|
On June 27 2012 00:22 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 23:44 GreYMisT wrote:
Forceing people to attack takes away the responsibility of attacking. "why did you attack him?!". "well I was supposed to attack someone"
If we just play this game by attacking who we think is scum through in game communication, then we will have a much better chance of winning. Attacks will mean a lot more in that case and show even more info. Not attacking gives just as much info as attacking s&b I strongly disagree. Not attacking means the majority of people will just say "I don't have strong scumreads yet and I don't want to take damage." It's what happens all the time in both mafia games and in magic games with lots of players. We don't learn anything from people not attacking because they could either be lurky scum who don't want to take stands, or they could just be townies who are kind of confused by the format. We need to force people to actually DO something. I really don't understand what the reasoning is against this. There are no votes in this game, so getting people to commit to affirmative actions is the only way we're going to get anything to analyze. And if someone just says "well I was supposed to attack someone" without saying why they chose that person, we will call that scummy because it will be. People need to justify their actions. The other reason is that we don't want blocking. Blocking doesn't give us information and it causes the creatures to do damage to each other, which could reduce town power more than it reduces scum power.
Imagine in a real game if someone voted for a no lynch and said "I dont have any strong reads at the moment"
Now wouldn't that say something to you about that player? Not attacking and pursuing a player here is the same thing.
|
On June 27 2012 00:22 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 23:44 GreYMisT wrote:
Forceing people to attack takes away the responsibility of attacking. "why did you attack him?!". "well I was supposed to attack someone"
If we just play this game by attacking who we think is scum through in game communication, then we will have a much better chance of winning. Attacks will mean a lot more in that case and show even more info. Not attacking gives just as much info as attacking s&b I strongly disagree. Not attacking means the majority of people will just say "I don't have strong scumreads yet and I don't want to take damage." It's what happens all the time in both mafia games and in magic games with lots of players. We don't learn anything from people not attacking because they could either be lurky scum who don't want to take stands, or they could just be townies who are kind of confused by the format. We need to force people to actually DO something. I really don't understand what the reasoning is against this. There are no votes in this game, so getting people to commit to affirmative actions is the only way we're going to get anything to analyze. And if someone just says "well I was supposed to attack someone" without saying why they chose that person, we will call that scummy because it will be. People need to justify their actions. The other reason is that we don't want blocking. Blocking doesn't give us information and it causes the creatures to do damage to each other, which could reduce town power more than it reduces scum power.
And wait, wtf? we have to deal damage to the opponent for this "information" to be imparted? why no blocking? is not the process of attacking good enough for you? it seems to me that you just want a lot of damage done early
|
To be clear, I am highlighting the "No Blocking" aspect of his post. it doesnt make sense to me that we should be forced to deal damage when all S&B is saying is we need to attack to show commitment.
|
On June 27 2012 00:22 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 23:44 GreYMisT wrote:
Forceing people to attack takes away the responsibility of attacking. "why did you attack him?!". "well I was supposed to attack someone"
If we just play this game by attacking who we think is scum through in game communication, then we will have a much better chance of winning. Attacks will mean a lot more in that case and show even more info. Not attacking gives just as much info as attacking s&b I strongly disagree. Not attacking means the majority of people will just say "I don't have strong scumreads yet and I don't want to take damage." It's what happens all the time in both mafia games and in magic games with lots of players. We don't learn anything from people not attacking because they could either be lurky scum who don't want to take stands, or they could just be townies who are kind of confused by the format. We need to force people to actually DO something. I really don't understand what the reasoning is against this. There are no votes in this game, so getting people to commit to affirmative actions is the only way we're going to get anything to analyze. And if someone just says "well I was supposed to attack someone" without saying why they chose that person, we will call that scummy because it will be. People need to justify their actions. The other reason is that we don't want blocking. Blocking doesn't give us information and it causes the creatures to do damage to each other, which could reduce town power more than it reduces scum power.
Most people in this game (7 to be exact) are townies. You are telling me most townies won't have a scumread by D2 at all and will be "confused"?
Yeah, it could happen with the "lurkers" or "noobs" or "confused" players, but not with "the majority of people".
If the "majority of people" are "confused" then surely town would be sucking hard this game.
Also like other people said, that forces people to make reads they are not comfortable with, which most likely lead to them FoSing the easiest target, which is more likely to be town, meaning we'll more likely reduce town's HP, and then we are left in the same place as before since the guy will say "I attacked him because you guys forced me to, and because I though he was a little scummy but I was not sure" and then you'll have to deal with that the whole game, trying to figure out if that guy was town or scum.
I agree about not blocking to an extent. I'd prefer getting 1-2 HP down than having my creature destroyed, since well it's just 1-2 HP that doesn't really matter if scum want to kill me (1-2 HP doesn't really matter when mafia hit you for 10 HP), and my creature will be alive so I can attack some scum later.
However, if 2-3 people attack you with 4/4 or 5/5 creatures, you HAVE to block if it means that scum can 1-hit you with their unblockable beast and instantly kill you (or of course if it means you'll instantly die by their attacks).
|
S&B, if your creature had haste, who would you attack right now?
|
Probably greymist.
I think if we treat the game like a magic game with a subset of mafia players, we will lose.
Duncan would probably say fulla or whatever his name was, but I think he needs a bit more time to un noob himself.
And to be clear: I say no blocking because I want votes to actually mean something, because not much damage will be dealt yet, and because I don't want people having the excuse "oh I'm defending myself by keeping my creatures untapped" to avoid committing to positions.
|
No one will have 4/4 or 5/5 creatures on turn 2 and if they do it's a whole other problem town has to deal with. Creatures being more powerful later is exactly why I said we should only do this turn two and maybe turn three. Please, if you're going to attack me for my plan at least attack me for what the plan actually is.
|
On June 27 2012 01:16 strongandbig wrote:
Probably greymist.
I think if we treat the game like a magic game with a subset of mafia players, we will lose.
Duncan would probably say fulla or whatever his name was, but I think he needs a bit more time to un noob himself.
And to be clear: I say no blocking because I want votes to actually mean something, because not much damage will be dealt yet, and because I don't want people having the excuse "oh I'm defending myself by keeping my creatures untapped" to avoid committing to positions.
With my way of not forcing everyone to attack you actually get more commitment. Here is why:
Every attack carries much more weight because any creatures I attack with COULD have been used to protect myself. However I decided to forgo defense and instead invest in attacking a player. To me this says a lot more than just forcing everyone to attack.
|
I completely agree with GreYMisT. I believe that if we need to judge people on their actions. While the conversations in the thread so far are nessacary I have yet to see a single post that isn't a strange form of "setup discussion" due to this unusual game type. We will need to read people by their actions and their reasons for them. If we allow people the excuse of "i was forced to attack", you will actually withdraw info from the town.
|
On June 27 2012 01:18 strongandbig wrote:
No one will have 4/4 or 5/5 creatures on turn 2 and if they do it's a whole other problem town has to deal with. Creatures being more powerful later is exactly why I said we should only do this turn two and maybe turn three. Please, if you're going to attack me for my plan at least attack me for what the plan actually is.
What has the "4/4 and 5/5 creatures" thing have to do with your plan?
Reread my post, I was talking about blocking generally. Even if I have an untapped creature, I'd prefer not blocking so I get damage than destroying that creature (if its toughness is less than the attacking monster's power of course).
Also probably everybody would just attack Fulla if we force them to >_>
@Mattchew: So.....? I know most of this is setup talk, but do you get any gut reads based on activity or attitude at least?
|
On June 27 2012 01:53 Oberyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 01:18 strongandbig wrote:
No one will have 4/4 or 5/5 creatures on turn 2 and if they do it's a whole other problem town has to deal with. Creatures being more powerful later is exactly why I said we should only do this turn two and maybe turn three. Please, if you're going to attack me for my plan at least attack me for what the plan actually is. What has the "4/4 and 5/5 creatures" thing have to do with your plan? Reread my post, I was talking about blocking generally. Even if I have an untapped creature, I'd prefer not blocking so I get damage than destroying that creature (if its toughness is less than the attacking monster's power of course). Also probably everybody would just attack Fulla if we force them to >_> @Mattchew: So.....? I know most of this is setup talk, but do you get any gut reads based on activity or attitude at least?
I would rather wait and see, we aren't in a rush. I want to see how people play their boards. I will be making my judgments based off behaviors, reasons for behavior, and reactions to behaviors.
Basically I am in no rush to start throwing out accusations based off of the conversations had thus far. No one is on the verge of dying, so I don't really see a reason to talk scum reads now. I think the discussion should stay on plans of action and ways to hold people accountable for their actions and how to read into behaviors when they do happen because right now it is way too easy for scum to blend in and look useful
|
On June 27 2012 02:29 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 01:53 Oberyn wrote:On June 27 2012 01:18 strongandbig wrote:
No one will have 4/4 or 5/5 creatures on turn 2 and if they do it's a whole other problem town has to deal with. Creatures being more powerful later is exactly why I said we should only do this turn two and maybe turn three. Please, if you're going to attack me for my plan at least attack me for what the plan actually is. What has the "4/4 and 5/5 creatures" thing have to do with your plan? Reread my post, I was talking about blocking generally. Even if I have an untapped creature, I'd prefer not blocking so I get damage than destroying that creature (if its toughness is less than the attacking monster's power of course). Also probably everybody would just attack Fulla if we force them to >_> @Mattchew: So.....? I know most of this is setup talk, but do you get any gut reads based on activity or attitude at least? I would rather wait and see, we aren't in a rush. I want to see how people play their boards. I will be making my judgments based off behaviors, reasons for behavior, and reactions to behaviors. Basically I am in no rush to start throwing out accusations based off of the conversations had thus far. No one is on the verge of dying, so I don't really see a reason to talk scum reads now. I think the discussion should stay on plans of action and ways to hold people accountable for their actions and how to read into behaviors when they do happen because right now it is way too easy for scum to blend in and look useful
You may be right.
Also this turn someone will get attacked by the KP Beast so that will give us some info. I think it's likely the person targeted is town, and scum will just try to get him killed in 2 other turns when their Beast has 12 power (8+12=20 dead dude).
Specially since apparently nobody has a Green Elves deck that can heal people.
If scum target themselves with their KP Beast, then it will be fishy as hell if that guy is never killed again once their KP Beast has more than 12 power.
But well Matt, yeah I just wanted some gut reads though (like "Oh yeah Fulla is full of shit he's lurking bla bla bla" or "Grey is shady he's just popping out at random times bla bla bla" or "Oberyin is weird because he's talking about the setup non-stop bla bla" or "WB-G is scum because they have marv").
I just want to see your thoughts of this game so far (to figure out if you are town), I don't want you to act on them yet.
|
So I think you guys are mistaken in predicting that many people will decide to attack on turn 2 rather than block. However, it is a question of predictions at this point, and if you are right and people by and large decide to be active rather than passive then that's great. My experience with multiplayer magic tells me otherwise, which is why I want to institute some kind of plan that will change people's behaviors from how they normally would act in multiplayer magic.
But it seems that I'm being outvoted. So as it stands is the thread's preferred plan just "everyone do what they think is best on turn 2"?
Also I want to announce this now so I don't get accused of hypocrisy later - I do not think we should have a ban on blocking unless we are also requiring people to attack. If the plan is "do what you want" then it doesn't make sense to restrict that by banning blockers.
|
at the current state, would anyone have a problem with me attacking Fulla turn 2?
|
On June 27 2012 03:39 Nova_Terra wrote:
at the current state, would anyone have a problem with me attacking Fulla turn 2?
Sorry I've been out so long guys, I had people over last night and it went a little more wild than I expected.
I've caught up on the thread and it seems to me that attacking Fulla would be fine but I would prefer an attack on Zealos, he doesn't have an excuse for how he has been behaving; scumhunting is always possible if you are someone who knows what they are doing even if the magic is a little out of their league.
Fulla is a mafia scrub (like me) and I want to give him a chance to prove himself. I'm biased though since I want people to be easy on me as a scrubby scub too.
Zealos is a mafia veteran though. He knows how to play and so far I haven't gotten much from him. I'd like to see some reads from him and some from Matt as well since he hasn't really given us much yet.
I'm once again going to be gone for a while but I'll be back for the attack phase.
|
On June 27 2012 04:23 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 03:39 Nova_Terra wrote:
at the current state, would anyone have a problem with me attacking Fulla turn 2? Sorry I've been out so long guys, I had people over last night and it went a little more wild than I expected. I've caught up on the thread and it seems to me that attacking Fulla would be fine but I would prefer an attack on Zealos, he doesn't have an excuse for how he has been behaving; scumhunting is always possible if you are someone who knows what they are doing even if the magic is a little out of their league. Fulla is a mafia scrub (like me) and I want to give him a chance to prove himself. I'm biased though since I want people to be easy on me as a scrubby scub too. Zealos is a mafia veteran though. He knows how to play and so far I haven't gotten much from him. I'd like to see some reads from him and some from Matt as well since he hasn't really given us much yet. I'm once again going to be gone for a while but I'll be back for the attack phase.
I most likely will not be able to attack Zealos without suiciding things. Not sure though.
|
On June 27 2012 04:23 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 03:39 Nova_Terra wrote:
at the current state, would anyone have a problem with me attacking Fulla turn 2? Zealos is a mafia veteran though. He knows how to play and so far I haven't gotten much from him. I'd like to see some reads from him and some from Matt as well since he hasn't really given us much yet.
I may well be a vet, but I am still terrible at the game :D
For now, I want to see how the game pans out a bit, after the first round of attacks I think we'll be able to get a better feel for who is town and who isn't.
|
Okay mostly done catching up and done with everything else that needed to be done. Here's my thought process considering the "plans":
I don't like plans in this set-up because we're considering to plan how someone "votes" in this set-up. I'd like everyone to do whatever he wants to do no matter what. This has some drawbacks and some advantages but I'd consider the drawbacks of the other "plans" worse.
So here's what it basicly does- It gives people an excuse to not attack someone early on due to "herpaderpa I don't have scumreads". Especially the new guys
- It does NOT give people excuses for why they did something
And here's the thought behind why that's not bad, although the first phrase sounds bad:
I think I'm just fine in figuring people out I know. I don't care wethe or not people like Kita+Gonzaw, Greymist or Mattchew get to do whatever they want, I will figure them out soon enough because I think I can get good reads on people I know in general. If let's say Greymist for example chooses to not attack at all and just block that's going to be ovious, same goes for everyone else. Also it's good information about the newer guys because they have to come up with something themselves and we everyone can check if what they say makes sense given their situation (being new for example).
However, if we force people to attack all the same guy (Kita's plan) we lose explanations that would be given otherwise. You could probably still figure out the guys who have been playing here longer than the rest because those guys would probably be the ones leading the discussion but I'd have a huge problem figuring out someone who posts nothing and just sheeps one of us.
If we force people to attack no matter what (S&B's plan) we force people to make bad decicions. I didn't like Supersoft telling people "shoot someone or I'll shoot you in 5 minutes" in Ace's game for a reason. People end up doing bad calls in those situations, ESPECIALLY if we're talking about townies, ESPECIALLY if we're talking about new townies. Again, I'd have a huge problem figuring out all the guys, but this time because I can see people doing mistakes way more often than usually because of that situation.
The thing here is that a "do whatever you consider to be smart" strategy probably is nice for mafia the first 2 or 3 cycles because as mentioned they can do whatever they want, however we will hold people accountable for their actions and something like in mafia LV where we simply had to lynch into an entity of something like 10 unreadable guys won't happen again. In that game we had huge issues not because of strong mafia vets but because of a mass of unreadable new guys.
If we tell the guys we consider to be hard to read because we don't know what's going on in their heads what to do no matter what we're giving ourselves a really hard time. We can figure out the vets no matter of strategy, but the other guys need to come up with at least SOMETHING theirselves so that we read them as well.
I'll talk about my reads in another post because this one is already so big lol, although they havn't really changed.
|
Why do you want to attack me Nova?
I won't re-retaliate if you do. I don't have any good enough reads, I'm literally just going by a 1/3 chance of you being scum.
|
1/4 chance sorry.
At this point who is everyone else leaning towards attacking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
