EPTLiar Game Mini Mafia - Page 59
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
| ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Sheth
United States2095 Posts
| ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
Also ty Sheth, sorry you had to die!  | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
At least I was right that Cephiro would try to determine the lynch by his own: chaoser (7) Cephiro (5), gonzaw (2) Normally I would ask you for your reasoning behind this, but I don't think it's needed. I'm trying to figure out if you are scumbuddies with chaoser, or you just decided to get the easy lynch on Sheth first. Also: On May 08 2012 12:13 Liquid`Sheth wrote: G'luck Mafia ~ Wat? | ||
|
slOosh
3291 Posts
| ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
On May 08 2012 12:37 slOosh wrote: How extensively did you discuss this with WBG? I was under the impression that he wanted at least chaoser dead (had some reservations about Meapak). Could we get the PM logs? Well, he said he prefered chaoser dead than Meapak, and I agree too, so I gave chaoser 2 votes instead of 3. In the event that Sheth gained a high amount of votes, then at least chaoser would get lynched. Anyways, how do you get to quote the PMs all nested one over the other? I can only copy paste the text I guess there is no harm in posting them, we didn't discuss about other things either so it won't reveal much. | ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
On May 08 2012 12:26 gonzaw wrote: At least I was right that Cephiro would try to determine the lynch by his own You're hilarious. Although you are right in one sense which I'm surprised people haven't still realised. If the majority tries to work together, all it requires is one weak link and the results can be controlled to almost any extent by the minority. Basically, the more you all agree to vote in unison, the more powerful my votes are in deciding whom is left last. Unless I fall to majority myself, to a certain degree I'm having the final word in what happens. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
#1, Cephiro claimed that he was NOT going to vote Sheth. This should have made it apparent that he was going to vote either meapak or chaoser. I told gonzaw that it made no sense to split votes in a situation where you think scum are going to try to influence the vote. I told him you either avoid influencing the lynch at all so that scum simply out themselves, or you put all five of your votes on a singular person. At the time I used meapak as the example because I thought he was the most likely to be town out of the 3. (I basically considered chaoser and sheth about even to flip scum and meapak more likely to be town) However, as I was not around about 1 hour to 1.5 hours before the lynch (my final started at 19:00 PDT) I didn't see what meapak and cephiro posted, and I had already sent in my votes anyway. On May 08 2012 10:14 Cephiro wrote: As per Sheth's own request, I will not put any votes on him. Do what you wish with this information. I will try to answer the PMs I've got as soon as possible. Here's where we basically know Cephiro will put all his votes on either chaoser or meapak On May 08 2012 11:28 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: Hello everyone, I just realized I can't vote WBG so I'm giving my votes to katina. In interest of full disclosure sheth told me he put all his votes on me. and here we know because meapak is receiving 5 cephiro is almost certain to put 5 on chaoser. This should've made it clear that Sheth would die if he was town because if he wasn't it would take at least two scum to out themselves in order for him to live. Had gonzaw put his 5 votes on sheth at this point (knowing both meapak and chaoser would get 5) we would've triple lynched. Sorry for not making my instructions explicit enough. On May 08 2012 12:59 Cephiro wrote: You're hilarious. Although you are right in one sense which I'm surprised people haven't still realised. If the majority tries to work together, all it requires is one weak link and the results can be controlled to almost any extent by the minority. Basically, the more you all agree to vote in unison, the more powerful my votes are in deciding whom is left last. Unless I fall to majority myself, to a certain degree I'm having the final word in what happens. in other words, you're the reason Sheth died. Do you even read your own fucking posts? | ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
On May 08 2012 13:20 wherebugsgo wrote: In other words, you're the reason Sheth died. Do you even read your own fucking posts? Yes I do. And I know very well that "the final decision" was in my hands. The fun thing here is, no-one else but me is ready to take responsibility for the actions of town. You wanted Sheth dead, I didn't mess it up, so now you can go all out tunnelling that I was the one that caused his death. Well guess what, if you had wanted to save him, you could have just voted for him, but no, you all working together wanted him to die. That is a fact. Now if there are any players left but me that are capable of thinking for themselves instead of being led by these scumbags, I'd recommend you to take a closer look at the players who pushed for VE & Sheth to be killed. BC was simply a bus by his teammates as it was the general consensus that he would die, trying to save him would have been much more risky. What they tried instead was buddy with a bad looking townie (me), and try to take me down, counting on getting votes from me. And even in the case that failed, I would look bad for trying to save a scum. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I suppose I should've just gambled and told gonzaw to vote sheth (since cephiro wouldn't) but that would've been rash and if I was right about meapak and as cephiro voted chaoser, it would've resulted in meapak dying (same result if meapak is town) | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On May 08 2012 13:27 Cephiro wrote: Yes I do. And I know very well that "the final decision" was in my hands. The fun thing here is, no-one else but me is ready to take responsibility for the actions of town. You wanted Sheth dead, I didn't mess it up, so now you can go all out tunnelling that I was the one that caused his death. Well guess what, if you had wanted to save him, you could have just voted for him, but no, you all working together wanted him to die. That is a fact. Now if there are any players left but me that are capable of thinking for themselves instead of being led by these scumbags, I'd recommend you to take a closer look at the players who pushed for VE & Sheth to be killed. BC was simply a bus by his teammates as it was the general consensus that he would die, trying to save him would have been much more risky. What they tried instead was buddy with a bad looking townie (me), and try to take me down, counting on getting votes from me. And even in the case that failed, I would look bad for trying to save a scum. yes, I wanted sheth dead. But I wanted chaoser dead too. In fact, I wanted ALL THREE to die because there's no way all three of them are town. So yes, you did fuck that up, regardless of what you may think. It's okay though, because as soon as you are in the majority again there will be no BC to save you. And I will ensure that you will die, as there will be no pesky school to get in my way. | ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
On May 08 2012 13:28 wherebugsgo wrote: I suppose I should've just gambled and told gonzaw to vote sheth (since cephiro wouldn't) but that would've been rash and if I was right about meapak and as cephiro voted chaoser, it would've resulted in meapak dying (same result if meapak is town) So you clearly have knowledge and control of the vote situation, but you refuse to take any responsibility? I say not a coward town, I say scum. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On May 08 2012 13:31 Cephiro wrote: So you clearly have knowledge and control of the vote situation, but you refuse to take any responsibility? I say not a coward town, I say scum. you still can't read apparently. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
I cannot be right about everything and I need different opinions in order to find scum. The game feels "too easy" because no one is doing anything, so there's an inherent bias in wanting to kill the people who are the most useless/anti town. At this point since that's almost everyone I'm starting to go insanely paranoid. | ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
On May 08 2012 13:31 wherebugsgo wrote: you still can't read apparently. So you admit that you wanted to kill more townies again? Not the first time. Let's assume we lynched all three of them and one turned out to be scum. 2 for 1. Current player ratio: 8:3:2. You do realize we can't keep doing such trades, as the town will just lose more and more of the little power we have if we do that? Assuming we managed to lynch all three and got 1 scum: 6:2:2 in optimal scenario. 6:3:1 in the worse one. If it went to 6:2:2, both scumteams could constantly vote 1:1. Which means: Min/Max 2:4 - Town 1:1 - Scum A 1:1 - Scum B 50 total votes, 50/6 rounded up = 9 votes for safety. Town has 30 votes available to divide between 4 players, effecively 7,5 votes per player, which is not enough to save anyone for sure. Doing an optimal split we would get 8/8/7/7 as the possible high risk, high reward situation, as no-one is safe but unless the scum votes line up perfectly it should have everyone safe. Worst case, two more town down. With a safe split of 9/9/9/3, at least 3 town will be safe for sure, but one is basically guaranteed to die. What I am saying is, we can't afford to lose multiple townies as soon even with optimal voting we are not guaranteed to be able to lynch scum. Then we are very close to having lost the game. Of course, the scum factions have to eliminate each other still, which gives us slightly more room for mistakes, but doing mass-lynches at this time would be suicidal. | ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
Most likely town will be down one more player tomorrow. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On May 08 2012 13:42 Cephiro wrote: So you admit that you wanted to kill more townies again? Not the first time. Let's assume we lynched all three of them and one turned out to be scum. 2 for 1. Current player ratio: 8:3:2. You do realize we can't keep doing such trades, as the town will just lose more and more of the little power we have if we do that? Assuming we managed to lynch all three and got 1 scum: 6:2:2 in optimal scenario. 6:3:1 in the worse one. If it went to 6:2:2, both scumteams could constantly vote 1:1. Which means: Min/Max 2:4 - Town 1:1 - Scum A 1:1 - Scum B 50 total votes, 50/6 rounded up = 9 votes for safety. Town has 30 votes available to divide between 4 players, effecively 7,5 votes per player, which is not enough to save anyone for sure. Doing an optimal split we would get 8/8/7/7 as the possible high risk, high reward situation, as no-one is safe but unless the scum votes line up perfectly it should have everyone safe. Worst case, two more town down. With a safe split of 9/9/9/3, at least 3 town will be safe for sure, but one is basically guaranteed to die. What I am saying is, we can't afford to lose multiple townies as soon even with optimal voting we are not guaranteed to be able to lynch scum. Then we are very close to having lost the game. Of course, the scum factions have to eliminate each other still, which gives us slightly more room for mistakes, but doing mass-lynches at this time would be suicidal. your entire assumption falls apart when you realize that the basic assumption can be wrong and that even if two of them were town, if all 3 died that opens windows into finding OTHER scum. The rest of your post is just total horse shit because it assumes that 2 of them were townies, and that only the ratios matter. | ||
|
Cephiro
Finland1934 Posts
On May 08 2012 13:45 wherebugsgo wrote: your entire assumption falls apart when you realize that the basic assumption can be wrong and that even if two of them were town, if all 3 died that opens windows into finding OTHER scum. The rest of your post is just total horse shit because it assumes that 2 of them were townies, and that only the ratios matter. True, I did not cover all the possibilities. But the chances of lynching 2 or 3 scum out of 3 persons on a mass lynch is highly unlikely, so I provided the best possible still likely-to-happen scenario. I do not believe that you can currently correctly decide other players alignments based on someone flipping, as you have been wrong so many times already. At no point have I said only the ratios matter, but they are crucial information in specific situations. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
at any rate I have no idea why I am bothering to argue with you. The fact remains that as long as the people we want to kill remain alive, we cannot progress into finding other scum because we have next to no pressure on them. It all basically comes down to luck who is on the chopping block, and they'll always have immune friends in the minority pool who can save them. It's basically a race against the clock; either we get a set number of correct lynches in (and to do this we at all times need to know ALL of the players who are most likely to flip scum, as we have no way of controlling who ends up in the majority really) or we don't. That means every single opportunity that we get matters. VE screwed up the first one by saving sandro and now sandro has been in the minority twice in a row. We got the second one alright. The third one was messed up because of me, albeit there were circumstances for me out of my control (obviously I'm not going to skip a school final just to get a scum lynched in a forum mafia game) If you were town you would accept that in order to move on from this stalemated situation we would need to kill our prime suspects. If you're town and you continue to be antiprogress you'll just make yourself look like an ass postgame. I'm completely fine with that, and as you are too I'm still pretty sure you're not town. The discrepancy between your behavior here and in DFM2 is just too great for you to be town here, unless your play has degraded so far that you can't actually reason your way out of a paper bag. | ||
| ||
