EPTI wouldn't object to the removal of PMs.
Hammer Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
I wouldn't object to the removal of PMs. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
With that said. We only need +2. So hurry up and /in already! Yes I am talking to you, random TL mafia lurker! | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On January 20 2012 13:36 jaybrundage wrote: He went /in then /out then back /in again we need One more "That's what she said." | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
 | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
Getting pumped! | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
| ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On January 24 2012 11:16 prplhz wrote: Maybe if the bot is coming up within a day we can start now and then we can figure this instant majority stuff out on our own for the first day? We're all relatively educated human beings. Sorry. I am aching to start as soon as possible. Yeah, I am okay with this as well. Unless RoL has some express reason for wanting the bot from the beginning. We could even do a slightly extended Day 1. Just a thought though. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:29 GreYMisT wrote: Yea I had to drop out guys, My schedual just got more busy, and I won't be able to give this game the attention it deserves. This is the opposite of manning up! + Show Spoiler + No worries though. School be crazy for me right now as well. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:10 MeatlessTaco wrote: Townies, we need a plan. The vote system could cause us problems if we don't stick together. We'll need to ascertain what vote-rigging abilities the scum have, to do this we need a circle of trust. We'll all trade votes in a circle instead of doing it haphazardly. Any vote manipulation by the scum will result in merciless lynching. How do we know mafia have any abilities at all? On January 26 2012 12:24 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Alright, let's keep it simple and trade one vote each night to the person below us on the list, and last person gives one VP to the top person? That way we all stay at 3 and everything's fair. I also like this idea. Mafia is forced to play our game. On January 26 2012 13:26 MeatlessTaco wrote: If we have no mayor to elect or other policy discussions, what else can we do to for the next 70 hours? 1. Scum hunt of course!  2. Keep tabs on lurkers. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
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. So are you saying we should all circle trade 2 votes instead of just 1 tonight? So essentially we will only lose 1 vote to a night kill instead of 2? Right now scum has 12 votes. That is over half of what is needed for majority. There will be a certain breaking point in which if all mafia survived for awhile, then they could essentially be the majority in themselves and start circle trading between each other ensuring a scum win. There are variables that play into this scenario: how many votes lost during lynches, how many votes lost during night kills, and if there are any power roles with with vote changing abilities.. I agree that the more votes in circulation for town is better, but we have to be careful. Mafia can use this method to their advantage. Lets say we have players(# of votes): A(3) <---Mafia B(3) <---Town C(3) <---Town D(3) <---Town E(3) <---Mafia F(3) <---Town Okay, then night comes. A Gets 2 votes from F, Trades 2 votes to B <---Mafia B Gets 2 votes from A, Trades 2 votes to C <---Town C Gets 2 votes from B, Trades 2 votes to D <---Town D Gets 2 votes from C, Trades 2 votes to E <---Town E Gets 2 votes from D, Trades 2 votes to F <---Mafia F Gets 2 votes from E, Trades 2 votes to A <---Town Then day comes. Lets say mafia kill Player F. His trade goes through to Player A, but Player E's trade fails. A(3) <---Mafia B(3) <---Town C(3) <---Town D(3) <---Town E(5) <---Mafia F(1) <---Dead 1 vote is lost. Now mafia has more influence. If we circle traded just 1 vote then it would be. A(3) <---Mafia B(3) <---Town C(3) <---Town D(3) <---Town E(4) <---Mafia F(2) <---Dead 2 votes are lost. Mafia stills has more influence, but not as much as the case above. Pros and cons to both methods I would say. On one hand we have more votes in circulation which is good for town and a possible mafia with more influence. On the other hand we have less votes in circulation which is bad for town and a possible mafia with a little less influence. This also leads to a lot of WIFOM on the person who gets more votes after the night kill. WIFOM on whether or not they are possible mafia. [sarcasm] Or we could just give all our votes to Palmar and cross our fingers! [/sarcasm] | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
The 3 decent ideas so a far are: 1. Circle trade 1 vote to the person below you. 2. Circle trade all but 1 vote to the person below you. 3. Everyone posts in this thread who they will trade their vote(s) to during the night. All of these ideas have pros and cons, but the worst thing for town right now is not to be in agreement be the end of the day. If we are split or have wild cards like Palmar, then we don't have the complete transparency we need for these systems to be effective. Personally I think number 1 is the best, most town-favored option. I am always open to more discussion and more ideas. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I understand you are being crazy right now to tests people reactions and stir up a bit of commotion. @MeatlessTaco What is your reason for voting up risk.nuke? Also why do you think Palmar is scum? Voting people up with no reasoning is not good. @LSB I am glad you are in agreement with the circle trading plan, but you need to read the rules a bit more carefully. Wrong On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote: 3. You can only give one vote to one player. Correct On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: 1. Every player starts the game with 3 Voting Power, VP, or Votes. During the nightphase a player must give away at least ONE of their votes to ONE other player, who gets the use of those votes in the future. A player can not give away all of their votes.PM the hosts to give away your votes. Good idea, but this isn't correct. On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote: In addition, there will be something called the Self Correcting Fixing Mechanisms Each day afterwards, votes will be adjusted so that everyone will end up with 3 votes the day after. Because KP is set at 1, at the end of every nights there will be one person with 4 votes, and one person with 2 votes (as their trades to the killed person will be canceled). For the next night, the person with the 4 votes and the person with the two votes will be removed from the circle and they will trade votes. The person with the 4 votes will give the other 2 votes, and the person with 2 votes will give the other 1 vote, leaving each of them with 3. + Show Spoiler [Example] + DAY 1: A:3 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:3 F:3 A->B 1 vote B->C 1 vote C->D 1 vote D->E 1 vote E->F 1 vote F gets killed DAY 2: A:2 B:3 C:3 D:3 E:4 A->E 1 vote E->A 2 votes B->C 1 vote C->D 1vote D->A 1 vote Here is the rule how deaths affect trading. On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: 4. If the one you gave votes to died during the night, then the trade fail and you keep your votes. If you die during the night, then any final attempt to trade away your votes is still resolved. Any other votes you carry at the time of death are lost. Player A will have 3 votes after the night, assuming Player F traded properly. The only imbalance after the day will be Player E since his trade will not go through to Player F, thus Player E will have 4 votes. 2 votes are lost due to Player F's death. This means there will be an imbalance after N1. We may be able to use your self correcting plan after two nights pass. On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote: The self-correcting mechanism has a ‘flaw’ though, in the above example, if person A dies night two, mafia will net an ‘extra’ vote. BUT: this isn’t a real flaw. It’s actually is an Advantage. First of all, it will strongly green E as a townie. Second of all, the person with the four votes could be protected by the doctor / slightly greened during the day before he dies. Mafia is left with a choice. Either to give us information, or to give up a vote, or to keep everything the same. All of which at least break even for town. This is WIFOM. We can't know if Player E is a townie or mafia. I made a post about how this circle trading will work. The advantages and disadvantages of trade just 1 vote or more than 1 vote. I cover the WIFOM aspect as well. @Everyone I have another idea for trading votes. I want to bounce it off you guys to see what you think. The main idea behind the circle trading system is to keep an even spread of votes across all players. They way we have it setup, the mafia will get to pick and choose who they want to give more vote(s), either townie or fellow mafia. One way to kind of keep the mafia on their toes is to split up everyone into 5 groups of 3. Then during the night you choose at random who you would like to give vote(s) too. My thinking behind this is that it gives mafia less information as to where votes in particular are going. Randomness though is a double edged sword. This can either hurt town or hurt mafia. So, it seems almost everyone is on board with the 1 vote circle trade system. I think this is the best way to minimize mafia tampering and vote gaining. If anything it severely stifles their ability to accrue a mass amount of votes over the course of one night, which is a possibility if some mafia seems particularly pro-town to the majority of people. My FoS is on MeatlessTaco right now. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On January 27 2012 13:13 LSB wrote: Let me guess, you'd determine these groups of 3 'randomly'? Honestly I don't care how the groups are split up. The groups don't even have to be a size of 3. I am completely open to suggestions on the technicalities of this idea. I was more focused on the main purpose of the concept. To limit the mafia's ability to choose who gets votes during a night kill. Thinking about this more and more I am finding holes in the plan. A group with 2 mafia could kill the inno and trade votes between themselves. They would also get the vote from the inno. This leads to a bunch more WIFOM. If we make the groups larger though, lets say 3 groups of 5, then randomness starts to favor town more as long as all four mafia aren't in one group. There is a lot to this idea that needs to be thought through. That is why I hoping for some feedback and/or for people to find glaring flaws in it. I am just spit balling to open up town's options. Anything to limit mafias control of the votes is good for town. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On January 27 2012 15:37 MeatlessTaco wrote: It is the same reason as the two people directly above me who voted for him. Does anyone else here any bleating going on? | ||
| ||
