|
I forgot about the acolyte when I was asking risk.nuke to claim, layabout, frankly I just remembered it when I read your post and as I said earlier for some reason (prob due to formatting, it's really my bad, that my vote on errandorr didn't get counted).
That was a really great breakdown of what happened, and it really gets people thinking. How did risk go from 9 votes, 1 vote from being hammered by BH, to having a mass vote switch (which I am guilty of too) to Errandorr? But then again, syllo has rightyfully pointed out that there is very little incentive for a scum to push for a vote switch as he did.
And I don't know what to think about RoL's plan to be honest. It sounds good to me but I probably haven't played enough mafia to comment on optimal strategies. If we're all doing it I'll do it too.
|
On January 08 2012 23:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Alright so I said I had a plan and I aim to flesh it out. I will like to section this into three areas, Intro, Mechanics, and Discussion. I feel that is the most direct and simplest way in which to understand this plan. All criticisms are welcome, but I am sure I have thought of most concerns and justified them somehow.
Mechanics This is the part that takes more to understand and was a lot more effort to think around (hopefully) all the possibilities. One of the biggest is obviously the Angelic Acolyte who gets an extra KP if he correctly guesses townie with dark powers, corrupted townie, or Demon when performing his stalk action. This only really affects a minority of townies, namely our blues and those minority who become corrupted. I think we can counter this by using banish amongst the claimed blues as a form of protection, and at the same time the Demon's will be given incentive to also use their transport as a form of protection and a dual threat. Firstly, it increases the chance of blocking an Angel KP which the Demons want to do, secondly it takes a blue power out of action for the night. This is fine because it still maintains our voting power in the day time. This causes there to only be a 50% success rate of the angels target into the blue circle. At the same time if the demons wish to corrupt a blue and jack their vote, they have a 66% chance of not hitting a jailor block. At the same time regular townies can be corrupted and they should claim. The longer the game draws out for the angels the more they NEED to kill corrupted townies/demons before the lynch against them is completely controlled. We can further increase this problem by having several people claim corrupt every day so the Angels can't be sure if they are going to use their extra KP effectively. The more dire the corrupted situation becomes the less they can focus on blues, and that gives us more confirmed townies with less players alive, further shrinking the town player pool narrowing down the angel/demons in the townie section of the group.
What makes you think that angels will want to target the blues ? They are pretty much immune to blues, appart from the seer which will be desintegrated by the Angel of Death if he ever claim ( or i guess you could banish him, but then he would be pretty useless). So angel will just randomly shoot into townies, who knows, they migth even get a lucky shot on a demon, they migth also kill townies with dark power if they are not banished.
Secondly you suppose that Demons are going to want to use their banish defensively. If they want to do this, then Demons will just banish the Demon Hunter ( which will NEVER EVER be targeted by angels, because he basically works for them). If they have corrupted someone, they can also banish the sage, and just enjoy they extra vote ! They are not going to banish someone in order to 'protect' him.
Your plan gives HUGE information to both scum faction, and town actually gains very little from it. I dont like it. I think it favors Demons way too much ( because they can protect themself way more easely using their power knowing who the blues are), it also helps angels a bit ( they can kill the seer, they do not risk killing the demon hunter by mistake). But town is definitively the big loser in your plan.
|
RoL's plan:
How do the angels react to the colour claim?
They probably target blues as they wish to kill town blues
They could hide amongst the blues for protection or the sea of greens for anonymity
therefore how do demons react to this plan?
they claim green to reduce the chance of being killed by angels
they take a massive risk and claim blue increasing their chances of being killed
how do blues react?
they claim blue and a no-flip death
they claim green to minimise the chance of being killed by angels
how do greens react?
they claim green
they claim blue so that angels kill them.
The demons will know if any of the blue claims are demons, therefore the rest of the blue are angels vanilla town or blue town.Similarly the angels will know if any of the blues are angels so the rest are demons blues or vainlla taon.
Why would the demons want to protect non-demon claiming blue?
after all they need to kill two blues as part of their win condition.
Why would the demons wish to corrupt a blue when then need to kill 2/4 town blue and when town blues are getting banished and demons only get corrupt every other night?
How do we end up with 4 confirmed town? Especially if multiple vanilla's or scum claim blue.
I think it is very likely that some people will not like this plan and that some town aligned people will fake-claim if it goes ahead, wouldn't this ruin the whole plan?
If no vanilla town fake-claim then then angels will be killing a demon or blue every night, the only way to stop this is with the channeller. If the channeller dies and the demons do not protect blues town could lose all blues town could lose 4 blues in two nights, whilst that is an extreme scenario the plan is over reliant on the channeller +demon help AND we might not even know if the channeller is killed.
Doesn't this plan give scum more information than it gives to town because they will know some of the fakers for certain?
the more honest town is the better off the angels are.
the less honest town is the less information town has but the better off they are in terms of living blues.
it potentially put angels in a good position and demons in a manageable decision whilst it could put town in an okay-really bad position
...
bad plan
perhaps it can be adjusted but i think that currently it would do far more harm than good.
|
On January 09 2012 00:04 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
I didn't have time and you are misreading. I said if Erandorr flips scum then the shipjumpers should be suspect. The principle is still true. Without a DT check the chance of a vote switch hitting a townie without something significant happening is so incredibly low because mafia wouldn't let you so easily switch from a townie to a mafia. I don't know what else there is to explain. Erandorr was the initial, Risk,nuke was the switch. The switch is less likely to be scum than the original.
I just want to point out a few errors on this logic.
First, this is a two-scum game. Even if the switch target is a scum, the other scum team will push as hard as the "defending" team will hold him, so you can't say a switch into a scum would be hard.
Secondly, risk.nuke was the initial and Erandorr was the switch. Please elaborate why you think risk.nuke is less likely to be scum than Erandorr.
Also, whoever told us to "mass claim your color" is terrible or scum, mostly scum IMO. Painting targets when mafia hides the flip on kill would just generate huge amounts of chaos. Use what happened yesterday to find scum, not a stupid strategy like that.
|
Im gonna sleep now gyus, also I want to notify you that the period's I will be available will be shorter because School! is starting 
|
@syllogism do you think it would be appropriate to reference our pms during student mafia about suggesting plans?
|
On January 09 2012 01:28 layabout wrote:
@syllogism do you think it would be appropriate to reference our pms during student mafia about suggesting plans?
It's fine, but I don't personally think what was said is relevant here, if I understand correctly what you are referring to.
|
I was just going to quote what you put in the one dated 12/15/11 04:23
does RoL typically suggest plans and does anybody have links to previous ones?
I spent ages in risk.nukes filters yesterday and i don't have the time to do more today.
|
On January 09 2012 01:44 layabout wrote:
I was just going to quote what you put in the one dated 12/15/11 04:23
does RoL typically suggest plans and does anybody have links to previous ones?
I spent ages in risk.nukes filters yesterday and i don't have the time to do more today.
For the record while the discussion we are having here is innocent, this kind of references to information that only we are privy to might violate the spirit of the game. Regardless I don't think it's something that people expect from him, I certainly don't, and I'm not sure if his plan being bad is indicative of much. If you want to make a case against him, it's probably better to limit your analysis to the plan itself rather than the fact that the plan is bad due to him doing it only because it was expected from him. Risk, palmar and probably tyrran should be the focus of the attention tomorrow, however.
|
For the spirit of the game this is what i was talking about
Suggesting plans, including weird lynching strategies, is a null tell unless the plan in question is very pro town or otherwise demonstrates a pro town mindset.
It can change from null to something else depending on who is saying it. If it's a player who isn't known for great scum play and wouldn't assume that majority of players to react in the same way I did (i.e. thinking that suggesting dumb plans is often towny), then it's probably slightly townly.
If for instance someone is known for always coming up with plans and is smart, and then suggests a rather weak plan, it could be suspicious as then it seems like he is suggesting a plan only because he is known for doing that as town.
I don't think I can generalize it better than that, and as I said I'm not reading the plan or your analysis of the plan. If you aren't sure, it's better to treat it as a null tell.
I also think that Jackal, HoD and Cwave need to be looked at based on their roles in the lynching
|
Trying to figure out who was voting for who and when, is quite a pain.
I think it would be helpful if players would vote, then announce that vote in the thread and attach the zbot vote count at that time to the post, (with their vote in it).
That way we can look back only events clearly and actually analyse it.
However this might lead to or force corrupted town to reveals themselves, which they might not wish to do and which might not be in town's best interests.
I suggest that every every 3 votes somebody should attach the vote count at that time (possibly in a spoiler), so that we can look back and have a clear picture of what happened.
@at everyone
Do you agree?
Should we have a different interval?(for instance 5 votes or every 12 hours)
|
Most of the posts I read don't fully understand the game set up when attacking the plan. Secondly, from what I can tell at the time risk.nuke looked like the switch, not the initial. That could be my fault though. Either way in a two faction game assuming the initial is scum then the switch would be supported by one and neutral by the other still giving a switch a higher risk of being town. I explained how a switch tell was weaker in two faction vs one but still valid. I can't type much more because I'm on my shitty cell phone and my breaks almost over but read the rules and under how the acolyte works. He CAN'T kill townies, just townie with power, corrupt townie, or demon. Therefore KNOWN blues are a high priority target since they are a confirmed voting power which is the only threat to angels since they can't die through night actions.
|
Also, no one except scum has an incentive to fake claim blue so whoever said that is an idiot. Any lie is inherently antitown and should be treated as such. No blue would hide in greens because that would be antitown and stupid.
|
Oh and blues DON'T claim role unless there are 5 of them. And the mafia can only feasibly claim two of them, the seer and the sage or w/e the two that check alignment which would still 50/50 our demon hunter.
|
If this plan is going to be carried out it need to best fully fleshed out before the daypost since it appears the RoL will not be able to post we need to either properly discuss it now or else we cannot follow it though.
I may have stayed up late last night but there isn't a chance of me doing it tonight so i would like to hear thoughts soon.
If nobody responds or they do respond but we cannot improve the plan i want it known that i oppose it.
|
On January 09 2012 03:30 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Also, no one except scum has an incentive to fake claim blue so whoever said that is an idiot. Any lie is inherently antitown and should be treated as such. No blue would hide in greens because that would be antitown and stupid.
> town player feels he isnt very useful on scumhunting
> he fakeclaims blue, gets sniped
> scum wasted a shot on a green that could've been in a blue.
It is bad play, I don't disagree with it, but there is a reasoning to it. It is still bad.
Mass claiming is bad in itself. You paint targets for purgatory, you paint targets for the AoD. Mafia could all claim green and suddenly we have nothing except that our blues claimed and made the scums lives much much easier.
|
yeah, this needs to be done now, or not. I'd rather go with not.
|
On January 09 2012 04:01 Palmar wrote:
yeah, this needs to be done now, or not. I'd rather go with not.
This is palmar scum claiming. He has been trolling for a while now but this is as close at is gets
|
This plan seems like it ties up a lot of our resources. If we only get 4 blue claims the channeler will have to banish in order to protect those 4. The one getting banished won't be able to do their job while there is still a 75% chance (assuming demons don't transport one of them) for the angels to kill blue. (actually higher because they can slay + stalk where they know exactly what to guess)
So even if we get 4 confirmed townies they will die to fast.
Nah I don't like it.
|
Are people seriously trying to implicate me on the basis of "soft-defending" risk by voting Erandorr instead? Now, I can't speak for the people throwing suspicion on me, but I sure as hell don't know risk's alignment, and unless they somehow do, I don't see how it can be implicate me as being scum. Anyone trying to implicate me on this before risk flips is using shitty logic. If risk flips scum and then you want to come after me, then you have some logic on your side. I did not vote for risk nor comment on it much as I had (and still have) a null read on risk. Risk has been in every game I've played on here, and his play-style has varied too much from game to game for me to be comfortable with a day 1 read on him.
On January 08 2012 20:31 syllogism wrote:
Harbingerofdoom's refusal to vote for Risk seems quite bad as well. He is still ignoring risk and not really explaining why.
On January 07 2012 07:47 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:
On risk.nuke, his playstyle seems to vary a good deal between games, so I am not sold on him being scum yet and would certainly like to hear a bit more from him before deciding whether or not I think he is worth a lynch.
@RebirthOfLegend
Demons ignore the blues, angels target two, they have a 50% chance of killing the channeler night 1, second night they get him for sure. Best case scenario is we have one blue alive after night 2, worst case they are all dead night 2. In the meantime we roleblock one of our own blues. Alternately, they ignore blues with the angel of death, use that kill on our best scum hunters and use the acolyte on our blues. Also, this plan ignores the possibility of a blue deciding not to go along with it and claim. Basically, I think the plan is quite bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
