|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On August 11 2012 08:01 EchelonTee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 07:54 Atki Wiglegs wrote:
As well, I wish to communicate that this talk of map selection is most likely simple posturing for advantage. If I were to tell you I would like to play on the island map, one could easily infer that I had the plan of choosing a sea-faring civilization. The same applies to other maps that favour certain civilizations. EchelonTee's last post is simply an example of this. Look at how he makes arguments for why the Mediterranean map would be best for everyone. Then look at his choice of civilization, Saracen. Why infer and speculate when you can read my post to clearly see my intentions? Show nested quote +Therefore, I will be voting for mediterranean. Am I trying to sway votes to a map choice that I would prefer? Of course, I do enjoy winning. But unless you can get a band of people you can trust to form some a wombo combo strat (all seafaring nations in an alliance), it's best for all of us to pick one of the more stable map choices. You make it seem like I am trying to pull a fast one, when I clearly say in my post why I consider a land/sea map beneficial both to the general public, and to myself. I am not "most likely" posturing for an advantage, I am posturing for an advantage, but hope that others can see how it would benefit them as well. I feel like this game will play out like "Phantom" in SC2. One random dude will remain hidden for a while and then BOOM, we all dead.
Or, one dude will openly push his objectives in the thread and try to spin it so it looks like it's good for every player. Well, not every player is playing Saracens. I don't think you were being deceptive, but I see no reason to vote for a map that favors any nation but my own and that of my allies. This much seems clear to me.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
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.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 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 States25562 Posts
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
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
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
I'm not saying you HAVE to be doing it, I'm saying that not PMing is the same as doing it as far as other people can see. You gotta give a little to get a little, you know what I mean?
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On the other hand, that's literally what you'd say if all of my suspicions are true, right? I mean, you'd want to keep up the veneer of "not having been PMed" so that more people would PM you. You make a good point in that you're not the most famous player in this game, though.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On August 12 2012 00:57 rastaban wrote:Mt choices are in, and I took [1][1] cant let any other greedy pigs get it! 
I actually went with [19][19], safest picks imo
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
The purpose of the lynch is for the weaker players to band together and take out anyone who gets too strong.
That's all it's for. We're ALL the informed minorities, and we're all uninformed majorities relative to each other. The lynch isn't about scumhunting, it's about "people your faction can't kill at night" hunting. We don't even have alliances yet, what do you think we should discuss? This isn't "scum vs town", the fact that it's quiet in the thread isn't a problem at all.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
>.> we can't even make alliances yet. I'm not telling you who I've PMed or who's PMed me, and you won't get me to. I have nothing to say to you.
You can't even trust anyone you've used your sole PM on, or has PMed you, since for all you know they're jerking you around.
And you certainly can't trust Tunkeg.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
In fact, fishing for who I'm PMing with is kinda a dick move. I'm not asking you who's PMing you, am I? Of course, your "official" story is that you're all alone, etc etc
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
But... we're literally not in the phase where you can make alliances. Are you even playing this game? Did you read the rules? You're doing a good job of trying to convince me you're not in charge of a big group, but the newb card can only be played so much before it looks suspicious.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
I can assure you 100% i'm trying to form a powerful alliance with every tool at my disposal, btw. But whether or not this is successful I won't know until the alliance phase happens and I see who's allying me back
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On August 13 2012 05:34 EchelonTee wrote:
My opinion is that if Blazinghand wasn't in a power alliance, I would be disappointed.
So would I. My highest win chance is in a large alliance.
Everyone's trying for a powerful alliance, I assume, and anyone who thinks or tells you otherwise is yanking your chain.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On August 13 2012 05:36 Tunkeg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:34 EchelonTee wrote:
My opinion is that if Blazinghand wasn't in a power alliance, I would be disappointed. And if he is in a poweralliance you wouldn't be interested in having him lynched to weaken that alliance?
If anyone is in a power alliance I'm not in, I'm interested in lynching them. It doesn't matter who they are.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Like to be 100% clear: Always lynch during the day whoever was strongest at night in terms of army, resources allies etc, assuming he's not in your alliance... this was clear to me just from reading the setup. If I turn out to be the strongest player in a strong alliance, I have no doubt I'll get lynched. Is anyone confused about this? Tunkeg doesn't seem to understand that the fact that I'm a skilled town player has nothing to do with anything in this game. All that matters is Alliances and your power, and optimal lynches will be on players who are strong during the night phase.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Whether or not people like each other is irrelevant, though. I dislike literally everyone. You've played with me.
This whole idea of "reputations" is BS. You get a strong group by demonstrating your value. I've played AoE before, and I have an idea of what units are good. I posted that in the thread, hoping to attract PMs and hoping that whoever I PMed would think me valuable and not double-cross me.
Now, why would you play the "nobody likes me" card? Because you clearly want to APPEAR that you're in a weak group. Maybe that's because you are, in fact, going to be in a weak group. Maybe nobody PMed you, and the guy you PMed told you to screw off. But I don't think that's the case. I think you've been active in the thread and naturally attracted PMs.
What I'm interested in seeing is what happens once the alliance phase begins and people have actual teams, because that's when the real game starts. Maybe then I'll be in a strong alliance, or maybe I'll be in a weak one, or even alone if I'm screwed over. I'd like to think I can make some sort of case that I'm in a weak alliance, but saying "wahh nobody likes me" is not a case for you being in a weak alliance. There aren't even alliances yet.
In any case, I don't see any reason to talk with you any more. If you think MrZ, ET, and I are all out to get you, that's fine. I think you're just trying to look bad so you don't get lynched.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Do I have a curly mustache and a goatee? Awesome
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On August 13 2012 06:19 Tunkeg wrote:
Also all of you who haven't posted at all, what the fuck is up with that? I know you are just bowing down to your überlords and accepting their notion that there is nothing to discuss at the moment. This while they sit around laughing at how easy they are getting away with their plots and schemes. Get into the thread and start playing, don't just sit around and let yourself be outplayed!
People who haven't posted could easily be outplaying you or me or ET... there are PMs you now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
