EPT[M][T] Secret Hitler, Act I, Take II - Page 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 25 2018 04:46 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: The liberals win the game when either five liberal policies are enacted or Hitler is murdered. The fascists win the game when either six fascist policies are enacted or if Hitler is successfully elected as chancellor after the third fascist policy has been enacted. If we fuck up, even once, and fascist even by outing themselves fuck up 2 other times we might lose if hitler manages to get in town circle. Again, this isnt as simple as resistance. You can easily lose with find four townies and auto -strategy. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 04:29 kitaman27 wrote: It sounds like we're talking about different situations. I'm saying roll with the good guys as long as we can and once we hit a fail, re-evaluate if it's a 3F or sabotage. Electing Hitler won't need to be something to worry about as much before that because we're not at that threshold. Once we do cross that threshold, it obviously becomes a bigger concern. The problem with "rolling with the good guys" is that it automatically restrains conversations about other people. Even if you managed to get four good guys, the amount of information fascist will provide to the thread is non-existent. I have never seen a game where there was less than three fascist policies enacted, regardless of how good the town managed to play, because the cards will "fail us" at some point with almost 100%. Fascists may even benefit of outing themselves by enacting a F policy when there is a town president who gives 1F1L. And if we are too far into not having proper reads it may be fatal. The point is, we need reads, and we need them early. We need fascists to give reads, so we can figure them out, because they too want to be part of the governments -- outing early results in sure loss. But if we get a town circle of four players, it really does restrain conversations on other people, because people can be lazy, can possibly not agree about the town circle, or can use that as a cover for not talking about other people (aka "i am not in the town circle lets talk about how townie i am and why i should be there instead of player X"). I mean like, once again, this isn't resistance where you can win with finding three other townies and then you just nominate them (if you are convincing enough -- in a 9 player game). Because when there is a fail you know scum did that. In this game when there is a fail you don't know if scum did that, and also it doesn't even matter if you find said scum as long as Hitler stays hidden until the right moment.... I don't really understand your point, you basically want a town circle and then, when stuff happens you don't want to have the town circle anymore? Why don't you just wanna find townies? ehh... well basically we are pretty much arguing the same thing since there is only five townies. I am sorry i didn't mean that we should like go through the playerlist, i was meaning we shouldn't enable a resistance-esque "strategy" because most likely it won't work. Basically my point in the end is that when the first government is elected, if it passes a L (or hopefully when), the second presidental candidate should be someone who cannot choose from the first group (aka that the president for the first group is not the player before the next president). It promotes WAY more discussion than anything else. I am sorry if i was unclear, i was not sure yesterday how much i am willing to say because obviously this might affect to how scum plays, but like... For the first legislative session, do not choose the player next to you in line for the chancellor. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 06:19 Rels wrote: I don't know if you've ever played with rayn, but that is not something I would townread him for. I couldn't give a single shit if you made a great scum plan for me if i was mafia, in a game which basically noone has played before. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 05:32 Rels wrote: I like hk and grack thought process about finding Hitler. Would prefer one of them as chancellor if we had to choose right now What do you mean? Can you elaborate more? | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 06:27 Rels wrote: Grack one is he one where he says prp could be scum and kita Hitler. If I rzmember correctly. Not at home so if you don't find it I'll find it later Of course i know what you are talking about, i want you to elaborate onto the thought process of how Grack's thought process is townie, because: 1) it doesn't really make much sense if you put yourself into purplehaze's shoes 2) grack basically retracts form it almost immediately | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 00:13 Grackaroni wrote: Atm I'd choose Krogan but we'll have to see what happens between then. Let's say Krogan chooses me, and we get elected, who do you choose next? | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 06:56 kitaman27 wrote: rayn, can you confirm that you don't think it's a good idea to enact a fascist policy day one if presented F + L? yes | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 06:59 Grackaroni wrote: Why is it that when I mention Prplhz' post you call it too obvious for scum to make the post and then after we go through all of this hitler messaging speculation you attribute my post to scum motives? Seems pretty suspect. If you haven't realized i think you both are my top scum candidates so far. I never said anything like "prplhz's post was too obvious for scum to make". | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 07:11 Grackaroni wrote: Then what are you accusing me of exactly? If that is not your accusation please explain why the message is more mafia oriented than town oriented. Why did you make that post as town? | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 07:13 Grackaroni wrote: I'm saying that I think it would be a message that I would understand if I was hitler. So the suspicion of the message wasn't unreasonable. Why do you think the post is more likely to come from scum than town if you aren't implying that I'm trying to communicate with teammates. I am not exactly implying that. Or well yes kinda, i concede on that. What i mean is this is what happened: - prplhz makes a comment on something, people find that "communicating with teammates" (which i disagree with) - we have a discussion about it - consensus seems to be (?) that it's "too dumb to be scum" if trying to communicate with teammates - Grackaroni does [the post i am talking about] Now, i never said prplhz is trying to communicate with teammates. Because yes i find that to be stupid and afaik people agree because noone has pushed that avenue further. Right? Well after this, you do that what you did. I simply asked you why did you do that as town since: 1) i cant find any reason for you to say what you did as town 2) i think it would be very scumcaroni thing to do, to do the SAME thing that was just "shut down" except that this time it is real (but it's not really the same thing because it would ve vice versa, you wouldn't be telling hitler you are scum, you would be telling people who are scum to "claim" to you). Anddddd that was my original thought process, but yeah i get what you are saying now. I didn't actually consider the post you made to be part of the prplhz thing and as it is yeah you are right, there isn't anything wrong with that. I blame reading on phone.  But anyways much kudos to you if you actually did that as scum, probably best play of the game. ^^ Anyways i don't think that's the case considering how you reacted to this whole thing. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 07:14 Grackaroni wrote: As far as I'm concerned you're just trying to cast suspicion on me by taking advantage of some players' paranoia from Conversion's response. And I don't think that's your town play. tbh i never cared anything about conversion's response. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 07:24 Grackaroni wrote: The prplhz post I think could send a pretty decent signal that is unlikely to be picked up on. From Conversion's post even if I was Hitler I still wouldn't put more chance of Conversion being on my team compared to a town troll. true. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 07:24 Grackaroni wrote: The prplhz post I think could send a pretty decent signal that is unlikely to be picked up on. Do you think it's unlikely to be picked up when prplhz basically said "i want to elect townies ofc, lets elect kita, idk what his alignment is"?????? | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43269 Posts
On October 31 2018 08:35 prplhz wrote: That's not what happened. In most elections in mafia (mayor) you elect a combination of skill/dependability and townyness. In this game, skill isn't really a factor because the job of the president/chancellor is not particularly hard - choose liberal policies. So what I said was "the only thing that is important for president/chancellor, and the only thing the president should think about when choosing a chancellor, is that they are easy to read (and appear town)". happykrogan asked me why I was even thinking about this, my thought process, and I answered with my thought process. First, before the game had any posts, I thought "lets elect kita because he's nice", I might as well have thought "lets elect rayn because he likes to go to the sauna", it was pretty random. Then, secondly, and not simultaneously, I proceeded to think that townyness is the only thing that matters for me in a president/chancellor, and that the best person to elect is the one I find most likely town, rather than someone skilled or someone at random. For example, in most games, I often look at the 3 best players and then I sheep the one I think is most likely to be town. I don't sheep confirmed townies if I think they're unlikely to find scum. I this game, however, I will not just look at the 3 best players, I will only look at who is most townie, because the president/chancellor doesn't have to be good, their jobs are pretty simple and straight forward. I didn't randomly include kita in a list of people to elect, in the first post where I talk about him (in this post) I actually say that we should be wary of him because I think he's hard to read. I'm excluding him more than including him. Okay. That makes a bit more sense. I am not completely sure if i still believe you but yeah that makes sense. I just react to comeents that seem "random" or "throwaway" as if they mean something because i personally believe everything you say in a mafia game means something and you are trying to do something with it. You comeent on kitaman came after we had discussed about how to elect people and what the strategy should be (mainly me, kita and kruger did that). You then took part of the discussion implying you think townie people should be elected and imo at that point also agreed with kruger and kitaman about how the "strategy" should be (aka whatever that was kitaman proposed). Then (and ONLY after the whole discussion) you said you wanted to elect kitaman while still talking about who to really elect, this post: On October 30 2018 09:39 prplhz wrote: It's that things stay more simple if we can trust the first governments. It's actually I thought, let's just elect kita but he's super hard to read I think, so he can mess things up early and we can't trust anything that's going on later because we don't know if he lied about policies or not. Idk like this seems really weird post to me. It's like you at the same time realize what is correct way to do elections and then you say you thought about something else but it seems like at the time you thought so (the time of your question krogan is asking you about) you thought something else. I mean like, at the time you posted your "easy to read chancellor" question you have already implied you know (or at least think you know) which is the right way to do elections, but the answer you give to krogan implies you didn't (because why would you have asked the question in the first place if that is the case?). tldr; the explanation you give about your post to krogan doesn't imo line up with what you have been heavily implying you think at that time. | ||
| ||
