|
On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly).
It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question.
Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play?
|
On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play?
All a closed setup means is that you should be extremely skeptical of roleclaims because scum likely either know more about the setup than we do or are more willing to gambit on a fake-claim.
Otherwise, most scumhunting tactics should remain about the same. If something is suspicious, call it out.
|
Err, I'm here guys like everyone else, I don't like policy lynches.
Busting out some early reads,VE is town because he has been active and pushing discussion :D
|
On March 27 2012 09:33 Bluelightz wrote:
Err, I'm here guys like everyone else, I don't like policy lynches.
Busting out some an early reads read,VE is town because he has been active and pushing discussion :D
Fixed that for ya. 
Nothing suspicious so far Blue? Not even by 'early' standards?
|
O_O
AFAIK, I don't have nuff' information yet to make an educated guess at who is scum :p
I can take a look at anyone if you want to, just ask
|
Yo VE why you so scum this game, I'm getting my gun ready for you.
|
Since we're on the topic of policy lynches, I will just repeat my stance on it as in previous games. I dislike lynching people for lurking only unless activity is a problem for town.
To elaborate on that: While yes, lurking is a perfectly viable strategy for mafia, townies also lurk for various reasons like lack of activity. Lynching for lurking alone is pretty much a crap shoot whether you'll find mafia or not. I won't encourage lynching lurkers unless there is an activity problem. Because if there is an activity problem, it is much harder to read people, and lynching lurkers will force people to increase their activity.
|
On March 27 2012 09:52 Nemesis wrote:
Yo VE why you so scum this game, I'm getting my gun ready for you.
Maybe if you accompanied your question with reasoning as to why I'm "so scum this game" instead of empty threats, I'd be more inclined to answer your question fully. What part of my play so far indicates that I'm "so scum"?
|
On March 27 2012 08:19 zelblade wrote:
Blabla no lynch bad blahblah
In sch post mre ltr
Do you mind posting something coherent?
On March 27 2012 07:49 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 07:43 VisceraEyes wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I noticed that you didn't give an opinion one way or the other C_C, is there a reason you don't want to commit to a stance? As town, it's hard to stay with a solid stance. Games change, and ultimately these little things never seem to come up anyway. As mafia, having a solid stance and sticking with it is basically a free pass. Ultimately, 'lurking' and 'lying' are only a fraction of a persons play. However, if it's a stance you want: In my experience, the moment you bother lynching the lurkers is the moment you know mafia are in control of the game, especially if it's done sooner. WIFOMIf we can conclusively prove someone was lying, that person should be suspect in the first place, and automatically be rated higher than lurkers. Thanks for stating the obvious.
This is a rather crappy post. Town SHOULD always take a stance. If your stance change throughout the game, then you just have to explain why it changed. Scum are the only one who should fear taking stances, as they can get caught when their explanation doesn't match with their stance.
|
On March 27 2012 10:07 VisceraEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:52 Nemesis wrote:
Yo VE why you so scum this game, I'm getting my gun ready for you. Maybe if you accompanied your question with reasoning as to why I'm "so scum this game" instead of empty threats, I'd be more inclined to answer your question fully. What part of my play so far indicates that I'm "so scum"?
It was a joke(with reference to how I tunneled you last game) 
|
United States1648 Posts
The problem with lynching lurkers this early in the game is that because there are so many mafia, they can easily shift the blame to a non mafia lurker. I think once we kill a few mafia we should lynch some lurkers.
We should still lynch a lurker if we have no leads, because it's better to lynch an inactive townie than an active one.
|
On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play?
honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs.
and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them.
gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now?
|
On March 27 2012 07:17 VisceraEyes wrote:
For my part, I'll be keeping my eye on C_C and to a lesser extent BH due to them being among the only names I recognize as players who have played more than like 2 games here. This is one of the first games I've played where the average experience level is so low...so I'm probably not going to be on the offensive as much this game...but I make no guarantees.
ayo, I've played like 6 games. most of the people here are over 3 games, don't get all tunnel vision'd worrying about vets b/c it's the less conspicious new scum who will slip by. be on the offensive, I like the feisty VE more than whatever else you'd pull out
|
Ok well I'm going to concentrate on studying for now, and then sleep afterwards. Hopefully, we can get activity rolling by then.
|
On March 27 2012 10:14 MrZentor wrote:
The problem with lynching lurkers this early in the game is that because there are so many mafia, they can easily shift the blame to a non mafia lurker. I think once we kill a few mafia we should lynch some lurkers.
We should still lynch a lurker if we have no leads, because it's better to lynch an inactive townie than an active one.
You seem to forget mafia's second wincon which allows them to win should one faction (US or SU) be eliminated.
Could you explain your previous / current stance on lynching in light of this information? Also, do you really think it is feasible that we can kill a few mafia and still have absolutely no leads that we should default to lynching lurkers?
|
On March 27 2012 10:21 EchelonTee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 07:17 VisceraEyes wrote:
For my part, I'll be keeping my eye on C_C and to a lesser extent BH due to them being among the only names I recognize as players who have played more than like 2 games here. This is one of the first games I've played where the average experience level is so low...so I'm probably not going to be on the offensive as much this game...but I make no guarantees. ayo, I've played like 6 games. most of the people here are over 3 games, don't get all tunnel vision'd worrying about vets b/c it's the less conspicious new scum who will slip by. be on the offensive, I like the feisty VE more than whatever else you'd pull out
Oh ET, how could I have missed your name? I'll be sure to keep an overly scrutinizing eye on you as well if it makes you feel better.
No, my feist-level should be about average - I was more referring to my activity level. But, as you can tell, that shouldn't be much of an issue either.
|
United States1648 Posts
On March 27 2012 10:36 slOosh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 10:14 MrZentor wrote:
The problem with lynching lurkers this early in the game is that because there are so many mafia, they can easily shift the blame to a non mafia lurker. I think once we kill a few mafia we should lynch some lurkers.
We should still lynch a lurker if we have no leads, because it's better to lynch an inactive townie than an active one. You seem to forget mafia's second wincon which allows them to win should one faction (US or SU) be eliminated. Could you explain your previous / current stance on lynching in light of this information? Also, do you really think it is feasible that we can kill a few mafia and still have absolutely no leads that we should default to lynching lurkers?
I don't really see how that changes things. If we don't threaten to lynch lurkers, a lot more harm will be done than if we kill one or two lurkers, even if they are town. If we see that 3/5 of the US townies are dead, we can vote for a no lynch, but until then, I think it's important to threaten lurkers with the possibility of a lynch to promote a good townie environment.
I will admit that it's unlikely that we won't have leads after lynching a few mafia, but it's important to take in all possible outcomes, in spite of the probability of them actually occurring.
|
Got back from uni.
Let's hunt some nazis.
On March 27 2012 10:14 EchelonTee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:27 slOosh wrote:On March 27 2012 08:21 froggynoddy wrote:
I am finding this setup really difficult to get my head around (not on the mechanics, just how to play optimally and scumhunt accordingly). It shouldn't be at all different no? Actually I've been meaning to ask a similar question. Does a closed-setup in general change basic scumhunting principles or do they just allow/favor different styles of play? honestly I am treating this game like a standard Mini Mafia, with the knowledge that there is probably a few doods with nukes or powers revolving around nukes. AKA, re-skinned medics/vigs. and if there's anything I learned from minis, it's that there's always scum hiding in the lurkers. In general I'll always argue against policy lynches (because they're bad) but in a Mini, with so few people town simply cannot afford to have non-contributors whose alignment cannot be determined. People lurking scummily (yeah there's a difference between innocent lurking and scummily lurking) should be axed over someone with only a weak case on them. gonzaw! shouldn't you be spamming the thread by now?
I doubt I need to ask 100 questions to everybody, considering this is a smaller game, so don't worry about that too much.
I'll try not to "hurt your eyes" this time
I think it's obvious that nobody likes lurkers, but lurking alone doesn't mean they should be lynched immediately. It just means you need to call them out, make them contribute, and put them under more scrutiny than other players, since they can easily fly unnoticed.
@VE: I have to agree with johnny here, why do you prod someone about taking stances 1 post into the game?
Even as pressure that doesn't seem very helpful.
Also, I'd recomend nobody even slightly hint what nationality they are from. As far as I know, town don't get ANY information whatsoever if someone is US or SU, but scum can use that info to try and get their alternative win-con.
So no nationality claims, nor any hint to them.
If you have to claim just claim your role and nothing else.
|
gonzaw when you do line breaks, only use one of them please.
Like that. Also I agree that NO ONE should claim Nationality for any reason, as that information can only hurt us.
|
I think if there's people obviously posting just to meet the minimum requirements or answer questions and don't further the discussion at all then they are prime candidates for lynching...but if what we find through discussion is more concrete than lynching because of lurking, we should go for that. I prefer lynching based on facts rather than lurking, unless the lurking is obviously to avoid taking a stance or if the lurker just votes to lynch someone without explanations, or stuff that can be read as scum.
As of now nobody is really acting scummy (in my eyes), but there are still quite a few people who haven't posted yet, so it's possible nobody is scum here, albeit it unlikely. cccalf, sirensis, blazinghand haven't posted and zelblade + froggynoddy haven't posted anything meaningful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
