|
Okay so this is actually really interesting - it's not what I expected, one-shot roles neither get "upgraded" nor "removed" which narrows down the possible TT setups by a lot.
Also - C's have to come in pairs, whereas you have to have an odd number of V's or B's.
One consequence: the only situation in which there are no additional blue roles is in TTTTTMV, if BH is the serial killer and there are no remaining scum.
These are all TT setups where BH and H1 are telling the truth
You'll note that there are no B setups here. That's because any possible TT setup including a vig, a JK, a miller, and a roleblocker, would have either a one-shot JK or a one-shot roleblocker, and thus be bumped up to three T's.
Now, let's look at the cases where BH is lying, but we're still in a TT setup.
- TTMMMVB
- TTMVVVB
- TTMVCCB
- TTMVBBB
Now, with this new information, I can actually start to get to grips with the single-T setups.
If BH is telling the truth we have
- TMMMVDB
- TMVVVDB
- TMVDCCB
- TMVDBBB
If BH is lying we have
- TMMMVVV
- TMMMVCC
- TMVVVCC
- TMVCCCC
Then finally there are the zero-T setups
where BH is telling the truth:
- MMMDVVV
- MMMDVCC
- MDVVVCC
- MDVCCCC
Where BH is lying:
- MMMVVVB
- MMMVBBB
- MMMCCCC
- MVVVBBB
- MVBBBCC
- MVBCCCC
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
|
Okay sorry I said the last one would be my last question but that's a lie. In the mafiascum C9++, VVV gives a vigilante plus a one-shot vigilante. If your setup generator rolled VVV would that become two one-shot vigilantes or would the setup become VTT?
(I found your setup generator but I don't know how to read the source code)
|
The answers lie in the way the stars align when a full moon over the Mongolian steppes is half-covered with a cloud.
In the lands of our ancestors, where the wolf roamed free, you will find the difference between VTT and VVV.
|
the way that keirathi deals with one-shot roles or multi-shot vigilantes actually makes the (already unlikely) 0T or 1T setups even less likely. Like, those setups are extremely unlikely to happen.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
This game will be characterized as "everyone thinks BH is scum -> everyone reluctantly forced to admit BH is town but thinks he's bad -> everyone reluctantly forced to admit BH is mvp of this game"
and somewhere in the middle someone will also say "wow i can't believe there's so much setup speculation instead of real case-making and analysis"
|
actually keirathi there might be a problem with your setup generator
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9dEjk.png)
TTTTT shouldn't have a roleblocker, it should just have goon+gf
Unless the scum roles you're using are different from the mafiascum/mafiawiki c9++ roles
|
On November 19 2012 07:09 strongandbig wrote:
Okay sorry I said the last one would be my last question but that's a lie. In the mafiascum C9++, VVV gives a vigilante plus a one-shot vigilante. If your setup generator rolled VVV would that become two one-shot vigilantes or would the setup become VTT?
(I found your setup generator but I don't know how to read the source code)
I think I did it the same was as Doc/RB. IE, 3 V's would give 2 one-shot vigs, 2 V's would give a V and a T.
|
On November 19 2012 07:28 strongandbig wrote:actually keirathi there might be a problem with your setup generator + Show Spoiler +TTTTT shouldn't have a roleblocker, it should just have goon+gf Unless the scum roles you're using are different from the mafiascum/mafiawiki c9++ roles
Oops. Was a <= when it should have just been a <. Not my fault no one wanted to beta test and I didn't catch all the bugs 
|
okay listen up guys
I thought of this on the way back from work.
If we massclaim, it will instantly confirm half of the town.
The scum will have to either claim a blue role, or claim VT.
We look at the blue roles that get claimed, we back out the DCTVetc, and we calculate "for this set of blue roles, how many VTs should there be"
Then there will either be too many or too few VT claims. If there's too many, all the blues are confirmed. If there's too few, all the VTs are confirmed and one of the blues is scum.
sup now blazingasshole
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
I categorically refuse to legitimize any sort of setup-speculation based mass claim. Obviously I can't choose not to claim at this point but the claim-decision should be in the hands of the final blue. SnB, I think you'd be much much better served arguing your case to the blue than to the VTs. VTs claiming and outing our last blue is bad if he doesn't want to be outed.
Really, though, the only person who has the right to initiate a mass claim is the blue. If he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't have to, and if he does want to do it, that's his prerogative-- and no-one else's.
|
This fucking setup speculation....everyone is now VT. Congrats.
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
And also, like, it was always obvious a mass claim would end up either with "we lynch into the blues" or "we lynch into the VTs" depending on whether there's the right number of each or not. I'm not sure how this is a new revelation lol
|
I lynch into Z-bo's wagon
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On November 19 2012 08:15 Hopeless1der wrote:
I lynch into Z-bo's wagon
+1
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
Though I mean SnB has a point, however addled his thinking may be: If there is an extra blue, then we should lynch into the blue claims where they overlap with the ZB wagon.
|
I doubt we get any 'extra blue' shenanigans with the amount of people playing Setup-Hunter
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
which puts us, of course, in the same position: VTs mass-claiming only outs the blue (though I suppose he could fake-claim VT) without him wanting to claim. any mass claim MUST be initiated by the blue, NOT by the VTs.
|
or we should have everyone claim scum! Then we just figure out who is telling the truth and lynch them!
Reverse psychology
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
dood debears that is best idea
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
