EPTNow, I don't think Tunkeg is canny enough to pull that off, but it's a possibility, and he's setting up for it, so I might as well undermine him. As Kanye would say, no one man should have all that power.
Age of Empires: The Age of Kings Mini Mafia - Page 10
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
Now, I don't think Tunkeg is canny enough to pull that off, but it's a possibility, and he's setting up for it, so I might as well undermine him. As Kanye would say, no one man should have all that power. | ||
|
Tunkeg
Norway1235 Posts
On August 11 2012 08:42 Blazinghand wrote: It looks to me like Tunkeg is trying to build up a big alliance, which is reasonable, but it's not in anyone's interest to enable others to get into a big alliance unless they also can benefit. I could easily see a player who gains a lot of influence (ie is in PMs with 3+ people) trying to swing the votes around to a certain setup, and coordinating communication (with his own censorship and additions) between several people, each of whom thinks they're working in a 3 or 4 man group, but are all actually being left out except for a chosen few. most of them will just end up giving him their votes. Now, I don't think Tunkeg is canny enough to pull that off, but it's a possibility, and he's setting up for it, so I might as well undermine him. As Kanye would say, no one man should have all that power. You can't be allied with more than 3 people. I could PM with all though if all of you had chosen me. But I am not interested in that at all. I want a group where the members trust eachother. I could have made it happend if some people ha PM'ed me from the get go. The longer we get into day 0 though the more unlikely it is that such a group will be made, and the more likely I am to either end up solo, or being a lose cannon in an allready established group. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
... each of whom thinks they're working in a 3 or 4 man group, but are all actually being left out except for a chosen few. You just want lots of influence if you're gonna hang out asking for mass PMs and not sending them out. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
Tunkeg
Norway1235 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
Tunkeg
Norway1235 Posts
On August 11 2012 08:47 Blazinghand wrote: You just want lots of influence if you're gonna hang out asking for mass PMs and not sending them out. You can only send out one, but you can accept as many as you want. If you are the man with the plan like I am you obviously want to receive a PM before sending your own out. Cause if you send out a PM to someone who allready sent his, there is a slim chance of getting a good alliance up and running. I want a good strong alliance, and when I got it you guys will probably vote me off for it. Butt hen my alliance will win it for me, and I will still be the winner. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
all I'm saying is a guy who holds onto his PM can't be trusted. A guy who wants to recieve lots of PMs could easily be just chillin and wanting a strong alliance, or he could ALSO BE ACTIVELY TRYING TO PREVENT OTHER ONES FROM BEING FORMED. If everyone PMs you, you can PM like the last guy and then there's no cross communication (between all these people who PMed you). You have control, and not only will you have a good alliance, you also make it so there won't be others. It's easy to say "oh I'm only PMing with 1 guy or 0 guys" in the thread but then bam alliance time is over and you'r ethe only one with a good one cause everyone else is unrecprocated. It's obvious that what you're doing is indistinguishable from anyone's point of view from shutting down other alliances. Send your damn PM like a man | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
|
Tunkeg
Norway1235 Posts
On August 11 2012 08:57 Blazinghand wrote: Ok, yes, there is of course a normal motivation for wanting to BE PMed. In fact, it's almost strictly better to be PMed than it is to PM. That doesnt' mean there isn't also a calculating one, the one I mentioned, where you jerk lots of people around who all think they're the chosen 4 to vote in a map and to draft certain civs so you and your 3 favorites can get what they want. all I'm saying is a guy who holds onto his PM can't be trusted. A guy who wants to recieve lots of PMs could easily be just chillin and wanting a strong alliance, or he could ALSO BE ACTIVELY TRYING TO PREVENT OTHER ONES FROM BEING FORMED. If everyone PMs you, you can PM like the last guy and then there's no cross communication (between all these people who PMed you). You have control, and not only will you have a good alliance, you also make it so there won't be others. It's easy to say "oh I'm only PMing with 1 guy or 0 guys" in the thread but then bam alliance time is over and you'r ethe only one with a good one cause everyone else is unrecprocated. It's obvious that what you're doing is indistinguishable from anyone's point of view from shutting down other alliances. Send your damn PM like a man There is two ways to be succesfull with your PM this game: 1) Send your PM right at the start of the game to the player you trust the most and start laying out your plan with him/her. Pro: You reach an unapproached player. Con: You might get turned down, and it is GG. 2) Wait for a player to approach you and decide whether or not you want to trust this player. Pro: You hold the control with your PM. Con: You might not get approached, or the one approaching you are allready in an alliance. If I had one player in this game which I somehow knew I could rely on I would go for 1. I probably should have gone for 1 either way, but for me it is a bigger risk then it is for you for instance (because I haven't been around lately, and because of how the others players percive me). Option 2 is also more powerfull for a reknowned player, as they are more wanted for an allied. And this is the reason why your suspicions towards my motives for doing this is wrong. There is no way I would get many PM's from the players in this game. I would say I could have gotten a couple if lucky, I was hoping for one, neither have happend, and I will probably have to fire off a desperate request for someone before I jump to bed. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
If I were in your position and I was getting desperate, I'd just shoot my PM at another lesser known player because they'd also, like you, have less chance of receiving a PM from someone. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
 Anyways, I guess I'll go lurk now. I haven't talked to Mattchew yet, so when I do and discuss our "foolproof plans" (  ) we'll send/responde PMs and shit.I don't really get why the PM thing is so important, unless you want to guarantee you have an alliance by the 2nd phase of D0 (so if you send an alliance it won't be rejected). But other than that you can try to form alliances on the next phase anyways. | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On August 11 2012 09:50 Sir Posts A Lot wrote: are alliances revealed upon death? Nope | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
It feels like I can post anything I want without any consequences: I'm a Vanilla Townie, I checked Blazinghand and he came back Balrog! Lynch him! But wait no, I'll vote someone else. Also I lied, I'm Cop, I saved the veteran from a hit. Hahaha, I feel so free! | ||
|
Sir Posts A Lot
Congo42 Posts
 | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5254 Posts
In a setup where the factions won't be neat (13 players, there will be group overlap), someone with more PM power is definitely a greater threat. I don't think people are realizing that the groups will be a bit blurry, especially since PMs aren't universal. | ||
|
s0Lstice
United States1832 Posts
| ||
| ||
