EPTI'll give anyone instant priority on the hosting queue if they day vigi him within 5 minutes of the game starting.
+ Show Spoiler +
jk I love you bro <3
Liar Game Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
I'll give anyone instant priority on the hosting queue if they day vigi him within 5 minutes of the game starting. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On April 29 2012 17:43 Ver wrote: I'd prefer revote as well, though it's a bit tricky because then the town can try to abuse it by just extending days forever to get more analysis time. We can forbid abusing it I guess but that's such a gray area. With smaller #'s of people we can accelerate the cycles as well though. Also considering not letting people change their votes because their is no benefit for voting prematurely like in a real game (pressure, changing direction etc) since its all privately and it's going to be a big headache for us + likelihood if mistakes if people change frequently. I don't know how you're going to go about forbidding that since this is a PM game. If it all gets organized behind the scenes in PM land what are you going to do about it? And if the numbers get low to 4 or 6 people alive it will be even harder to "forbid" something like that (since it is more likely to happen). Regardless if it is forbidden, if I know that people are voting a certain way I'm going to be voting to try to get to that tie scenario. Yes I agree don't let people change their votes. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
If we have everyone voting for who they think is town we will end up in a scenario with multiple townies dying. What we need to do is decide on who we want to kill ahead of time before sending in the votes. This will be semi-difficult as we only have half a day since we won't know who is in the majority (any attempt to try to control who is in the majority is a waste of time the first day or two). It is very easy to get someone killed if we can all agree they should be kill. It is not easy to "save" everyone who we perceive to be town. We need the majority to be as close to even as possible. Say there are 11 people in the majority. We want to kill one person (just assume one now for simplicity). With 90 votes to work with, we spread them out such that the 10 players have 9 votes each (relatively easy to design a system to do this). This way if one person tries to deviate and save the target they will fail (and of course we will know they tried at the end of the day). We should be focused on who we think is mafia and who we want to die. I don't care if you think someone is town (nor should you care if I think someone is town). You should only care about who I think is mafia and who you think is mafia. The game will be over really fast if we just let people vote for their town favorite (basically a reverse case of Bang Bang mafia). | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
Let's look at his first post: On April 30 2012 22:32 chaoser wrote: I don't know if everyone voting the same answer leads to no minority and then the game going to round B...has anyone asked the hosts about this? Also, I do think that a one person minority and everyone else being in the majority is the right thing to do. Everyone goes to Round B and while yes, it's possible that many townies might be killed at 0 votes, I highly doubt it will really get that bad. The really really bad townies will obviously die this way but that's good for the town as well since it gets rid of distractions early. It's like a vigi hit that the whole town controls. It's basically multi-lynch but not everyone knows the votes. I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out though. Invisible hand! Free Market! I see here an apathetic attitude towards the town agenda. Notice lines like, "The really really bad townies will obviously die this way but that's good for the town as well since it gets rid of distractions early" which are clearly non-sensical since everyone in this game is good. What really irks me is when he says "It's like a vigi hit that the whole town controls. It's basically multi-lynch but not everyone knows the votes. I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out though." Is this even helpful in any way? Why would he bother saying these things? Everyone here has read the rules and knows what is going on. It is obvious he doesn't care about what's going to happen..."I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out..." His attitude is "don't worry guys things will work out in the end". We all know that there is a crap ton we need to be worried about so that 5 people don't end up dying day 1. He has taken a stance on that he wants everyone to be in the majority, but this was originally Wiggles idea. It seems his main reason for justifying the plan is that it is better than Palmar's (not going to discuss whether or not his plan is actually better as that's not what this is about). As I stated above he is okay with having everyone in the majority since he thinks things will work out, and if anyone dies it will be the "really really bad townies" of which do not exist in this game. If you click his filter you can see a few other things that only further my case. He asks a lot of questions and does it in a way to throw doubt around. I have no problem with people asking questions but it does not seem his goal is to accomplish something for the town. Rather he is making everyone skeptical of all the plans that are presented thus far. chaoser needs to die. If he is in the majority we should see to it that he is killed. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On May 01 2012 03:26 sandroba wrote: @foolishness There will never be a consensus on whom to kill especially if said person is mafia. It's reasonable to assume even a few townies will have a wrong read on and will end up defending scum. Also afaik only the vote tally will be available, not who voted whom. How exactly is that going to work in practice? Only way I can think of is that we get compliance from everyone beforehand, that they will agree to follow the voting scheme if they get out-voted (we do the traditional voting to see who will be lynched). Then we propose a unique voting scheme so we can identify who didn't follow it (each player votes for a unique combination of players). If there is never a consensus we might as well just give up now. Forgot who said it but someone yesterday said something to the effect of, "we should assume since this is liar game if we all work together and trust each other then we will win easily". Nothing will get accomplished if we're not semi-organized with who we want dead. It's really easy to construct a way to distribute votes once we know who we want dead. And we shoot anyone who doesn't follow. You can argue against the lynch candidate but if the rest of the town agrees to kill the person in question you have to suck it up and go with it. That's the only way we can win. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On May 01 2012 03:46 syllogism wrote: This is why we need a plan for round A; to make sure players we are suspicious of vote with the majority. As I noted earlier, chaoser is who I would be voting to lynch right now and he should definitely not get immunity today. I don't care if he's in the majority or not. If he is then we pressure him and decide if we want to kill him. If he's not we turn our attention elsewhere. We need a few days and a bit of planning before we are able to do anything with the minority voting. Just let it be random for now and go after your suspects. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On May 01 2012 03:58 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Just for the plan, or do you have other reasons? Explain. Plans should not be very relevant for the time being. Find a person who you think is mafia and make a case. This discussion will win us the game, not debating what plans we should enact to try to win. If the majority of the town agrees on a person to be killed we should kill that person. As I said it's really easy to get someone killed with the voting system. It's really hard to ensure that all the "townies" survive. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On May 01 2012 04:04 syllogism wrote: Ah yes, the good old "lets attract as much attention as possible and establish an obvious link between each other" strategy in a two scum team game. Do you genuinely believe this? Not helping. Let the man answer. Give us your own reads thus far, chaoser already has some explaining to do and I trust that he will. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
I realize this will be difficult but we need some sort of collective agreement on who to kill. As long as the majority (no pun intended) of us agree on a lynch target then it will be easy to ensure they are killed. For example, say we want to kill sandroba. That leaves 9 people we want to save. We have a total of 90 votes to work with. We vote in such a way to get each 9 players to have 10 votes. This will be done via spreading out (each player will vote for 5 separate people instead of piling all 5 votes on one person). Thus if anyone (dumb townie or mafia) tries to save him they will be unable to get enough votes to do so. And obviously if someone tries to deviate in such a manner we shoot them somehow. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On May 01 2012 15:07 wherebugsgo wrote: why does it have to be spread out, Foolishness? I guess it doesn't really matter that much, but I think that we should at the very least incorporate something that brings in some semblance of accountability. Did you see what chaoser and I discussed? Because we need to ensure that the person in question is actually killed. It's too easy to save someone otherwise, which will cause a shitstorm because someone else will die and we'll have to deal with it. I don't want to have to go through the pain of figuring out whether someone's claim of being a dumb townie is true or not (because you know that is the card that will be pulled out along the way). There's too much accountability to be had. What can we possibly do if things don't go according to plan and there are 8 people that need to be held accountable? There's no way we can deal with it all in an orderly fashion that's good for the town. It will just lead back to random finger pointing. Best to make sure what we want to happens actually happens. As Ace and Katina said the mafia will reveal themselves over time through the minority voting (else they take a big risk of being lynched). | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On May 02 2012 11:50 wherebugsgo wrote: if everyone but sandro/VE have 7 votes, then putting sandro/VE at 8 will kill like six townies at once. It's very likely the majority list has 4 mafia in it, so I wouldn't be worried about that. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On May 02 2012 13:00 Protactinium wrote: Prplhz: 6 - (Radfield 3, Palmar 1, sandroba 1, wherebugsgo 1) Sandroba: 5 - (VisceraEyes 5) Viscera Eyes: 4 - (Cephiro 4) Most interesting indeed. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3043 Posts
On May 02 2012 13:42 Ace wrote: Mr.Wiggles is Scum, sandroba is Town. Wrong, right. I'm pretty sure 2 mafia revealed themselves in the votes though. | ||
| ||
