | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 11:06 supersoft wrote: please be so kind and quote this one more time ;-) or wait... lol, i can't believe it... Am I lucky and found a non-townie by accident? :D What O.o Explain, please? Also, don't GFs normally get picked on Night 1? That means Day 1 is the best time for a check, as there is no possibility of framers/covers or the GF, unless those roles may act during the day | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 12:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Him defending himself to be honest. I'm kinda tired of seeing others do it for him. How does Jackal defend himself from his role PM though? That's what I don't get. Unless there's another reason to be voting for him, or you really think he faked parts of it. Care to explain your stance on him a little bit for me? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 13:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote: How about he posts? instead of lurk insanely hard he could be doing anything productive. As for the stance, it seems very odd to call out a player (he called out ON) for lying based on his role pm. His stance was one of "he is lying my pm says he is disguised as town" which would infer red. That entire claim got ON killed. He flipped town. Jackal then vanished into unknown land. Someone got shot over this entire situation yet the people who ask questions or FoS the guy responsible are getting questioned more heavily than the person responsible. TL towns are awesome. I can get behind that for now, will reevaluate in the morning. I went back and looked at his posts, and near all of them are arguing about either his or ON's role, and then some stuff about penalties. On the whole, not very constructive. Assuming he's town, you'd think he'd be wanting to be very active and contribute to establish his innocence in the wake of ON's death, but instead he mostly disappeared, as though hoping pressure would disperse with time (which it seems to have). ##Vote: Jackal68 | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
If you do end up flipping red though: On July 27 2011 04:40 heist wrote: SS just give us kita. That'll do for now. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 27 2011 05:34 supersoft wrote: I wanted to fakeclaim a check on kita and say that he turned red if BCs check returned green. unfortunately kita wasn't around and BC returned red. So you were going to lie to town and possibly lynch a green, then getting yourself killed in the process and losing town a DT? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 27 2011 05:34 Curu wrote: Well if he's Miller we'll find out from his role PM. It really makes no sense to me if supersoft is Mafia because he did kill one of his buddies with no reason to. Miller wouldn't show up in his role PM. It would be he gets a Town PM, but he's really a miller. Normally, you don't know you're a miller, and we'll only find out on his flip. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Except I don't believe that. The only way I see that happening is if he's some kind of role where mafia benefits upon his lynch, otherwise, I don't see him getting lynched as mafia on Day 1. He's more valuable to the mafia and a better player than that. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 27 2011 05:43 heist wrote: Look BC all my gut instincts and your behavior is telling me you are not scum. But if the mafia are prepared to give us a 1 for 1 trade, then I'm willing to follow through. If you end up miller however, I can't really see how that faults SS. That's actually terrible. If you don't think he's scum, why are you voting for him? You're letting a DT check tell you who to vote for instead of behavioural analysis? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 27 2011 05:46 heist wrote: Did you not read? For the 1/1 trade with mafia. I did read, but if you think he's town, and SS is scum, why not just go for a 0-1 trade with mafia? Why do you need to kill BC when you don't think he's scum? That makes no sense at all. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 27 2011 05:46 syllogism wrote: If any of you created a framer role, now would be a good time to claim Day-framer* | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 27 2011 06:03 redFF wrote: wow lol. A bunch of people are going to be lke OMFG HE WAS OBV TOWN U GUYZ ARE DUMB. But he came back as mafia to a confirmed non-scum alignment check, he was the lynch. It sucks but its better we lynched a miller with a shitty role now then having to deal with a miller in the later game. This is why you don't rely on DT checks. BC's play and behaviour pointed to him being town, but the entire rest of town decided to jump on him because a DT check came back red. This game isn't about roles, it's about players. I'd rather have a strong analyst with a shitty role than a terrible player with a good one. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 27 2011 06:07 redFF wrote: Voting on a mislynch is not suspicious. Voting on a mislynch with shitty reasoning and hopping the early bandwagon is, though. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 27 2011 06:13 Lanaia wrote: I wish I'd been here in time to unvote. I'm wondering, is it typical to say what you've done before the night ends or do people only do that if they've already roleclaimed? Mostly if you're planning to role-claim, I guess. Say, if you're a vig and are going to claim, 1 minute before the day post, you'd say: "I'm shooting X tonight", so then town knows, and if you die at the same time, then we know where your hit went. Don't think people claim what they're doing unless they're planning on claiming or already claimed, though. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On August 08 2011 03:13 Foolishness wrote: Man I knew Curu picked my role that's why we tried to kill him night 1. *shakes fist at Wiggles* On August 08 2011 05:32 Curu wrote: It still boggles my mind why Wiggles chose me of all people to protect. But that kinda screwed you over, lol. Basically, my thought process for night 1 was that I was pretty mad that everyone decided to lynch BC. There were a couple of people I had town reads on, Sandroba, and I think Palmar, maybe someone else, who were helping oppose the BC lynch. As well, I had a town read on you, even though you were one of the ones the strongest for lynching BC. Reading through your posts though, I got a town vibe, even if you were on the wrong side of the lynch after the flip. So, my choices for protection were you, Sandroba, and Foolishness. Foolishness was in there, because he would be an obvious mafia target as a vet, but he was very useless on Day 1, so I figured he was mafia or just not trying, and not worth protecting. Then, between you and Sand, most of Sand's posts were 1-liners, while yours were longer and more thought out. Between the two of you, you seemed more valuable at that point, and more likely to attract a hit. I actually wasn't supposed to die from protecting you, Deconduo just conveniently forgot I had an extra life (<3), so I died when I shouldn't have. My plan for day 2 then, was that if you/I were hit, and no vig claimed to have shot you, you were basically cleared from suspicion in my eyes, and I was going to claim the save and extra life, but not the regeneration part. Also, if mafia tried to fake they were a vig, then we would have a good 1-1 trade. After that, I was going to try to push hard for a Foolishness lynch, because re-reading his posts while trying to figure out if he was worth protecting, he seemed rather scummy to me. Alas, I died and none of my awesome plan got to happen though, oh well. :p GG | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
| ||
