Hammer Mini Mafia - Page 20

On January 28 2012 11:47 Paperscraps wrote:
Why try and balance at all though, if you are supposed to be trading votes based upon your reads. All the players that have 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would you want to give votes back to those players? I understand that LSB doesn't think the votes will go back to perfect balance. What if players with 5+ votes don't want to trade to any of the 1 vote players?

D1 we are 3-3-3-3-3-3-3
Then D2 we could be 1-5-3-1-3-3-5
or
more probably 1-7-1-1-1-3-7 (due to town usually have a generally unison perception of pro-townies)

Alright so the people above with 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would we want to give votes back to them again? I know the players with 7 have to trade 2 votes no matter what, but why wouldn't the 7's trade with each other being, both pro-town to keep the advantage with town?

Am I not seeing things clearly? Also I didn't take into account the fact that one of those players will die, screwing up the votes. Possibly leaving potential 1's with 3 votes still if they traded to a 7 that was killed.

I just need more clarification on why balancing is a good thing in a free trade plan, when we could just use circle trading, which insures a much greater balance. The two plans obviously have different goals and contradict each other.

I am not going to talk about plans anymore though. My position at this point is: If we don't have unanimous agreement on circle trading N1, then we will obviously all just free trade and post justifications tomorrow. Either way the whole town is working together which is far more important than the plan itself.

On January 28 2012 11:51 wherebugsgo wrote:
Alright, if we go with the "trade to whoever you want" strategy, IMO one of two things happen:

1. The majority of the votes shift toward "more townie" townies, with "less townie" townies getting less votes. Mafia votes either go down by a couple or stay the same.

2. Mafia gains like 5 votes due to one of their members looking town.

Neither is something that is particularly great, although obviously #1 has its advantages. Is it very useful? IMO not really, since in a no-flip setup we can't tell the difference between 1 and 2.

On January 28 2012 12:00 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:


#2 also requires the mafia to give up some of their votes, because if they just circlejerk each other then we find our scum and lynch to victory.

On January 28 2012 12:03 wherebugsgo wrote:


I really don't think that it'll be that easy.

Also, the fact that you actually think that it'll be that easy means I still want to lynch you.

On January 28 2012 11:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:


That's just anti-mafia, at first I don't think we'd want anyone, townie or not, to have 7 VP, even if it means losing influence. Just less risky that way, it's more to examine voting patterns. Who knows, maybe you're right.

On January 28 2012 12:34 Paperscraps wrote:


I am confused, do you want a plan based around balance or a plan based around gut instinct/perception?

On January 28 2012 12:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
That's just anti-mafia, at first I don't think we'd want anyone, townie or not, to have 7 VP, even if it means losing influence. Just less risky that way, it's more to examine voting patterns. Who knows, maybe you're right.

On January 28 2012 12:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Balance would leak to mafia though, they'd just kill off the people that are before them so they can pool their votes. I'd rather do perception so that townies can take advantage of VP.

On January 28 2012 11:47 Paperscraps wrote:
Why try and balance at all though, if you are supposed to be trading votes based upon your reads. All the players that have 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would you want to give votes back to those players? I understand that LSB doesn't think the votes will go back to perfect balance. What if players with 5+ votes don't want to trade to any of the 1 vote players?

D1 we are 3-3-3-3-3-3-3
Then D2 we could be 1-5-3-1-3-3-5
or
more probably 1-7-1-1-1-3-7 (due to town usually have a generally unison perception of pro-townies)

Alright so the people above with 1 vote should be weaker townies and suspected mafia. Why would we want to give votes back to them again? I know the players with 7 have to trade 2 votes no matter what, but why wouldn't the 7's trade with each other being, both pro-town to keep the advantage with town?

Am I not seeing things clearly? Also I didn't take into account the fact that one of those players will die, screwing up the votes. Possibly leaving potential 1's with 3 votes still if they traded to a 7 that was killed.

On January 28 2012 11:51 wherebugsgo wrote:
Alright, if we go with the "trade to whoever you want" strategy, IMO one of two things happen:

1. The majority of the votes shift toward "more townie" townies, with "less townie" townies getting less votes. Mafia votes either go down by a couple or stay the same.

2. Mafia gains like 5 votes due to one of their members looking town.

Neither is something that is particularly great, although obviously #1 has its advantages. Is it very useful? IMO not really, since in a no-flip setup we can't tell the difference between 1 and 2.

On January 28 2012 13:06 Paperscraps wrote:




1.First you are saying that no one should have more VP than others. You are saying that players with high VP should trade it away because having high VP is risky and not worth the information gained from justifications. (Implying balance is good)

2.Then you are saying that balance would lead to mafia to pool their votes. (Implying balance is bad)

In case 1 you doubt peoples perceptions. In case 2 you support peoples perceptions.

On January 28 2012 13:06 Paperscraps wrote:




1.First you are saying that no one should have more VP than others. You are saying that players with high VP should trade it away because having high VP is risky and not worth the information gained from justifications. (Implying balance is good)

2.Then you are saying that balance would lead to mafia to pool their votes. (Implying balance is bad)

In case 1 you doubt peoples perceptions. In case 2 you support peoples perceptions.

On January 28 2012 13:24 LSB wrote:

This is one of the worst example of logic I've ever read. If I was day vig I'd kill you for trying to make a case out of this.

On January 26 2012 18:28 prplhz wrote:
Everybody should give away as many votes as they can every day. This is a good idea because it will prevent scum from eliminating voting power through night kills, and voting power will only get eliminated through the lynch which is more likely to hit scum than night kills.

On January 27 2012 07:06 prplhz wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +Drep

We have at least 3 mislynches until LYLO, with the low KP of mafia this will likely be a long game, which ultimately favors town. I think the game would be somewhat balanced with all vanilla, but that would be boring so there are likely roles out there.

Medics and veterans seem a lot stronger in a game where scum only has 1 KP, they can render an entire night useless for scum. Vigilantes on the other hand seem less powerful since there are no flips. Investigation roles are going to be a lot more powerful, but also harder to breadcrumb the results of since you cannot rely on your flip as a trigger for people to go back and find them, and you cannot rely on town to pick them up while hiding them for scum. Themed roles are a distinct possibility, yes they are.

Ultimately, the only thing we can rely on is analysis, so provide content and provide analysis, duh. If some dude died who is scum, but everybody thinks he's town this will be a lot better for scum, so lynching people off hunches is not going to work. No-lynching might also be an option at some point.

Any plan that rests on a premise other than "You are town" can hardly ever be reliably implemented. Plans are often only good for examining the setup and for starting the game up. The only plan I can see right now which rests only on that single premise is "Give a single vote to the person you think is most likely to be town. If you have a reason to think you're going to die, consider giving all of your votes to that person."

We should not tell people who we're going to give our votes to during the night but instead during the following day.

On January 28 2012 12:44 Node wrote:
Palmar said that RNGing our votes would still leaving us with a great starting point. Are you kidding me!? That's nearly a third of our spent votes that never leaves mafia hands. That's the key here. Every mistake is irreversible. But it doesn't go both ways! Mafia will never give votes to town unless we force them to from the very beginning. Town only has votes to lose. It DOESN'T MATTER how good we are at giving votes to town players compared to the effectiveness of the circle jerk -- because with the circle jerk, we don't lose ground. But without the circle jerk, we don't have any ground to gain!

The reason the circle jerk is a good plan is that it forces the mafia to play our game. In order to gain an advantage vote-wise, the mafia has to make a choice. Do they kill purely to retain votes? Or do they try to kill strong town players and snipe blues? They only have one KP every night. If I was the mafia, I know which one I'd consider more important.

On January 28 2012 20:39 Dirkzor wrote:
We're still discussing plans and we are 13h from lynch...

Since we haven't agreed by now I think we should agree to disagree. Would be better to continue plans during nightphase.

##Vote Prplhz



Free trade or circle trading. Giving as few votes as possible seems to be best. That way least amount of town votes can potentielly end up at scum. Why would I, when I know my own allignment, give votes to a potential scum? I won't! This statement is weird and I find it scummy.

If you read this post (clicky) it just seems to come from scum perspective.



The italic part is also written from a scum perspective. The whole process of saying how the roles affect scum seems to be from someone who is on the recieving end of the power roles. While everyone could think this, I don't think a town person would write it and certainly not in this way.

The rest of the post is basicly fluff and nothing.

After this he tell us to not lynch risk. Vote WBG and then go on the longest shoppingtrip ever.

He is scum!