| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
On November 03 2011 07:01 Sevryn wrote: I thought this was couples therapy not love triangle mafia way to quote a huge post with a oneliner how do u feel about the setup? theres been lots of talk already and stuff what do u think? do you like being paired with sandro? | ||
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
I'm suspicious of Crofty at the moment. I want to hear what he has to say for himself. ##Vote TEAM LIQUID | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
On November 03 2011 07:30 kitaman27 wrote: blah blah blah, don't hammer until near the end of the cycle. blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah bla h blah blah balh ablh, balha blah blah blah blah. ##Vote TEAM LIQUID what is this first u say hold ur horses and then u vote w/ no reason | ||
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
| ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
Cool, a game of mafia ![[image loading]](http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/186616/face-the-reaper-skull-31000.jpg) It's traditional at this point to post a picture of the reaper So, Iets do this thing. First thing first As usual there is no excuse for lurking, don't do it and you won't have me lobbing for your lynch. Seriously, 2 players per team should mean a more than decent level of activity, you aren't going to get away with 2~3 posts per cycle unless they are an outstanding, wall of text, analytical set of three posts. So post, transparency and information means we have a greater chance of success. Second thing (this should *not* be a point of discussion, as what I am about to talk about is too general for us to really talk about, I just wanted to make sure it was said). Because there are no vigilantes, if we have a jailkeeper he should be using his protect/roleblock offensively, that is "protecting" scum in an attempt to roleblock the kill, rather than going after the most outspoken townies and possibly roleblocking a power role. This style should encourage activity (scum no longer want to risk being lurkers if it might make their kill fail) and with the possibility of a medic in play scum still cannot afford to shoot the top players. Other than that there isn't that much to say on the setup until we get later in the day and can talk about dt lists and such. My lurker policy remains the same as always, and yeah, that's about it. | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
For fucks sake, if you get someone to L-2 stop voting for him until the last 12 hours of the day, and give warning before hammering. Remember, more time is always good for town, and giving the lynchee time to dump information can only be good. Leaving the player at L-2 ensures we avoid any "accidental" lynches. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 03 2011 07:44 kitaman27 wrote: Hmm? Voting != hammering. And I have a perfectly valid reason. Crofty is suspicious! Crofty is silent, but GM is posting a lot to make up for it. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
One thing that will be interesting this game will be analyzing the behavior of teams. do we judge the 2 players as a unit, looking for scum behavior in both? Or is one player acting scummy enough to vote. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
Palmar, could you add the team names to the op please! it would make things a lot easier than having to go to page 9 errytime i forget the team names. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
On November 03 2011 08:00 GreYMisT wrote: We will defiantly have to rely on FOSing a lot more early on in the day, rather than pressure voting like a lot of us normaly do. One thing that will be interesting this game will be analyzing the behavior of teams. do we judge the 2 players as a unit, looking for scum behavior in both? Or is one player acting scummy enough to vote. for the first part, i totally disagree. it's not like a pressure vote will turn into a 6 hour quicklynch, and if it does, then that's not always a bad thing. I prefer this method of voting tbh, don't look at it as a negative, but as a positive! Change is fun and exciting! for the second part yes and yes. | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 03 2011 08:12 redFF wrote: for the first part, i totally disagree. it's not like a pressure vote will turn into a 6 hour quicklynch, and if it does, then that's not always a bad thing. I prefer this method of voting tbh, don't look at it as a negative, but as a positive! Change is fun and exciting! for the second part yes and yes. LOL Red saying yes to both. Remember PYP:I, red? Where consistently a bunch of us kept saying you were scummy as hell, but ON was reasonable? It seems rather funny that you would be willing to only use one half of the two player unit as a basis for finding scum. Had we done that in PYP:I town would've had ample reason to shoot you in the face night 1. In answer to GreyMist's question, IMO we should consider the behavior of both players, particularly in cases where one player is known to be hard to read. If that person is paired with a relatively easy read, (damn I wish Mig was in this game hahaha) then I think we should lean more toward the person who is easier to read, for obvious reasons. The two player unit is very good for town. It provides us more information than we would normally have, as there is more behavior and there are more posts to analyze. Or at least, I hope this is how it turns out. If town starts succumbing to inactivity (as is the norm lately) I'll be rather pissed. | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 03 2011 07:47 GMarshal wrote: oh, wait, this is majority lynch. I knew I forgot to talk about something important. For fucks sake, if you get someone to L-2 stop voting for him until the last 12 hours of the day, and give warning before hammering. Remember, more time is always good for town, and giving the lynchee time to dump information can only be good. Leaving the player at L-2 ensures we avoid any "accidental" lynches. Lynch minus two is three votes. Are you advocating that we just split the vote once someone reaches 3 votes?? I don't trust that this will be a great idea, particularly as people are often not available when you need them, and vote-splitting is great for scum. While we'd only need two more to lynch, that's not very comforting either. In such a situation we'd basically need to last-minute voteswitch if we think that we have a townie at 3 votes. Otherwise, we take the risk of no-lynch. Of course it opens us up to scum manipulation too. Scum can throw in a late vote "to stop a no-lynch" and then bam we lose a townie. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 03 2011 08:26 prplhz wrote: wbg we cant just let scum go just because one of them is trying to look town of course we need to think about both players but if one is scum then they should answer for it I agree, but look at who advocated it: redFF. I expect that he'll hold himself to that standard. | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On November 03 2011 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote: Lynch minus two is three votes. Are you advocating that we just split the vote once someone reaches 3 votes?? I don't trust that this will be a great idea, particularly as people are often not available when you need them, and vote-splitting is great for scum. While we'd only need two more to lynch, that's not very comforting either. In such a situation we'd basically need to last-minute voteswitch if we think that we have a townie at 3 votes. Otherwise, we take the risk of no-lynch. Of course it opens us up to scum manipulation too. Scum can throw in a late vote "to stop a no-lynch" and then bam we lose a townie. I meant two votes to lynch, so if a player needs 7 to lynch, stop at 5. This policy would only be in effect for the first 36 or so hours of each day, but from personal experience, nothing sucks more than lighting bandwagons ending the day 3 hours in because everyone agrees someone is "scummy" and then seeing them flip green. | ||
|
Forumite
Sweden3280 Posts
On November 03 2011 08:00 GreYMisT wrote: One thing that will be interesting this game will be analyzing the behavior of teams. do we judge the 2 players as a unit, looking for scum behavior in both? Or is one player acting scummy enough to vote. Tricky... Two posters means twice the risk of mistakes, I would have liked to say that means it´s twice as easy to find scum, but Town make stupid scumslips too. I think we´ll have to take it on a case-by-case basis. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On November 03 2011 08:29 GMarshal wrote: I meant two votes to lynch, so if a player needs 7 to lynch, stop at 5. This policy would only be in effect for the first 36 or so hours of each day, but from personal experience, nothing sucks more than lighting bandwagons ending the day 3 hours in because everyone agrees someone is "scummy" and then seeing them flip green. GM are you not understanding what I'm saying? A person gets lynched at 5 votes. Lynch minus 2 is 3 votes. | ||
|
Crofty
United Kingdom13 Posts
So, its been a couple of hours since the day started, and already two votes on Team Liquid, due to "Crofty is silent" and Crofty is an unknown factor. Which, frankly, is fair enough. Since I am a newcomer to these forums, and since you haven't had the pleasure of playing mafia with me before, I am a decent enough safe first vote. This also would provoke me to respond by posting, and hopefully giving you some data to work with. Had the tables been turned, I would likely do the same thing, so I'll let this slide for now. What would you like to know? | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
Yamato Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://outbreaknews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/handshake.jpg)
