EPT/signup
?
Resistance I - London Calling
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
/signup ? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 24 2011 02:48 xsksc wrote: If anyone desperately wants to play in this I don't mind sitting out, I'm not very good at mafia anyway. Don't put yourself down so much! Nobody got good at mafia by not playing games. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 24 2011 04:31 Toadesstern wrote: /in /signup Do not want to miss the next one :p Edit: Crap I'm too late again?  Not quite! Signups: This game is open to anyone. Signups will remain open until all 9 spots have been filled. This is not a first-come-first-served game, the hosts reserve the option to invite selected players. It's not first-come-first-served. I think Forumite will be picking Cool Kids only (tm) for this game. The trick is to be a cool kid like Zona. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
If a team has 5 Nay votes at any one time, it is immediately rejected and the team of the next leader in line is up for the vote. Who is the next leader in line? Is it alphabetical or by list order? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
EDIT: I guess my question is better summarized as: Using a standard round-robin format, one among the players is designated the leader What is standard round-robin format? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 25 2011 15:21 kingjames01 wrote: It really is such a fun game. I might even link a few good guides since there are so many new players to Resistance... I wouldn't want the first game to be too low-level. It will still be fun but it may not be as intense. Here are some completed game threads I found on mafiascum to get an idea of how this plays out: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=14194 http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=14193 http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=17111 http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=14946 In case people are looking for reference/research. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
The Shepherd, a 30-minute spoken word story about a RAF pilot is flying home from Germany for Christmas in 1957. Fog sets in, and all radio communication is lost http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2179626369 gl hf! | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 26 2011 06:21 Forumite wrote: Slight change to OP. You can vote for a leader before he has proposed a Team, but the team needs 5 yay-votes AFTER being proposed to be accepted. If 5 people vote yay for a Team, then one of them changing his vote, then the team will not be immediately accepted once proposed. This passage is currently still in the op: 8. You can vote for a leaders Team before he has become leader. If a leader has 5 yay-votes when proposing his team, the game goes to night immediately. So this means in the following situation: Players Alex, Bart, Charles, Dick, and Eric all vote Yay on Fred. Fred then proposes a team: we immediately hit night phase. And... Players Alex, Bart, Charles, Dick, and Eric all vote Yay on Fred. THEN, Dick changes his vote to Nay. Fred then proposes a team: we do not hit night phase, since at the time of proposal he had 4 votes, and the only time he had 5 votes he hadn't proposed a team yet. Is this correct? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 26 2011 14:43 Toadesstern wrote: I do agree with the fact that Truth should not be voting so early. Let's put it this way: If we really go by a true-rnd process saying the chances of getting 3/3 town are slim probably is a nice way to say it. Also I'm claiming your groups are not arbitrary at all. At least group1 (Zona, Palmar, yourself) and group2 (Jackal, Greymist and VE) don't look arbitrary at all :p I'm pretty sure both truth and I have less games than those 6 people out of groups 1 and 2 which could make the 3rd group a newby-group but than again I never played with Blazinghand so maybe I'm wrong with that one. But yeah, I'd like to hear a lot more from those 6 people you mentioned plus yourself and what they think about each other. Yes sending yourself makes sense but after all I'd like to be able to judge you d2 as well. Assuming truly random picks, there's a (2/3) chance of picking a townsperson each time, meaning that there's a (2/3)^3 chance of getting 3 townies, or 8/27-- pretty bad. I think it's reasonable to select yourself as part of your group. If you are town, it would be very unreasonable for you not to select yourself at this phase in the game when there have been neither successful nor unsuccessful missions yet. To yourself, you are a confirmed townie. Then you face somewhat decent odds of picking out two townspeople to come with you. I think it's unreasonable to assume that there is 1 mafia among Zona/Palmar/Radfield. there could easily be 2 or 0. But EVEN ASSUMMING the layout is "1 mafia in Zona/Palm/Rad, 1 mafia in Jack/Grey/VE, 1 mafia in Blaze/Truth/Toad", the correct answer isn't to pick one guy from each group... Because you, Radfield, know your own alignment. If you really think that there is 1 mafia in Zona/Palm/Rad, you should actually take one of Zona/Palm along with you! This is because you personally have the information that you're town, and can therefore say (assuming, again, that there's some distribution like that) that one of Zona/Palm is town. Therefore, you pick one of Zona/Palm, and you only have one pick left, and so you just need one solid-read town pick to create the following situation: Team: Radfield (yourself, who is confirmed town to you), plus Zona (for example), plus someone who gives off a solid town read like, say, Blazinghand. If the mission fails, you can reasonably say "well I think this was Zona" (though others will not be able to do so). The beauty of this though is, assuming you're right about the "1 mafia among Zona/Palm/Rad", If your mission succeeds, you've pinned down a mafia member! (WIFOM alert: Mafia, knowing this, might intentionally not sabotage, etc). Contrast taking a team like Radfield/VE/Toad, and a mission success-- Assuming your "1 mafia among Zona/Palm/Rad" idea is correct, this doesn't give us any info on who that was. Same with a mission failure. So, if you really think one of Zona/Rad/Palm is mafia, and you are very sure of this due to the high relative skills of these specific players you, being Rad and knowing your own alignment, are in a unique position to form a team that grants you information-- so your current metric for forming a team is flawed. I will not grant you a pre-emptive vote based on your ideas for acting on your reasoned assumptions. THAT BEING SAID, I do NOT think it it safe to say that there is one and only one mafia among zona/rad/palm. It's certainly possible, but it's also possible that Forumite was like "well I think this is a newbie game so I'm gonna stack the deck in favor of town and make a bunch of crap players mafia like that Blazinghand punk", or maybe he was like "lol man these guys gonna get rolled so hard, Zona, Rad and Palm all gonna be my mafia lololololol" So, I also do not grant you a pre-emptive vote based on the assumptions underlying your ideas. I will wait to see the team itself. That being said, I would not be unwilling to vote for your team once you have constructed it, should I determine it to be solid. I'm only pointing out that anyone who's thinking of pre-emptively yessing you (Truthbringer...) may want to put a wee bit more thought into it. Just saying. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 27 2011 02:03 TruthBringer wrote: Blazinghand, how exactly do you get a townread from someone at this point in this game? Based on my assumptions, which I clearly stated in my previous post. Everybody is just A, B, . . . H, I right now. I am not sure that putting any more thought into it is going to cause me to rationally approve of A, B, C, but not A, B, D. It's the kind of read that is more solid if more people post analysis of what they think the optimal move is. I think it's reasonable for any team leader to chose himself as part of his team on this first day, since to him he is a confirmed town, in order to maximize our odds. In any case, I don't view people as A, B, C-- you know why? Currently people have already diverged somewhat in posting patterns, if only because it's christmastime and some people haven't had time to post yet. For example, I haven't seen a post from Zona, whereas I HAVE seen a post from you. This means to me, Zona is indeed just "player A who hasn't posted yet"... but you are not. You are a person with a history. You blindly yay-voted the first town leader on the basis of "Well forming reads on the first day is harddddddddddd (or impossible)". brb 3 hours | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 27 2011 03:15 Toadesstern wrote: quick question. What's more important for you: Getting information d1 based off our mission or getting a successful mission d1? I don't see why those would be mutually exclusive. In fact, I see those as the same thing. A successful mission gives is 3 probable towns, whereas a failed mission just says "well someone among these three is mafia but we don't know who ._." So I'd say: yes, gathering d1 info by getting a successful mission is the most important. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 27 2011 06:06 Radfield wrote: Well, what you were saying earlier is that if I think 1 of Zona and Palmar is scum, it makes the most sense to actually take one of those players along. That would decrease our odds of victory, but increase our information potential. Yes? Indeed. But this is only a viable tactic because you personally know that you are not scum. I'm not the current leader, so I would gain no additional information from you selecting one of Zona/Palmar to come with you, even assuming I shared your thought that 1 of Zona/Palmar/Radfield is scum, because *I* can't rule *you* out. So with my knowledge base, with your assumption of 1 of Zona/Palm/Rad being scum, I actually would not want you to pick 2 from that group, but rather, to pick me, since I myself know I am not scum, and I want to maximize our success rate. Effectively, the leader's D1 is fundamentally different from a non-leader's D1, because the leader knows his alignment and is select the team. Since I'm currently not the leader, I think we should maximize win rate which will maximize info gained. You as the leader are not working with the same information I am, so you will have a different motivation. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 27 2011 06:16 Blazinghand wrote: Indeed. But this is only a viable tactic because you personally know that you are not scum. I'm not the current leader, so I would gain no additional information from you selecting one of Zona/Palmar to come with you, even assuming I shared your thought that 1 of Zona/Palmar/Radfield is scum, because *I* can't rule *you* out. So with my knowledge base, with your assumption of 1 of Zona/Palm/Rad being scum, I actually would not want you to pick 2 from that group, but rather, to pick me, since I myself know I am not scum, and I want to maximize our success rate. Effectively, the leader's D1 is fundamentally different from a non-leader's D1, because the leader knows his alignment and is select the team. Since I'm currently not the leader, I think we should maximize win rate which will maximize info gained. You as the leader are not working with the same information I am, so you will have a different motivation. In other words, I was asked "what's more important for you (blazinghand)" but this isn't the same question as "if you were radfield, and responsible for picking teams, and you were completely sure that either zona or palmar was scum, and you're not scum, what's more important for you" that being said, have you assembled a team? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 27 2011 06:17 Toadesstern wrote: That's exactly my point. From what blazinghand said earlier it looks like he wants us to sacrifice d1 for information gain because if he was suggesting that if rad thinks zona or palmar are scum then he should take one of them to get clear information. However that "clear" information is only information for rad because he might know his alignment but how am I supposed to know if he's not the spy while both zona and palmar are town? So that "clear" information is really only clear information for rad (if at all) and increases the chances of being blocked d1. At the same time we could just get screwed big time if the waynie (idea = send rad + zona/palmar + waynie) turns out to be a spy. So even for rad the information isn't granted at all because he could end up thinking zona is a spy when sending zona along with him while in realitiy the 3rd guy was the spy. To sum it up: I don't think there is anything like granted information out of d1 therefore I think we should try to minimize the chances of getting sabotaged therefore I don't like your "send zona or palmar to get clear information" at all. That's why I what blazinghand was about to suggest earlier. ._. we only really gain information if the mission is successful. If the mission fails all we know is "someone of these three is scum" the point of that post is that Radfield is not acting optimally given his assumptions, not "oh we should do X" because I think Radfield's assumptions are wrong anyways. I'm just pointing otu that given what he's said, it's a terrible idea to pre-vote Yay on him and you should unvote. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 27 2011 06:23 Jackal58 wrote: Why would I vote for a team if you have the ability to switch it up later? Indeed. this is why TruthBringer should unvote. also, sorry I think I mixed up toadesttern with TB briefly. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
On December 27 2011 06:29 Toadesstern wrote: yeah what I was talking about was that part: You're actually saying "well given your theory is right and I was in your spot you probably should send in either Zona or Palmar as well to get information" or am I interpreting this part wrong? I can see how you criticize his theory of groups and I don't have a problem with that but what I quoted really sounds like "yeah let's send in a spy to get information". What? No, the point here is that he has information, which is that he is town, right? So he should take his other 1/3rd chance from the same group as himself, rather than taking one from the other group, assuming his assumption of thirds is correct. However, were he to field such a team, a player with the same assumptions as him (rule of thirds) and different information (ie, you are not radfield) would always vote against his team, since from their point of view he's picking 2 people from a group of 3 that contains 1 mafia-- we're working with diff info than radfield is. I'm saying that, given a successful mission to come, if you're radfield and you operate on radfield's assumptions, picking 1 from each group is sub-optimal. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25552 Posts
I think it's fairly clear-- I've been talking a lot. I'm not actually sure "talking a lot on d1" is a town move in this game. Contrast "person who talks a lot", who might be slipping messages or hints to his scum alies (remember no mafia QT this game) and someone who straight-up hasn't been talking much at all, and therefore is likely town. I will be voting Nay on this team because I'm suspicious of Radfield. | ||
| ||
