EPT14.[VisceraEyes][___________]
13.[Snarfs] [Bill Murray]
and now
14.[VisceraEyes] [Bill Murray]
13.[Snarfs][___________]
Ace updates positions whenever PoP/actions are taken
Death Factory Mafia 2 - Page 9
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
14.[VisceraEyes][___________] 13.[Snarfs] [Bill Murray] and now 14.[VisceraEyes] [Bill Murray] 13.[Snarfs][___________] Ace updates positions whenever PoP/actions are taken | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
On April 01 2012 23:52 MrZentor wrote: Here are a few of my positions. 1. Pushing Palmar to get the item is extremely risky. If we use scum to push him up there, they will have an excuse not to vote. If we use towns to push him to the item, the scum will have a proportionally higher votecount to the rest of town. Since we don't know much about who is scum and who isn't, except for that really weird dt check, we would probably have a mix of scum and town. Basically, I think we push Palmar to the item, we should go for a no lynch and instead vote on how the item will be used, or we could push Palmar with some votes, have all people do unofficial votes on who to kill, and force all people with remaining official votes to vote for that person. I will underline things worse than the lynch, italicize things just as good as the lynch, and bold things better than the lynch. This is assuming we vote on how it's used. A 1 shot medic kit - It can not be used on your self. It works for the following night and day cycle. A 1 shot gun - Can be used that same day or the following night. A magnifying glass = Reveals the alignment of 1 player to you. A Teleportation Device - Instantly swap positions with any player on the queue for that day only. A Refresher Orb that renews all PoPs for everyone and special abilities for the day phase. An Etch-A-Sketch that allows you target a player and draw them, thereby granting yourself a copy of their powers + your own. Mafia players can not copy powers from their allies. So we have a 50% chance of getting something worse than the lynch, 16.7% same, and 33.3% chance of better. 2. Random PoPing to Coordinated Poping. If we all push the person who we think is scummiest and pull the person who we think it most innocent, we will get good reads on each other, but the lynch might not be successful. If we have a "town leader" and coordinate our pushes on to one person, we won't get good reads on each other, but we will have a successful lynch. Right now I'd rather go for the random Poping, because I just died in a game in which Coordinated Poping lead to failure. If you look at the starting positions and his claim, you'll see that he moved past snarf and VE and into the empty space. That's three moves. Holy batman this post is bad. I dont follow your whole "What is better or woirse then a lynch" thingy about the items. Either we push someone to get the item (why is everyone assuming this have to be Palmar?) or we don't. This doesn't change how those not pushing/pulling for the item should push and pull the people they find scummy. We can lynch people AND get the item if we want. But we don't. From your first paragraph it looks like you want to coordinate shit and make a joint effort to get the item and then vote so peaple act in unity. But in the next paragraph you want people to do their own shit?! I don't get how you can be this ambivalent so early on. | ||
|
MrZentor
United States1648 Posts
Each person unofficially voting for somebody would be decided by themselves, so we can get a good read on each person. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
One thing I laughed about while reading the original DF was the implementation of a secondary voting system. Like, el oh el style laughed. There's a voting system already in the game - let's use that one to get information rather than come up with some convoluted secondary voting system that not only punishes participants (by limiting their PoPs in theory) but rewards people not participating (by making their PoPs actually meaningful). I'm not in favor of a secondary voting system. Just responsibly use your PoPs, that's all I ask. We haven't heard from everyone yet, I'm holding onto my thoughts on who's scum until we do. Thank you, and good day. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
| ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
On April 02 2012 00:34 MrZentor wrote: I think you misunderstood me. I don't want to have Palmar get the item, because of the tons of risks. I was showing that if he did get the item, we should each unofficially vote somebody and have the people with official votes vote for that person. That way scum doesn't have more votes. Each person unofficially voting for somebody would be decided by themselves, so we can get a good read on each person. You are going to make this a long game if all your posts are this hard to understand. | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
On April 02 2012 00:51 VisceraEyes wrote: We haven't heard from everyone yet, I'm holding onto my thoughts on who's scum until we do. Thank you, and good day. On April 02 2012 00:57 VisceraEyes wrote: Syllo you're looking bad. I'm thinking about Popping you bro. What do you think about that? I laughed. You just can't not post can you, VE? | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
Do you have a problem with discussion Dirkzor? | ||
|
MrZentor
United States1648 Posts
On April 02 2012 01:05 Dirkzor wrote: You are going to make this a long game if all your posts are this hard to understand. Okay, let me try to explain this one more time. 1. If we want an innocent person to try to get the item, which I think is a bad idea now, but it might be a good idea later, then we need to make it so that mafia don't have a larger vote count proportionally to the town, because town used half of its votes to get the innocent person to the item and back. 2. To achieve this goal, we should have each person do an "unofficial PoP". This would allow us to get a good read on each person, and it would allow the town to have all of its votes; it would also force any mafia who helped get the innocent person to the item to back to give their reads. Then we would have all the people, who still have their PoPs, officially vote for the person we unofficially decided to kill. 3. I think this would be the best way to have an innocent person get the item and for us to still have the lynch. I hope I articulated this better than last time. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
My two cents. | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
On April 02 2012 01:16 MrZentor wrote: Okay, let me try to explain this one more time. 1. If we want an innocent person to try to get the item, which I think is a bad idea now, but it might be a good idea later, then we need to make it so that mafia don't have a larger vote count proportionally to the town, because town used half of its votes to get the innocent person to the item and back. 2. To achieve this goal, we should have each person do an "unofficial PoP". This would allow us to get a good read on each person, and it would allow the town to have all of its votes; it would also force any mafia who helped get the innocent person to the item to back to give their reads. Then we would have all the people, who still have their PoPs, officially vote for the person we unofficially decided to kill. 3. I think this would be the best way to have an innocent person get the item and for us to still have the lynch. I hope I articulated this better than last time. It was better alright but it still makes no sense. Why do you want to discuss this now when you don't want us to push anyone to the item. Its stupid and pointless. Its like discussing what kind of weather you want on your birthday. I whole heartily agree with VE that some unofficial vote is a bad idea. Push people you think are scum towards the top and keep townies in the center. @VE: Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooo. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Going after the item would tie up a lot of the PoP's. Whilst there is a danger to the person being sent to get the item, anybody that pushed them over would likely be killed for doing so and so it would offer a 1:1 trade which would be good for town. If scum happen to have a hidden PoP then we risk losing the item, a townie and the PoP's for no gain. Voting system: I think that if we were to agree upon a secondary voting system then we would all have to participate. If say 10 people are using it and 10 aren't then another voting system would serve no real purpose. So if you are serious about introducing a voting system then we need to come up with one and quickly decide upon whether to support it or not. I think that today we need to decide how we are going to play the game and kill 1 person today. I think we should take advantage of the fact that we can carry out multiple lynches by having a mass lynch tomorrow while the ratio of town to scum is still favourable. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
If we want to push people off of the edge then it might be best to follow some sort of organised item grabbing move first, just in case the person we decide to kill gets the Teleportation device and swaps with somebody we do not wish to kill. If we decide on trying to grab the item it would then make more sense to implement a secondary voting system since so many push/pulls would be being used without having to be justified. I don't think we should try to grab the item. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On April 02 2012 00:57 VisceraEyes wrote: Syllo you're looking bad. I'm thinking about Popping you bro. What do you think about that? Feel free, and in the process explain as to why you think so and why a "secondary" voting system is bad | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
On April 02 2012 01:46 syllogism wrote: Feel free, and in the process explain as to why you think so and why a "secondary" voting system is bad As it's been discussed already, there's no guarantee everyone would follow suit (regardless of alignment) and we can't just punish people who don't participate (because there's no guarantee that they're scum.) We can't force people to participate, and all it's going to do is cause confusion. The voting mechanic is confusing enough without adding ANOTHER mechanic into the game. You don't agree? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On April 02 2012 01:24 VisceraEyes wrote: At this point, trying to go for the item is going to cause us to not have votes for who we want to incinerate. Going for the item now is a bad idea. I think we should wait until someone is close to the item before we discuss going about actually trying to acquire the item. My two cents. Well, someone who's close to the item is going to be someone who's in the queue, a.k.a. someone we want to lynch, barring any weird powers that moved them there. Pre-edit: Layabout #1 ninja. Something we actually have to watch, is that we don't push people we want to lynch into the item range. This could cause a lot of trouble, if they got something like the swapping power. As well, this means that it's harder to insta-kill someone if we wanted to flip them in the middle of the day, because they have to move through the item first and can save themselves. The insta-kill will actually be pretty useful for things like confirming DT checks, because then we can act on them, and don't have to wait for the next cycle. People who fall off the queue and die get flipped as soon as they die, right? I forget what voting system we used exactly in DF, but it didn't really work, because people didn't all agree to use it, and some people decided to just do whatever they wanted. I don't think implementing one is going to work in this game, just due to how historically, it's pretty much impossible to get everyone in a game to follow a plan. A better thing to do would be just to develop general guidelines for how to push/pull people. Maybe something like every push/pull has to have an explanation. Don't push someone until you make a case in the thread, and hopefully get a few people to agree with you. Same thing, if you pull someone back, you state valid reasons for doing so, i.e. "I disagree with him" is not a valid reason. If you don't want someone to die, you'll have to actually explain why. This will hopefully stop both the problem of everyone cancelling out each others moves, which has no net gain for town besides seeing who they pushed or pulled, and the problem of creep towards the queue, which will happen when everyone pushes whoever, and a lot of people move back towards the queue, making queue extending abilities or mass push abilities a lot more dangerous. | ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 02 2012 01:51 VisceraEyes wrote: As it's been discussed already, there's no guarantee everyone would follow suit (regardless of alignment) and we can't just punish people who don't participate (because there's no guarantee that they're scum.) We can't force people to participate, and all it's going to do is cause confusion. The voting mechanic is confusing enough without adding ANOTHER mechanic into the game. You don't agree? Can't we just vote on whether or not to follow it? If enough people (let's say 2/3rds (13 players)) agree then everyone else would have to agree to follow it. If anybody decides to go against the town's will then we can incinerate them  | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
| ||
