EPTI have a personal rule against posting at this time, but I simply must, so I will be brief and to the point
Dandel...
I Love you.
+ Show Spoiler +
At some time when my personal rules allow I will explain why
Ego Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
I have a personal rule against posting at this time, but I simply must, so I will be brief and to the point Dandel... + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
it was sign I still wanted to play another game now.... /in Skip is actually way cleverer than he let on (had time to show) last game, he knows lots of things. Sometimes I think Skips playing the game, and I am his fictional sidekick... nah... must be dreamin. Skip: Down Wait Watch Thread. ... Skip: Fetch meta Good night all. Skip will be watching, while he fetches... Don't feel alarmed or paranoid or anything like that, skips very friendly dog, unless of course... | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [LOL] + On April 05 2013 04:35 WaveofShadow wrote: Whass mean 3rd party 'lyncher?' Neva hoid of it. Google is your friend, well he is my friend. Also i might suggest that the existence of some aspects of this setup mean that doing whatever it is you normally do when night one ends... (that is if you are lucky/good/bad enough to still be alive...) may no longer be the wisest course of action. I would suggest that as Dandel presumably knows the set-up... his advice of "Please consult your brain if you want advice on playing the game." may be the best you're going to get. Even if some people 'soft claim' it is not that useful in their case. On April 05 2013 08:41 iamperfection wrote: im trying a new style by the way just going to throw that out there and ill be gone for a few hours before we start. hey that was my schtick.... get yer own... damn you Iamp. Axle: hey Skip stop fetching meta, Skip: Woofity Woof woof woff. Axle: Oh what!! you've been chasing rabbits... bad dog. Axle: I suppose that is fair enough though I was counting sheep. Axle: Skip; Fetch me a new Schtick Skip: Woof! Skip: schtick + Show Spoiler + see next post, schtick starts there. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 05 2013 10:42 WaveofShadow wrote: Hey Axle, if you're still around, what do you make of rayn flitting about the thread thus far? I liken him unto a chicken without a head, spraying blood and entrails wherever his dying nervous system directs him. Personally I am loathe to pay him any more mind than this but it would be nice to get a fresh opinion on the matter before partaking of other more worldly pursuits. Yeah I am around, and I am now up to here the first time. There is indeed a lot of noise. As mentioned I don't yet have my meta ducks in row. So I don't have have much understanding of what level of misdirection is most plausible. The vote on Iamp seems out of place, with what I had been thinking. My question is did he know what I would be thinking when he chose to do that...? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 05 2013 10:59 raynpelikoneet wrote: Axle, Why is WoS town? raypinokeet, why did you stop beating your wife? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 05 2013 10:51 Palmar wrote: yeah scummy ace I have my eyes on you ##FoS Ace I'll be watching you careful or I might PUT A VOTE ON YOU I am curious. I don't yet have any meta on you apart from memory... Can you direct me to any game in which you ##FOS a player? Id like to see under what conditions you normally do that? ##Fos Palmar I'll be watching you (but doing other things) I'd suggest you be careful or I might put vote on you... except that you'd just ignore that, hence it would be pointless but its the questions I ask that are the problem. @WOS. While the anchor you gave me here, is anice anchor and all that jazz, having had quick look at his Red team filter Then yes your description of a headless chook seems about right. Was there any reason you thought we should lynch a headless chook? and yes, just before you run off here you can have your "headless chook" read back for now I would need to see something directly scummy, rather than just noisily anti town.. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 05 2013 17:20 Palmar wrote: Going to be nice cause I think you're hilarious. That post is clearly a troll post, anyone who knows me knows I absolutely despise any kind of warning play and soft pushing. It's terrible. I made the post in response to iamperfection's genuinely terrible post above. So "soft pushing. It's terrible." ok got that. (I assume that means somewhat indicative of scumminess.) Your post (indirectly to Iamp), by parodying Iamps pushing, by yourself pushing Ace Softly... that is you trolling, and that is not you pushing Iamp softly because you hate that? So if I see someone else do that they 'are terrible' and when you do its trolling... When I grow up I want meta just like yours. Oh, I think your hilarious too, but it has little impact on whether I think you are scum ... You telling me however that you are going to be nice... That's you trolling again right? but I dont remember anyone else buddying in thread recently | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 06 2013 06:47 sciberbia wrote: @WoS + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 10:42 WaveofShadow wrote: Hey Axle, if you're still around, what do you make of rayn flitting about the thread thus far? I liken him unto a chicken without a head, spraying blood and entrails wherever his dying nervous system directs him. Personally I am loathe to pay him any more mind than this but it would be nice to get a fresh opinion on the matter before partaking of other more worldly pursuits. You do seem to be inviting Axle to give his opinion on rayn's alignment, so I think rayn's summary of your post was fair. On the other hand, Axle did seem to have misinterpreted your intentions, but I don't see why bad reading comprehension is suspicious in and of itself. I highly doubt he intentionally lied about what you >>>said<<<. Also, do you actually want to lynch Ace today? Just because you think he is good at scum? You have I believe brought this up once or twice, yet not pushed me directly on it all.... Do you have question for me? I have one for you. I think you will find that if you read my post carefully, you will find I used the word .... [b]'thought'[b]. He had indeed not [b]said[b] he wanted to (potentially?) lynch him, he had however made inflammatory remarks likely to elicit an emotive response, by asking me to post on the subject he had in some sense handed me a metaphorical anchor. I (effectively)thanked him and gave it back. I was as careful as I could be to not be further inflammatory myself. If he did not indeed 'think' such posting style could be indicative of scuminess or used as shield to hide/obscure scummy play whenever you do roll scum, and hence part of a potential reason to lynch someone... Why is it relevant to the thread and what scum hunting intention/thought did he have in making the post? All I am left with its inflammatory nature. @Sciberbia: Questions. have you asked your self these Questions? Do you know something I don't? BTW. I did try not to make the question too hard... I provided one version of the answer at the bottom of the post. All someone had to do to answer the question was read what I said, and actually try and understand what I was saying, and either agree with what I said "I would need to see something directly scummy, rather than just noisily anti town.." or provide your own view. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 06 2013 23:54 sciberbia wrote: Hey guys. I just have a few minutes. Axle, I don't have any questions for you. I don't think anything you posted was scummy. Palmar/marv you are wrong about my alignment. I'm busy today but in 7 or 8 hours from now I can sit down and have a chat. I also don't know why you think I'm scum with WoS. I'm thinking town on WoS if you couldn't tell from my posts earlier. For lack of time, I'll just post my notes: 2) WaveofShadow - claims town in first post when he knows it may draw attention - draws attention by making multi-line posts and not spamming - in and out of thread - huge-ass post for no reason - conspiracy theory (?) with Axle and Rayn - "you got me" post about his vote on Ace - philosophical problem with Ace/prplhz CONCLUSION: thinking town Even though I think it was Marv that suggested it, I am not sure why WoS being scum would make you scum. It could do, but that is a preflip association case. My problem is even if WoS is town, scum know who is town and know they can defend them for the towny cred if they get flipped. ##vote Sciberbia | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On April 07 2013 00:40 AxleGreaser wrote: Even though I think it was Marv that suggested it, I am not sure why WoS being scum would make you scum. It could do, but that is a preflip association case. My problem is even if WoS is town, scum know who is town and know they can defend them for the towny cred if they get flipped. ##vote Sciberbia back here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18217152 I asked scrib some questions about how he viewed WoS and why scrib interpreted certain posts in certain ways. Specifically i was concerned that Scrib had been just assuming WoS was town for some reason, and not wondering why WoS had been posting stuff or wondering what WoS had been thinking was good reason for posting stuff. To me there appeared to be a significant lack of suspicion of WoS intentions. This latest post, shows a number of reasons that scrib thinks WoS is town, to me none of them are consistent with a townie mindset or level of suspicion. We are not yet at Hammer time, I don't intend to make hammer case. I feel it deserves another vote. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 07 2013 01:02 marvellosity wrote: Hey Axle. You were extremely active and townie in the game you just got nightkilled Night 1 in. Here you're far more absent and sporadic. Any particular reason? yeah some... How many would you like... Its 2:22 here so here is brain dump... stop reading if you get bored. "extremely active?" it was 3 pages in 48 hrs http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=404818&user=290296&user=290296 This is less yes. In noir i had 3 days before the game to read everyones meta... so I walked in pre armed. In noir, the actual game dynamic left a bunch of other players on one wagon and not saying lot. In this game, Marv and Palmar and Ace are playing in the other game they were not. That changes the dynamics, aka the context of the game. For instance I would question why prplhz has vote parked on me and no other active interest... but apparently AFAIK that is not relevant today. In the last game there was no one that could say that that I would have listened to. I now have a better understanding of the random bullshit phase. I was interested, in seeing which people felt guilty enough, that as the thread wound down they needed to go on justifying themselves. This one I signed up went to be woke up and the game had already started... The lack of 48hr D1 deadline means I didn't see the need to hurry. During the 24hr period when I didn't post, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18206825 I was specifically interested in watching Scrib WoS and Rayn if nothing else, if they were the candidates (I know you say you like Rayn I am not sure why) I thought it would be easiest for the towny ones to float to the top, if there were not a bunch of people prodding at them. I feel I have less to prove now in terms of actual competence. I was specifically trying to acquire a meta for being able analyse and observe stuff. Finally house guest. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 06 2013 23:54 sciberbia wrote: Hey guys. I just have a few minutes. Axle, I don't have any questions for you. I don't think anything you posted was scummy. Palmar/marv you are wrong about my alignment. I'm busy today but in 7 or 8 hours from now I can sit down and have a chat. I also don't know why you think I'm scum with WoS. I'm thinking town on WoS if you couldn't tell from my posts earlier. For lack of time, I'll just post my notes: 2) WaveofShadow - claims town in first post when he knows it may draw attention - draws attention by making multi-line posts and not spamming - in and out of thread - huge-ass post for no reason - conspiracy theory (?) with Axle and Rayn - "you got me" post about his vote on Ace - philosophical problem with Ace/prplhz CONCLUSION: thinking town The distinctions I was making in this post were fine distinctions. I was indeed 'reaching' for the idea that perhaps you were not considering why/ (what intention)/ (what thought) was behind and motivated WoS This post My post was about WoS's towny intentions. (dropping emotive stuff and leaving, i found hard to put a towny intention on) That you have still not apparently gone back and considered, why WoS made that post that I was initially concerned about, is to me concerning. In the post above, you give what I think I can loosely describe as bunch of heuristics, do this and your scum, don't do this and your not. What I don't see there is you considering the purpose of the actions. I am sorry, I just found where you did...? On April 06 2013 06:47 sciberbia wrote: @WoS + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 10:42 WaveofShadow wrote: Hey Axle, if you're still around, what do you make of rayn flitting about the thread thus far? I liken him unto a chicken without a head, spraying blood and entrails wherever his dying nervous system directs him. Personally I am loathe to pay him any more mind than this but it would be nice to get a fresh opinion on the matter before partaking of other more worldly pursuits. You do seem to be inviting Axle to give his opinion on rayn's alignment, so I think rayn's summary of your post was fair. On the other hand, Axle did seem to have misinterpreted your intentions, but I don't see why bad reading comprehension is suspicious in and of itself. I highly doubt he intentionally lied about what you said. Also, do you actually want to lynch Ace today? Just because you think he is good at scum? If I misinterpreted his intentions.... (as looking for someone to Lynch... or commenting on characteristics of people that could make them someone to Lynch, or ..) How did you interpret the intention of this Post? On April 05 2013 10:42 WaveofShadow wrote: Hey Axle, if you're still around, what do you make of rayn flitting about the thread thus far? I liken him unto a chicken without a head, spraying blood and entrails wherever his dying nervous system directs him. Personally I am loathe to pay him any more mind than this but it would be nice to get a fresh opinion on the matter before partaking of other more worldly pursuits. In particular what did the graphic visual nature, do but inspire further emotive knee jerk posts? BTW writing this post Started before Scribs here and while stuff seems to be happening around the WoS Lynch for me that does not effect whether or not Scrib was considering why WoS did things. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 07 2013 03:36 Dandel Ion wrote: Votecount: sciberbia (1): AxleGreaser WaveofShadow (6): Tunkeg, marvellosity, Palmar, prplhz, Oatsmaster, raynpelikoneet Oatsmaster (1): DarthPunk prplhz (2): iamperfection, WaveofShadow Not voting (2): sciberbia, Ace 7 votes needed to lynch. L-1 atm. Well yeah, I was not current.... on WoS | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 07 2013 03:27 WaveofShadow wrote: Oh I figure I may as well give you a little more to go on since you're all pretty dead-set on killing me. I don't like the idea of scib hard-defending me either., I'm thinking he's taking a page from kita's book in The Game where he's trying to get me to give him a townread so that he looks real good when I flip. Null for now but defs keep an eye on him. Personally all the business with Oats/DP/iamp/whoever just seems to me like townies going at townies. DP seems very town to me specifically. In this game I think scum are much more likely to be in the lurky category. Prplhz and Ace/Axle? Would you give us more to go on if we were not about to? and why only a little if you are so sure you're about to be lynched? On April 07 2013 03:34 WaveofShadow wrote: Lol. Are you serious? I REALLY dislike your play. If I could somehow make it seem worthwhile for the town to lynch you, I would. So this time you definitely say want to lynch him, do you find players when you "REALLY dislike your(rayns) play" have tendency to flip scum? On April 07 2013 03:37 WaveofShadow wrote: So where's the hammer, bros? Something holding you back? Ace apparently wants to keep me alive for some reason, scib thinks I'm town so it won't be them. Iamp? Axle? Gotta be one of you two. I live in the wrong time zone, and went to sleep so I could be awake when scrib came back. However you have apparently not read my meta, from noir (ongoing game), I wouldn't hammer you yet I had more questions.. + Show Spoiler [LOL personal request] + (BTW if someone sees noir end, pls unless you need to, still dont talk about what happened after n1) Cant see why you would, but Id like to read it without flips later. On April 07 2013 03:41 WaveofShadow wrote: No, you are wrong and I have shown you to be wrong; your reading comprehension is shit bad. I have only just now mentioned wanting to lynch you---I defy you to show me anywhere else in my filter I have said so. Marv, Scib doesn't look great to me but I'm not sure of him either way. It's entirely possible he's hard defending me because he is, you know, actually RIGHT about me, but due to the conspiracy-theory-esque nature of my thinking that I just can't seem to ditch, I automatically assume ulterior motives which is not enough to vote him in my opinion. I will ask you very explicitly.... Why did you in this post... What thought did you have, if as you now explictly claim you were not mentioning him as a lynch target? On April 05 2013 10:42 WaveofShadow wrote: Hey Axle, if you're still around, what do you make of rayn flitting about the thread thus far? I liken him unto a chicken without a head, spraying blood and entrails wherever his dying nervous system directs him. Personally I am loathe to pay him any more mind than this but it would be nice to get a fresh opinion on the matter before partaking of other more worldly pursuits. use reasonably graphic and evocative language to describe his play? Was there a purpose to this post, did his play look scummy at all to you? hence did you at that time see any reason to lynch him? If not why did you inflame the situation? and then effectively pass it to me? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 07 2013 08:40 raynpelikoneet wrote: Okay, i want to kill Ace... but do you have reason to? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 07 2013 10:11 DarthPunk wrote: @ AXELGREASER You need to stop tunnelling WoS or I am going to lynch you. Your play is worrying. Some people determine alignment by ......... , I ask questions an listen to answers or the lack of them. How are you trying to determine alignment? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 07 2013 09:29 sciberbia wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 07 2013 09:16 AxleGreaser wrote: The distinctions I was making in this post were fine distinctions. I was indeed 'reaching' for the idea that perhaps you were not considering why/ (what intention)/ (what thought) was behind and motivated WoS This post My post was about WoS's towny intentions. (dropping emotive stuff and leaving, i found hard to put a towny intention on) That you have still not apparently gone back and considered, why WoS made that post that I was initially concerned about, is to me concerning. In the post above, you give what I think I can loosely describe as bunch of heuristics, do this and your scum, don't do this and your not. What I don't see there is you considering the purpose of the actions. I am sorry, I just found where you did...? If I misinterpreted his intentions.... (as looking for someone to Lynch... or commenting on characteristics of people that could make them someone to Lynch, or ..) How did you interpret the intention of this Post? In particular what did the graphic visual nature, do but inspire further emotive knee jerk posts? BTW writing this post Started before Scribs here and while stuff seems to be happening around the WoS Lynch for me that does not effect whether or not Scrib was considering why WoS did things. @Axle With every post I analyze I look at look at possible townie and mafia intentions behind it. I thought about WoS's post right after I read it. I'm sorry that I did not explain earlier but I was busy today. To explain why I said you misinterpreted his post: I think WoS gave no alignment read of rayn at all in the post you quoted. But you asked him This implies that you thought WoS was personally showing interest in lynching rayn where I maintain that he wasn't. Hence why I said you misinterpreted his post. That is fine, so when you did "With every post I analyze I look at look at possible townie and mafia intentions behind it." analyse WoS's post, what possible townie intention did you see behind it? Did the townie intention you saw to that post not include WoS (at the very least) recently deciding on whether or not to "think" about Lynching Rayn, but had come down so nearly on the "not yet, do something else now side" that he sought a second opinion? If I had been recently thinking (should I / shouldn't I) pursue Rayn as scum(due to the posting style), and I got asked "Was there any reason you thought we should lynch a headless chook?" Then as WoS I could have, and would have, answered the question, I would also probably indicate that words had just been seemingly put in my mouth and that while i had recently been onsidering that option... blah blah.... That was the reason I believe I also provided my answer to the question. That the presence of the(an) answer did not even trigger recognition (easier than recall [www.ehow.com/info_7754397_recall-vs-recognition.html ] ) memory of "Oh yeah I was just thinking that" indicates to me he quite probably had not recently considered how Lynchworthy posting like that was. He had thus handed me what he considered to be an anchor. I think this topic is about done. I believe I understand why you said pretty much all of what you did. Doesnt make you town, probably not my best Lynch though... for now... ##unvote Sciberbia | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 07 2013 14:03 sciberbia wrote: So do you want me to address your questions in the first paragraph of that post or are we cool? Also, I'll be around reading filters for another hour or two if you/iamp want to discuss anything. I need to figure out where I stand on a few people. Top of the list are oats/marv/axle. Well we are kind of cool, but your continued interest has peaked my interest again.. So I will try for one very specific question. Well, as you have said "With every post I analyze I look at look at possible townie and mafia intentions behind it. I thought about WoS's post right after I read it. I'm sorry that I did not explain earlier but I was busy today." and ... "To explain why I said you misinterpreted his post: I think WoS gave no alignment read of rayn at all in the post you quoted." Then stop right there do not proceed to my reply and analyse my post... Here is WoS's post... (the one that interested me) On April 05 2013 10:42 WaveofShadow wrote: Hey Axle, if you're still around, what do you make of rayn flitting about the thread thus far? I liken him unto a chicken without a head, spraying blood and entrails wherever his dying nervous system directs him. Personally I am loathe to pay him any more mind than this but it would be nice to get a fresh opinion on the matter before partaking of other more worldly pursuits. When you analysed that post, what were the "possible townie and mafia intentions behind it." What scum was he attempting to find scum and how? Did you for instance think he had been considering Lynching Rayn but wanted second opinion before he moved on? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
Wave I have asked you questions here, about what happened when you got to L-1 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18221663 Please have look at them. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 08 2013 00:33 Oatsmaster wrote: Why is WoS scummier now, rather than yesterday? Something mustve made you vote him right? What is IT? based on previous posting I am hoping he can be in the thread soon. The questions are a ways back in the thread now. I have arranged my sleep to allow me some overlap. I do want to be sure he sees the questions and realises they are current. This post ensures he knows I will be around. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 08 2013 00:58 Oatsmaster wrote: This doesnt answer the question. Why did you not vote him before you went off(to sleep I imagine) Why did you vote for him now? I have arranged my overlap quite bit... I may have nanna naps, but I am around. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 08 2013 01:20 WaveofShadow wrote: I'll be around now, I was around earlier today but I was out for a couple hours and apparently the 'active' times in this game are quite unlike many of the games I've been in so far. I think it's the ratio of UK/Aussie/Europe/whatever. Axle I think I remember reading some threat where you're going to vote me if I don't respond to you, I don't give a fuck about that but I'll re-read whatever it was you posted and see if I can actually decipher something you've said for once. Marv before I left last time I had asked you why exactly you and Ace seemed to think I was lying about my claim and you never answered. I think it was you as well who called my early posting 'derpy' and I'd like to know what about it you find as such. Oh and one more thing Marv, what are your thoughts on the so-called 'Kenpachi rule?' You appear to have misremembered who said what. I asked questions where I said I did. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 08 2013 04:05 Dandel Ion wrote: If no majority is reached by 02:00 GMT (+00:00) (~7 hours from now), we'll end the day in a no-lynch. I am comfortable with my vote where it is on WoS. I will be here for bit then nap then come back. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 08 2013 07:17 marvellosity wrote: You'd rather no-lynch than kill Ace? That's what you're saying, right? No. That is not what I said. That I will be back means I can change my vote. If it is required. I think I can see it may look like I said what that, but to be clear i did not say that. No Lynch today is very very bad idea. ACE is TBMK very hard to read. I have not seen stuff that would make me want to lynch him today. I would much prefer to be able to see what he says about things that happen tomorrow. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 08 2013 07:46 sciberbia wrote: @marv Can you stop arguing with DP and get back to me about Axle. I'm looking at his filter from Noir where he flipped town and he is discussing a bunch of different things with a bunch of different people, and seems to be trying to lead town in the right direction. I see none of that this game. I think he's more likely scum than Ace and it seems there is enough interest in lynching him that we can get a legitimate wagon going. ##Vote AxleGreaser Palmar, can you stop ignoring everything I say to you and tell me why you think AxleGreaser is town? The number of people I discuss things with would depend on the number of questions I had about what people had done. The tendency not to interfere when another person is applying pressure also means, if someone else in the thread is asking the right questions i can listen to there answers rather than just chime in with me too questions. How deeply id you think about why the difference if there is one might exist? Did you ask if there could be a towny reason for the difference? Did you consider the options above? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
| ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 11 2013 05:25 XXX wrote: I don't really know what to make of it: - Oats questioned a lot of other people than WoS at that time. - I was not around until last moments. I was suspicious of WoS earlier though. - prpl voted for WoS cos busy and marv/Palmar voting for him, later said he only then understood Tunkeg's case fully. - Axle/Tunkeg were MIA. AKA Axle asleep in a different TZ. On April 11 2013 08:23 XXX wrote: Because i was at LAN-party with shitty internet and about 24h/weekend drunk like a fish. AKA XXX was MIA? What I find funniest(funny peculiar) about these games is how the same or similar observations get re-interpreted entirely depending on the current posters current beliefs. Although the example is of rayn, I ripped the name out as its only an example. While I know I was scum, and I did get caught, some part of the 'scumminess' of my play... wasn't. Oh and ditto on the thanks to the hosts. LOl still coming. (edit: got distracted by shiny things.. .the time has past.) | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 11 2013 14:56 Oatsmaster wrote: Also when Axle is playing, I ROLL SCUM. EVERY FUCKING TIME. Thanks Axle. <3 Anytime, no charge. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote: Mafia were never going to win this game, there was just too large a difference in abilities/thread impact. This might sound like I'm bashing on the skill of the mafia but it's not how it's meant to come across. None of the people on the mafia-team have a history of large thread impact in a game and that's just a fact. This game was always going to be a town win. If you're happy for a game to be one-sided for the sake of some silly RNG concept, then fine, but you'll get games where mafia basically can't win like this one. Choices (that exist on a continuous spectrum) 1) "fair" "just" games: in which if your team has the best chance of winning if it plays the best (maybe because it has an unbalanced share of the (historically)better players who by definition (historically)usually play 'better' more often.) 2) Challenging games where, you if play better/worse than your usual average that makes your team have a better/worse than average chance of winning. Both have value, it is a choice of what you want out of the game. Basically its scratch VS handicap racing or interesting racing. Usually, in other competitive settings, with widely spread fields unless its handicapped people get bored, and thus arse around, or simply find something else not boring. For me as it stands, I kind of don't need 1), I already independently evaluate my play and game and effort. BTW: So far I am at played 4 won zero... go team me. My personal estimate of how I have done is based more on the effort I put in. If I tried hard and failed anyway then that merely means learning to play was harder than I first thought. While play to win is the rule, it is not why I played any game I was in. So yeah this game was hard and uphill, but it gave us three the space to be great, if we could be. Turned out we were not. (Wasn't really a big surprise to me, although just how and why it went wrong was.) Next time I am in a scum game, and its that up hill my goal will to not get lynched D1. One other problem with 1) is that it may promote this kind of response. When scum team thinks it has a below average set of players... why bother. Just wait until next time when you get a good team. This would be bad place for the game to wind up. A problem with 2) is, once some part of the scum team flips... the other part gets tied into a narrower pool. If you are the scum in that pool, then it seems really unfair, remembering that being in an all 'not good'/'bad'/ scum team from one also feels unfair when its you. Question: (aka I have NFI never having done it.) Can the role distributions make up for it? In semi open or closed setups, there are I expect a range of what is considered near enough to be balanced possibilities, but some are on the town/scum favored end of the spectrum. (I think not all 2of4 setups are equal, ie they are orderable: from most to least town favored.) By not rolling both the players and the setup independently, you could include some counter balance by biasing the probabilities of each setup. This would still mean once mass claim occurs you can maybe guess probably whether the scum team has more or less stronger than average players. (even then town may not know how loaded or bare the scum powers cupboard is.) Another option, is to do true RNG, but who says the PDF has to be flat.... There exist variety of algorithms that can for instance by assigning players to teams one at time, make adjustments such that once one team starts becoming strong or weak, the odds on which teams gets the strong players after that is no longer quite even... By pushing the RNG back that far, analysis of who is scum and who is town cant know for sure there (Must/Must not) be another Vet on the team. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 11 2013 22:10 wherebugsgo wrote: my first scum game. gg bitch e: joking aside, there are lots of problems with hand balance. GM brought up good points and you aren't doing anything to address any of them. Your assertions are baseless until you can come up with a good argument outside of "these guys aren't good at mafia therefore they had no chance to win". (hint: it's not a good argument) There have been plenty of games with average scum teams like this one that turned into mafia wins. If you can predict the outcome of the game reliably with nothing more than the names of the players on each side, then cool, but I don't think anyone on this forum can do that. Most important is the fact that people don't improve unless they change their attitudes about balance. I think it's fine to call out questionable role balance because there have been some setups that are just bad, but blaming a loss on player distribution is basically like saying you gave up when you saw your team. It's both insulting to your fellow teammates and to the community at large. > If you can predict the outcome of the game reliably with nothing more than the names of the players on each side, > then cool, but I don't think anyone on this forum can do that. While no one can do that very accurately With what degree of accuracy can it be done? At some degree of accuracy better than randomly guessing which team will win, it is likely to be possible. I don't have any problem with the game I just played... but i am pretty sure if we could somehow replay it 100 times there is almost zero chance scum would have won half of them. That such a team could be the scum is I believe quite wise, does it have to be exactly equally as likely as some other more likely to win combinations? To be clear I think I had some real benefits, by playing in scum team with a less than average chance of winning, bu also one where we could not just sit back (sheep) and let the scum expert make the calls. While there were real benefits, is it wise that it happen as often as it would by chance. One good question is WHY did Oats play better? There is an entire spectrum between, every scum team gets this fraction of the vets, and true Flat RNG I think I have said all I usefully can as, (IMO), I don't comparatively know jack about mafia, never hosted a mafia game (have hosted other social interaction games, where feeling like fate wasn't determined pregame, was highly correlated with player enjoyment, note that cuts both ways, why work hard to be a good player if the host is still going to handicap you into losing 50%, ...etc etc ) and I couldn't balance a setup with out rather lot of research (and maybe not at all). However, FYI: I have 'some' back ground in things such as 'better than randomly guessing', often more formally described as ROC, (Receiver_operating_characteristic), if after discussing it someone wants technical help... I have skills in translating intent into algorithm. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 11 2013 23:16 GMarshal wrote: I think you guys arguing for balanced teams underestimate two things 1.) How volatile games of mafia are, take nomination where mafia had the game in the bag and managed to inexplicably blow it. Look at how quickly people begin doubting "confirmed" townies, etc. Look at how marv played in personality (sorry marv). having a vet on a team is no guarantee of anything. 2.) Breakout games, I haven't seen many of late, but there are occasions where a previously unpromising player absolutely rocks a game, usually this happens when they are forced to step up, e.g. town lacks focus and direction (The absurd medic/leader in one of the new games, got nominated for best newbie for that play. DrH in his first game where he became a focal town leader. Myself in the pardoner game. Jackal in XXXIII.), or they are placed in a team with no leadership and are forced to step up. I personally think its totally impossible to predict accurately who will win from a playerlist. This game could have easily turned into the town infighting and lynching itself had day 1 gone differently, or had one member of the scumteam done an absurdly ballsy play, etc. Anyway, blaming the "balance" of rnged rolls seems like a waste of time, its better to focus on lessons learned so that next time that a "weak" mafia team rolls out they know what to do. So, what could the mafia team have done better to establish thread presence? How could they have avoided the disastrous day 1 hammer (if at all)? What was the proper form of damage control post fact? To be crystal clear. I am not arguing for "balanced teams" I am saying there is something between pure flat RNG, and handcrafted guessable teams. The thing i am saying will not be reasonably gameable by real players. > I personally think its totally impossible to predict accurately who will win from a playerlist. This game could have easily > turned into the town infighting and lynching itself had day 1 gone differently, or had one member of the scumteam done > an absurdly ballsy play, etc. You are perfectly correct, it is "impossible to predict accurately who will win from a playerlist." I am not sure that it being 'impossible to be accurate', means it is anything like impossible to be able to guess considerably better than average(randomly guessing) , or to be able to choose which combination of teams ought be less likely to be generated as they are more likely to lead to a ROFL stomp. The algorithm to then roll such teams is no longer, simple enough to be easily done with a dice pen and paper, its also not prohibitively difficult. > This game could have easily turned into... I suspect that while it could have easily done this, the odds of such things happening was not near 50% > 2.) Breakout games, I haven't seen many of late, but there are occasions So i guess break out things don't happen all that easily... Do note however, break out things may start happening never if hosts start balancing games such that scum teams never think OMG were fucked... Lets try something extraordinary. Lets try to be great !! So yeah i am both with you and against you, scum team like the one I was just in need to be possible, but does it have to be exactly as likely as some of the other possible teams?. Syllogism said: I'm personally not going to join a game if I know for a fact the host balances teams. I don't like it when people work out who is and is not scum due to nothing that player did at all. (eg Host balance and other flips.) That doesn't feel like you beat the scum player at all. WORSE. Outcomes will tend to be scum stomps or town stomps because if any scum players flip, now not only the inter-player interactions but the game balance inter actions solve it. However, if the host only makes it some unknown amount more or less likely that a team would have all strong or weak players, and the hosts actual estimate of how strong all the players are is unknown and some of that imbalance may be addressed by role distribution in scum or town, and.... Then using host balance speculation as part of any lynch would become much more dubious. Fundamentally how much do I think hosts should tweak teams and power roles to get balance. 1) The goal is not that everyone has 50% chance of winning. better players ought win more often. 2) If the players have gamed he host and are successfully guessing teams based on balance... Time to change the algorithm. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 12 2013 00:04 wherebugsgo wrote: so what do you propose this game would have been a fair scumteam? That would be the rub, while I know something about the algorithms to do such things and how to implement and create them, I think I lack the expertise to do one critical step (accurately). So I will walk through version alpha zero, of an algorithm. If it does not in fact work I will just keep making up crap until I find one that does. Also note I substituted aqua for me as its less wifomy to do it for others. Step 1. Split players into two skill groups (doesnt matter where) Ace Palmar marvellosity iamperfection WaveofShadow prplhz DarthPunk Oatsmaster Tunkeg Aquanim raynpelikoneet sciberbia step 2 Repeat step one until you look at every group and say meh all the same AFAIK. Group 3 Ace Palmar marvellosity Group 2 prplhz iamperfection DarthPunk sciberbia raynpelikoneet Group 1 WaveofShadow Oatsmaster Tunkeg Aquanim Pls note If I put you in the wrong bucket... booo hoo... It really doesn't change much. If I did put you in the wrong bucket all it means is I am bad at mafia. Also I have some order in my head for those buckets and some doubt about where the best divisions are. At this point players within each group is not ordered. The categories are based on average of town and scum play according to my best guess. If you can split it into more or less groups, then fine, it wont matter. Minorish tweaks of what comes next will work with that too. So far I am probably not too far off what other people think on the groupings and even if I was it wont matter much. Indeed me injecting my personal perspective if i am the host makes it that much harder to guess. here is where expertise I don't have, but the people who host games have better than I do. Does the team prplhz, iamperfection, DarthPunk got an even money chance of winning? How about Ace, Iamperfection, WaveOfShadow/Aquanim If you suddenly find yourself saying Ace, Iamperfection, Oats is lot better then perhaps your original groupings are wrong. Anyway if the green two are balanced, then i suspect you will find the following will workish. Give each player their group number. Adding up the players group number in the scum team measures its strength. Then one trivial algorithm would be to first generate the scum teams exactly randomly. Score the team (add up its group numbers.) The two green ones add up to 6. If its is 6 keep it. If it is 5 or 7 keep it 83% of the time ( roll a D6, reject team on 6 ) If it is 4 or 8 keep it 66% of the time ( roll a D6, reject team on 5,6) If it is 3 or 9 keep it 50% of the time ( roll a D6, reject team on 4,5,6) If it is <=2 or >=10 get your cohost to do it or wait until you sober up. if you rejected the scum team go back and roll another random one. When you look at that algorithm and groupings and Go yeah Thats Ok... BUT you really must do that before you roll, you also ought check the boundary conditions thus. Just how BAD is Scumteam(Ace Palmar marvellosity) or (Oatsmaster Tunkeg Aquanim) is 50% less likely than random enough... or would just how epic it might be compensate? Note what you also might do is based on, your scum team total rating change the setup by? Edit: Note this post will probably get edited for clarity. and becuase its alpha.... Caveats: if the algorithm gives you the wrong answer dont be afraid to just mess with it. Group 3 might be given the score 3.5 or 2.5. Hell I can imagine giving player -1, if they were positively likely to get flipped after having first fingered all their scum buddies. Host ranking of players etal would all of course be shredded. If I was host Id ask the cohosts to rank them as well and mix their ranking result with mine even if I thought they were wrong. Caveats: in practice I would try to get more than 2 example teams that looked 50-50 and check they or most of them scored 6. Caveat: The above algorithm, as it stands, is probably a bad idea, as it changes the probability that anyone player rolls scum. By re-rolling games that are group3 and group 1 heavy, the odds of group 3 and 1 rolling scum in any team go down. While that probably is an issue the size of the difference is minimised because, there naturally is not a lot of combinations that are group 3 or 1 heavy. While that is still some issue, it would i believe be repairable by fiddling at the margins with some scum teams frequency a little bit. For instance reducing the frequency of teams 222 would be able to fix most of the problem, spreading that out into the 221 and 223 (decreased) (311, 331 increased) ... would compensate for this and still leave a bias against the unbalanced skill teams being rolled. While I will probably work that out, as its interesting, posting the results in an intelligible form, does not seem worth it. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 12 2013 01:02 raynpelikoneet wrote: Yeah then your record is very impressive. What i mean is even if you got a record of 100-0 it doesn't really mean anything if you are lynched in 80% of the games. And then you are clearly doing something wrong. After all this is a game where not only what you say matters, but who are the people analyzing what you are saying and do they believe you. If nobody believes you it doesn't matter how right you are and you are doing something wrong. :D A question: If there was player with a 100-0 win rate as town and scum. Got lynched 100 times D1.... But somehow had the uncanny ability to get the scum to out themselves by mislynching him, and town to fall in WIFOM hole when they lynched him D1 as scum. While probably not plausible, just as the 100-0 isn't. Wouldn't that be spectacular play? | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
I thought it was very bright Idea. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 12 2013 01:58 syllogism wrote: While you are doing arbitrary math, can you factor in the advantage town gets from knowing that teams aren't RNGed If you can tell how the players can guess, how the host groups and scores the players. How the players, know what scope the host had to rebalance unbalanced teams by tweaks to the setup/roles which can vary from game to game. How the players deal with the fact that whenever they do that and get it right regularly, then the host does it less, until they give up. I would suggest hosts ought not say whats the maximum probability to reject a team. I think you would find if you actually examined every possible 5,6,7 scoring team in the algorithm I suggested, that fairly often even with two flipped players, there is still very little actual information about who the third would be. I am not sure, I could also try and factor in the advantage town gets when some scum players give up when they see their team mates. Well not so much give up but don't push as much other real life commitments out of the way to play as they would have if they had seriously viable team. Knowing that whenever you roll one of those hard games.. you were quite unlucky but that this is your chance.. to either shine if your the noob, become star by dragging a bunch of misfits over the line if you are the better, but not yet stellar player. The math BTW was not arbitrary... Also please note, I think i may have at this time a _personal_ preference for playing in RNG games. I will have to wait until I get ROFL stomped a statistically interesting number of times to be sure. Also at the moment I learn so much each time I play, winning/losing is meh. I do know however from having hosted RL games that were social games, (not mafia, but still social), what it took to keep my players happy. Reducing ROFL stomp frequency smells like it. I also hope that if I become better that I also wont get any satisfaction from beating an easy scum team. (edit: not mafia == not any epic guessing game / social == played by people who largely use the game rules as an excuse, which game not specified as that would be misleading as most people dont play that game that way. ) | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 12 2013 02:00 WaveofShadow wrote: I'm not sure what the point of doing something like this is with no real mathematical way of estimating skill. Its a schtick for me to play with.... it will take little while though.. its 3am. Gdnight. | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On April 12 2013 09:46 Dandel Ion wrote: What the actual fuck are you guys doing to my perfectly fine game thread? Apparently playing a different game. | ||
| ||
