|
On April 04 2013 22:46 Restraining Order wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 22:44 Oatsmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 22:41 Restraining Order wrote:On April 04 2013 22:39 Oatsmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 22:36 Restraining Order wrote:On April 04 2013 22:35 Caller wrote: oim tellin ya gits just do wot i say. any mo discussin' of deez bad scummy planz iz gonna be a big' ol scum flag fo me. so if you don' wanna incur da wrath of khaller i sugest ya gitz find somethin' else to dizcus. in meantime, just folo mah straterjee, oite? You mean, as opposed to claiming, you want people to claim. After you said claiming is nonsense and doesn't work. New rule, whoever tries to get someone lynched of a joke is scum. RO is scum. Am I mafia independently of the first sentence, or did I already try to get someone lynched without myself noticing? Pointing out contradictions is pointing out that the dude is lying and therefore scum. So yeah. Also WHO ARE YOU If I wanted to point out a person is mafia, I would have pointed out a person is mafia. However, I did no such thing.
pshhhh
words.
Intention is far more important than mere WORDS. Why did you phrase that 'question' to Caller in a way to appear like you are discrediting him?
|
On April 04 2013 22:46 Restraining Order wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 22:44 Oatsmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 22:41 Restraining Order wrote:On April 04 2013 22:39 Oatsmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 22:36 Restraining Order wrote:On April 04 2013 22:35 Caller wrote: oim tellin ya gits just do wot i say. any mo discussin' of deez bad scummy planz iz gonna be a big' ol scum flag fo me. so if you don' wanna incur da wrath of khaller i sugest ya gitz find somethin' else to dizcus. in meantime, just folo mah straterjee, oite? You mean, as opposed to claiming, you want people to claim. After you said claiming is nonsense and doesn't work. New rule, whoever tries to get someone lynched of a joke is scum. RO is scum. Am I mafia independently of the first sentence, or did I already try to get someone lynched without myself noticing? Pointing out contradictions is pointing out that the dude is lying and therefore scum. So yeah. Also WHO ARE YOU If I wanted to point out a person is mafia, I would have pointed out a person is mafia. However, I did no such thing. ok, RO is confirmed for scum. Let's lynch him.
|
On April 04 2013 22:47 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 22:32 raynpelikoneet wrote:Forced VT claim: is an attempt to understand whether "key roles" are in the game. The action itself should not be used to establish individuals as confirmed town/scum. The problem with this is that town has no way of knowing who is lying and who is telling the truth. Scum know who is lying and who is telling the truth. The information we gain is only reliable for mafia at the start of the game. It gives mafia more opportunities to fakeclaim, bullshit, or tell the truth if it benefits them the most, and make plans that revolve around those things. And you have no way of figuring out which is it. If mafia is wise and plays it right there is no way town is going to win anything from this compared to mafia. RO: Thoughts on this? Nothing I have not already said.
|
That's true rayn, the plan does rely on the players that step up to be town. However it isn't a downside because the alternative is using no plan in which case scum can pick good roles anyway. Using this plan doesn't mean that the players that follow the RNG idea are instantly labeled town for the rest of the game. They'd still be under scrutiny. All it does is make it riskier for scum to pick one or two of the roles we consider the strongest for them.
|
On April 04 2013 22:48 Restraining Order wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 22:47 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 04 2013 22:32 raynpelikoneet wrote:Forced VT claim: is an attempt to understand whether "key roles" are in the game. The action itself should not be used to establish individuals as confirmed town/scum. The problem with this is that town has no way of knowing who is lying and who is telling the truth. Scum know who is lying and who is telling the truth. The information we gain is only reliable for mafia at the start of the game. It gives mafia more opportunities to fakeclaim, bullshit, or tell the truth if it benefits them the most, and make plans that revolve around those things. And you have no way of figuring out which is it. If mafia is wise and plays it right there is no way town is going to win anything from this compared to mafia. RO: Thoughts on this? Nothing I have not already said. You seem to be disagreeing with me here. What is wrong in what i said?
|
Im against organized role claim by the way.
I think role claiming should be only done if the player in question makes the decision on his/her own.
Thoughts?
|
Holy shit thread moving fast.
On April 04 2013 22:49 Artanis[Xp] wrote: That's true rayn, the plan does rely on the players that step up to be town. However it isn't a downside because the alternative is using no plan in which case scum can pick good roles anyway. Using this plan doesn't mean that the players that follow the RNG idea are instantly labeled town for the rest of the game. They'd still be under scrutiny. All it does is make it riskier for scum to pick one or two of the roles we consider the strongest for them. was in response to
On April 04 2013 22:45 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 22:42 Artanis[Xp] wrote:On April 04 2013 18:57 Artanis[Xp] wrote: I have a better plan for the Yamato plan, if you do decide to go through with it. If we have people that look suffeciently town, are early in the list and are willing to follow the plan, they could RNG between blocking a role and taking a 'real' role themselves without revealing which one they'd want to pick. It would create a risk too great for scum to pick that role unless they're going to WIFOM about if the town player would actually do it or not, and it'd give a 50% shot for the town player to actually still get a useful role. It's less certain than the Yamato plan but I think it puts town in a better position. It could have the same net effect yet have a higher chance for town to get more blues. No one's actually addressed this yet, especially Yamato which I find strange as it's an improvement upon his plan. I'd propose we use it for 2 roles at the most though. Past that, it just becomes too unreliable. I don't like the VT claiming idea. Players that ended up with a VT role are still important to town in one way: Taking hits that would otherwise land on blues. I don't think the info gained on roles is worth this downside. There might be exceptions in certain situations (such as a player high up in the list claiming VT when he tried to pick a scummy role), but as the norm I'd be against it. I don't think that's a good idea either. Scum can easily pick good roles for them by "blocking" a good scum role and in LYLO just BAM - ggnore. Also if town blocks a role scum can leave them alive to be WIFOMed to death later.
|
On April 04 2013 22:49 Artanis[Xp] wrote: That's true rayn, the plan does rely on the players that step up to be town. However it isn't a downside because the alternative is using no plan in which case scum can pick good roles anyway. Using this plan doesn't mean that the players that follow the RNG idea are instantly labeled town for the rest of the game. They'd still be under scrutiny. All it does is make it riskier for scum to pick one or two of the roles we consider the strongest for them. I think the best plan is that everyone picks whatever they think it's best for the town. People are anyways going to claim roles later on in the game. Then we figure out if they are lying/telling the truth, is there a town or scum motivation for them to pick the role they did and/or does their explanation make sense from town/scum PoV.
|
On April 04 2013 22:49 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 22:48 Restraining Order wrote:On April 04 2013 22:47 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 04 2013 22:32 raynpelikoneet wrote:Forced VT claim: is an attempt to understand whether "key roles" are in the game. The action itself should not be used to establish individuals as confirmed town/scum. The problem with this is that town has no way of knowing who is lying and who is telling the truth. Scum know who is lying and who is telling the truth. The information we gain is only reliable for mafia at the start of the game. It gives mafia more opportunities to fakeclaim, bullshit, or tell the truth if it benefits them the most, and make plans that revolve around those things. And you have no way of figuring out which is it. If mafia is wise and plays it right there is no way town is going to win anything from this compared to mafia. RO: Thoughts on this? Nothing I have not already said. You seem to be disagreeing with me here. What is wrong in what i said? The thought is not necessarily wrong, but I wouldn't (and don't) worry too much about it. You prefer to worry, that's fine too. Not much to add.
|
On April 04 2013 22:51 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 22:49 Artanis[Xp] wrote: That's true rayn, the plan does rely on the players that step up to be town. However it isn't a downside because the alternative is using no plan in which case scum can pick good roles anyway. Using this plan doesn't mean that the players that follow the RNG idea are instantly labeled town for the rest of the game. They'd still be under scrutiny. All it does is make it riskier for scum to pick one or two of the roles we consider the strongest for them. I think the best plan is that everyone picks whatever they think it's best for the town. People are anyways going to claim roles later on in the game. Then we figure out if they are lying/telling the truth, is there a town or scum motivation for them to pick the role they did and/or does their explanation make sense from town/scum PoV. Why is that better than the plan I proposed? You wouldn't even necessarily have to go through with the RNG rolling, just claim to. It'll already reduce the chance of scum picking that role.
|
On April 04 2013 22:51 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 22:49 Artanis[Xp] wrote: That's true rayn, the plan does rely on the players that step up to be town. However it isn't a downside because the alternative is using no plan in which case scum can pick good roles anyway. Using this plan doesn't mean that the players that follow the RNG idea are instantly labeled town for the rest of the game. They'd still be under scrutiny. All it does is make it riskier for scum to pick one or two of the roles we consider the strongest for them. I think the best plan is that everyone picks whatever they think it's best for the town. People are anyways going to claim roles later on in the game. Then we figure out if they are lying/telling the truth, is there a town or scum motivation for them to pick the role they did and/or does their explanation make sense from town/scum PoV. this guys i also confirmed for scum [b]##FOS[b]
|
I also think all the plans are hilariously scum favoured, there is a reason why dudes dont claim unless they have to or are VE.
|
EBWOP: All the plans that involve claiming and stuff related to that
|
alrighit guys i have an actual plan
its very simple: we kill the visceraeyes.
##vote:VisceraEyes
|
On April 04 2013 23:07 Caller wrote: alrighit guys i have an actual plan
its very simple: we kill the visceraeyes.
##vote:VisceraEyes He doesnt have 10 pages of filter yet.
I agree.
Even if I cant lynch him
|
On April 04 2013 23:10 Oatsmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 23:07 Caller wrote: alrighit guys i have an actual plan
its very simple: we kill the visceraeyes.
##vote:VisceraEyes He doesnt have 10 pages of filter yet. I agree. Even if I cant lynch him now
|
If we're going to policy lynch I'd rather lynch Vivax.
|
this aint a policy lynch, this is me just wanting to kill visceraeyes
|
Is there an ingame reason for it?
|
WEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEE
Late start.
If you want to argue about the setup, please read the last PYP game like this before doing so. Same discussions. I think there is reasonable discussion there that we don't need to have again. If you're arguing about how we choose roles/numbers/whatever this game without reading that or referencing it, you're doing yourself a disservice, and you're spamming up the thread in a way that isn't helpful.
This game is different in two major ways that I see. (1) Different role list. (2) Some players getting bonuses for picking a specific type of role. I like the ideas from the older PYP of denying certain strong mafia roles (Janitor is VERY powerful, think of how much damage a 12-hour delayed SINGLE flip caused in Personality 2. Now imagine a N1 janitor usage in a game full of PYP-ed KP roles, and 4-5 flips FOREVER hidden. No bueno). Multi-KP roles, Janitor, other roles are things that we NEED to deny as town. In this game "pick the best role for town" often equals "deny mafia their best role" because they will often be able to use a role super-optimally where town can't (town doc doesn't always save, mafia KP role always hits townies, stuff like that). Once we have a picking order, we SHOULD be assigning some roles, and I also like RNGing some roles so that scum can't 100% know what's left and what's not. Any scum receiving VT is FANTASTIC for us.
Artanis, we can both block roles AND RNG. They did last game and it made some sense. Check the bit on how (1), (2), and (3) in that game were supposed to pick.
seriously though, if you're going back and forth with someone(s) about whether we should do x or y, at the very least go read the last game. Especially Qatol's posts, which tended to be super sensible and concise. We want to plan for the best draft we can get. Reading their planning stages, and how it played out for them, should be part of our planning.
|
|
|
|