|
On January 31 2013 00:55 BinOnFire wrote:
Just playing the devil's advocate in that whole series of posts.
Why the hell were you playing devil's advocate against something that was YOUR play to begin with.
Here is the plan, as described by your hydra head:
On January 29 2013 09:41 BinOnFire wrote:
So let me rephrase my two lines of play:
1) Cast Minds Aglow T1, hope to hit Collective Voyage (very high odds if we do all draw ~10 cards), Collective Voyage T2, everyone has ~20 lands in play for T3.
2) Mulligan, hope to draw Collective Voyage (30%, I checked the math), everyone has ~10 lands in play for T2.
I like the first one - it's much safer, and leaves us all in a much stronger position on T3. Thoughts, everyone?
Picking option 1... and then:
On January 29 2013 09:45 BinOnFire wrote:
To further expand on plan 1)
Cast Minds Aglow T1, hope to hit Collective Voyage (77% if we do all draw ~10 cards), Collective Voyage T2, everyone has ~20 lands in play for T3.
Now are you saying you were not on board with this plan? Or were you and you were just engaging in a pointless discussion with someone else (me) who was on board with the plan.
I wrote it up to noobishness, but it turns out it was intentional play. Sorry, iGrok, you may be onto something.
|
My play, but there are downsides too, which like no one addressed.
After it was suggested, there was no opposition so its not like I had to push it or anything.
Look, how does that make me scummy?
/Oats
|
On January 31 2013 00:59 Clockwork Hydra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 00:55 BinOnFire wrote:
Just playing the devil's advocate in that whole series of posts. Why the hell were you playing devil's advocate against something that was YOUR play to begin with. Here is the plan, as described by your hydra head: Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 09:41 BinOnFire wrote:
So let me rephrase my two lines of play:
1) Cast Minds Aglow T1, hope to hit Collective Voyage (very high odds if we do all draw ~10 cards), Collective Voyage T2, everyone has ~20 lands in play for T3.
2) Mulligan, hope to draw Collective Voyage (30%, I checked the math), everyone has ~10 lands in play for T2.
I like the first one - it's much safer, and leaves us all in a much stronger position on T3. Thoughts, everyone? Picking option 1... and then: Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 09:45 BinOnFire wrote:
To further expand on plan 1)
Cast Minds Aglow T1, hope to hit Collective Voyage (77% if we do all draw ~10 cards), Collective Voyage T2, everyone has ~20 lands in play for T3. Now are you saying you were not on board with this plan? Or were you and you were just engaging in a pointless discussion with someone else (me) who was on board with the plan. I wrote it up to noobishness, but it turns out it was intentional play. Sorry, iGrok, you may be onto something.
that's not the post i would have used to illustrate that, but yes.
|
On January 31 2013 01:09 BinOnFire wrote:
My play, but there are downsides too, which like no one addressed.
After it was suggested, there was no opposition so its not like I had to push it or anything.
Look, how does that make me scummy?
/Oats
Here:
1. You propose a plan.
2. People discuss the plan a bit and decide that it's generally okay.
3. You decide that instead of dropping the discussion and starting to scumhunt (which you still haven't started, btw), you should discuss it more, but now you say it's a bad plan.
4. People (me) bite and it derails the thread for another few pages or so.
All this accomplishes 2 things:
1. You look busy and innocent.
2. It buries potential useful information and ensures town keeps talking about nonsense.
Is there a town explanation too? Yes. It boils down to you being an idiot. So we have to answer the question whether you are an idiot, or scum?
/Acro
|
What is your definition of scumhunting?
People (me) bite
So are you scummy for derailing the thread? Double Standerds here.
This game is really weird for me to scumhunt cause so far, 1/2 of it has been setup discussion.
However, Aperture's post was a good thing, in that it created discussion between the 3 of us. Hopefully, MORE PEOPLE WILL RESPOND TO IT.
|
On January 31 2013 01:09 BinOnFire wrote:
My play, but there are downsides too, which like no one addressed.
After it was suggested, there was no opposition so its not like I had to push it or anything.
Look, how does that make me scummy?
/Oats
So are the downsides that the mafia get stronger and can kill townies easier?
On January 29 2013 13:59 BinOnFire wrote:
Dude, did you even read my post? I don't mention zombies at all. In fact, I talk in general terms. Stronger everybody = good for town.
Of course you dont want to say that you are a selfish bastard.
I agree that the more cards you get, and the more mana you can play, the better it is for you. Also better for scum.
Town getting stronger is better because scum already start with a big fat 8/8 monster.
HOWEVER what I am saying is that its not objectively good for town.
There are pro's and con's for playing that card and all you seem to be doing is saying how good it is for town.
How does that line up with the analysis here that town get relatively stronger because mafia already start with a powerful creature?
|
His play is one big list of contradictions. At least I can stick to my word about attacking him with all my creatures.
|
So are the downsides that the mafia get stronger and can kill townies easier?
Yes, yes in fact.
How does that line up with the analysis here that town get relatively stronger because mafia already start with a powerful creature?
I dont see the contradiction.
Aperture, can you explain to me exactly what the contradictions are other than me opposing(which im not) my own play?
/Oats
|
On January 31 2013 01:28 BinOnFire wrote:
So are the downsides that the mafia get stronger and can kill townies easier?
Yes, yes in fact.
How does that line up with the analysis here that town get relatively stronger because mafia already start with a powerful creature?
I dont see the contradiction.
Aperture, can you explain to me exactly what the contradictions are other than me opposing(which im not) my own play?
/Oats
The point is that both mafia and town get stronger. In addition, as... Acro? pointed out, it should be easy enough to determine whether someone is blatantly just trying to kill off a potential townie.
My point was that if both town and mafia get stronger, but town get relatively stronger because mafia already have an 8/8 creature, how is this a downside for town?
|
On January 31 2013 01:20 BinOnFire wrote:What is your definition of scumhunting? So are you scummy for derailing the thread? Double Standerds here. This game is really weird for me to scumhunt cause so far, 1/2 of it has been setup discussion. However, Aperture's post was a good thing, in that it created discussion between the 3 of us. Hopefully, MORE PEOPLE WILL RESPOND TO IT.
I had one viewpoint:
For me: more cards = more zombies. more zombies = good thing.
For bin: more cards = more chance of getting collective voyage = more lands for everybody (except me) = good thing.
For everybody else: more cards = improved hand = good thing.
I might have gotten carried away in defending that viewpoint, but I wasn't purposefully dragging out the discussion. I honestly thought people were not understanding why more cards was a good thing.
I was NOT purposefully dragging out the discussion by inventing new opinions with the sole purpose of playing devil's advocate for my own plan. See the difference there?
/Acro
|
@Marv,
Its not a downside late game, but for example, scum could possibly set it up such that the game ends by day 3 or something with the right cards, and Minds Aglow helps them achieve that.
@Ok Acro/IGrok,
Im feel like im really bad at Mafia and MTG(LOL DISCREDITING MYSELF), but I thought that it was a good idea at the time and I still do.
I dont feel like I was purposefully dragging out the discussion either, if you felt that way, you sure didnt do anything about it.
|
On January 31 2013 01:37 BinOnFire wrote:
@Marv,
Its not a downside late game, but for example, scum could possibly set it up such that the game ends by day 3 or something with the right cards, and Minds Aglow helps them achieve that.
@Ok Acro/IGrok,
Im feel like im really bad at Mafia and MTG(LOL DISCREDITING MYSELF), but I thought that it was a good idea at the time and I still do.
I dont feel like I was purposefully dragging out the discussion either, if you felt that way, you sure didnt do anything about it.
Do you think this is likely or possible? If it is, surely it would be blatantly anti-town and no-one would have agreed to it.
Someone who's not Bin tell me if I have the wrong end of the stick about this.
-still marvelbabe
|
On January 29 2013 11:56 BinOnFire wrote:
Dont fear, it was his first post and he is leading into something, you seem AWFULLY quick to attack everybody.
Yes I think that disscussion for Minds Aglow has run its course, but it wasnt all useless.
/Oats
Then you continued to bring it up. Note the time difference between that post and this one.
|
On January 31 2013 01:39 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:37 BinOnFire wrote:
@Marv,
Its not a downside late game, but for example, scum could possibly set it up such that the game ends by day 3 or something with the right cards, and Minds Aglow helps them achieve that.
@Ok Acro/IGrok,
Im feel like im really bad at Mafia and MTG(LOL DISCREDITING MYSELF), but I thought that it was a good idea at the time and I still do.
I dont feel like I was purposefully dragging out the discussion either, if you felt that way, you sure didnt do anything about it.
Do you think this is likely or possible? If it is, surely it would be blatantly anti-town and no-one would have agreed to it. Someone who's not Bin tell me if I have the wrong end of the stick about this. -still marvelbabe
There's no way Artanis would allow a 3-turn clock deck.
I asked.
|
Can someone point a small summary on why everybody is attacking Oats right now?
Is it just him apparently going against MG's plan?
Suck, do you think he's scum?
/G
|
On January 31 2013 02:18 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote:
Can someone point a small summary on why everybody is attacking Oats right now?
Is it just him apparently going against MG's plan?
Suck, do you think he's scum?
/G
Uh, I would actually guess not. The premise would be: Bin (MG + Oats) are scum. MG provides a plan to do with this card, which either a) has the aim of looking "pro-town" b) furthers mafia agenda (mafia have some reason for this card or something).
On this basis I don't understand Oats' motivation at all for then proceeding to cast doubt on the plan. If it's good for mafia for whatever reason, they have the motivation for keeping the plan of playing this card looking as townie as possible, which is the opposite of what's been achieved.
|
On January 30 2013 22:12 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 15:54 (DontFear)ThePoster wrote:
I find these 2 consecutive "fluffy" posts of Suck and Cross where both come out of seemingly nowhere to then go AFK, both attack CH for (IMO) weak reasons, yet neither of them even mention the other.....weird, and that's an understatement.
/G Hi. I said I found Cross suspicious, and told you something I noted about it. I'm not gonna rehash what has already been said by multiple other posters. Although if it would make you happy I can have a go at rephrasing the same things again (hint: I won't do this).
I was responding to S&B's post, not yours. S&B never posted anything about Crossfire if I remember correctly, yet completely ignored him and went for CH (which even you think for weak reasons).
You also haven't mentioned Crossfire in a while...do you still think he's scummy? What about his last post, what do you think about it?
As far as I'm aware, I'm also one of the first (if not the first) to give the opinion of Stutters that his posts seemed interested and his empty promises mean nothing for alignment.
Damn marv, why would you post something like this? :/
"Hi guys! I was the first to post something about Stutters! That makes me townie right? RIGHT?"
This whole post of yours is just a big apology and has "I'm doing stuff! Here this is stuff I did in this game! This convinces you I am town right? RIGHT!!!?" all over it
That's not the town marv I know of...
On January 30 2013 23:16 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 23:14 Clockwork Hydra wrote:On January 30 2013 23:06 SuckMyTopdeck wrote:On January 30 2013 23:05 Clockwork Hydra wrote:
It's a point.
I wouldn't call it proven.
I expect it to be falsified when marv flips scum.
Carry on. Which is precisely why you and your judgement shouldn't be trusted... So get off your ass, stop taking cheap shots and show us why you're town. I've said what I want to say right now. You're the one acting like a fucking dickhead, not me, dear.
Answer this question marv please:
Do you realize why people are suspicious of you and S&B?
If you do, then some of your aggression is unwarranted and just derails the thread
If you don't.....then either I expected too much from you, you are lazy as fuck, or you are scum.
/G
|
Like, here's my theoretical scumQT conversation:
MG: Hi! I'm gonna propose we play this card, so that we can do x and y.
Scumbuddy: Cool, looks good! Make sure you make it sound good, but this looks good super good to us
Oats: Right! Now we've passed that off without hitch, I'm gonna go cast doubt on it!
Scumbuddy/MG: Awesome plan bro, go do it!
|
^ If Bin is somehow scum, I attribute it to Oats just fucking up accidentally I take it.
Although he'd have to monumentally fuck up, unless it was their plan all along.
Something like:
MG: Damn, I am scum and have this super pro-town deck. I NEED to use it, if not people will obviously get suspicious of me
Oats: I know, you post the plan, but I'll attack it! You go AFK so you can't defend it, but I'll attack it and convince people not to use it. That way we appear pro-town for following up on our "pro-town" plan (because you are pushing it), yet we don't actually go through with it because I convince people not to!
Although these "scumQT conversations" rarely happen when it comes down to what people post.
/G
|
Suck, everybody seems to assume there is at least 1 scum hydra
Do you agree with this assertion? If so who would you say is the scum hydra?
Bin? Seems you don't think that (and apparently you don't think CH and me are either)
Aperture? Or maybe....Rock?
/G
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
