EPTTL Mafia 3 [Night 5] - Page 19
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:02 fanatacist wrote: This. Wouldn't it be safer to lynch the person he spoke up about, and if he DOESN'T come up red then lynch the DT? By lynching the DT you have a 1:1 ratio of blue : red losses at best. With the idea I just posted, a DT who has verified himself by giving a red name could keep producing results, thus being far more useful to the town than was if he was dead. It would also take away the whole sacrifice element that would prevent DTs from speaking up; I think they would become relative loners and would try to make posts that are convincing but not too convincing, acting as one of the analysts, in order to hide their role, and their factual knowledge of who is mafia and who isn't could be lost. to clarify my previous post: We can't do this. If the mafia know we would lynch the person the DT accuses first, they'll obviously false claim and get the innocent Vet/Jack lynched amd sac themselves for the profit. If mafia know the DT is going to be lynched anyway, they will hesitate to false claim because the guy would flip red, and the accused is most likely legit so he died for nothing. We have to make sure everyone knows the DT WILL be lynched proactively. | ||
Empyrean
16977 Posts
Also, be wary of clue checkers as well. They could be mafia, putting in red herrings and deliberately misinterpreting things to mislead the town. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
| ||
|
Lenwe
Netherlands757 Posts
Ace's plan relies a lot on DT's and them coming out imo. A DT for one mafia member might not be a bad trade for the mafia, since DT's are so important with their abilities, not only they role checks but also since they can check the voting lists for mafia members. I can see why he would want central leadership again (it worked last game), but it will be harder to organize it like that in this game and we should deffinately give his idea some more though before we carry through with it. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Day 1 - person speaks up, orders people to vote in places; DT checks him but doesn't speak up Day 2 - person orders a second list of hits; DT checks a list an gets number of mafia Day 3 - DT speaks up, posts all his information and gets lynched Thus the DT has used his two most useful abilities already and is no longer a liability to the town. Knowing a DT is alive and having to protect him every night is a pain in the ass (see Empyrean from last game) especially seeing that the suicide bomber will likely get him. Thus we remove a liability from our side (keeping everything more secret in terms of medics) as well as verifying a leader - who is also a liability (can't have two liabilities am i right?). Also because the lynch lists were ordered, we can easily check lists and find out where the mafia are. Also, if we lynch the person instead of the DT then mafia can just fake-role claim DT and we lose a jack or a veteran. AND we have the possibility of the mafia confusing things when DTs are saying opposing things. Lynching the DT is the only way to be sure. EDIT: to ensure that we are only using one DT how about DT's pm him and when he receives a pm from a DT he says that he has got a pm from a DT and then the others don't have to pm him anymore (obviously he'd have to say that hes online for the next X minutes so DTs dont pm spam him). If the DT dies prematurely the "leader" looks pretty bad// on second thought this won't work -_-; | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:02 fanatacist wrote: This. Wouldn't it be safer to lynch the person he spoke up about, and if he DOESN'T come up red then lynch the DT? By lynching the DT you have a 1:1 ratio of blue : red losses at best. With the idea I just posted, a DT who has verified himself by giving a red name could keep producing results, thus being far more useful to the town than was if he was dead. It would also take away the whole sacrifice element that would prevent DTs from speaking up; I think they would become relative loners and would try to make posts that are convincing but not too convincing, acting as one of the analysts, in order to hide their role, and their factual knowledge of who is mafia and who isn't could be lost. if you lynch the guy who spoke up you lose your guaranteed innocent and the lynchpin to the entire strategy. How do we react to mafia killing our lynchpin though? (after weve sacrificed a DT and guaranteed hes innocent) | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
its such a clever word  | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:08 Falcynn wrote: There's also the small chance that the mafia will false claim and get one of their own killed in order to gain the trust of the town. If the town believes that a mafia is detective, he can have a lot of sway over how the town votes. But you would notice that they wouldn't be targeted by mafia, since mafia cannot target their own. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:14 Amber[LighT] wrote: I'm pretty sure they can, but that's irrelevant. I'll give an example of what I mean.But you would notice that they wouldn't be targeted by mafia, since mafia cannot target their own. Mafia1 claims to be veteran. Mafia2 claims to be a detective who role checked Mafia1 and found out the he's mafia. The town rallies to lynch Mafia1, he turns up red and the town assumes that Mafia2 must be a detective since he was right. Do you see how that can be dangerous? | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:21 Falcynn wrote: And then do you notice how suspicious it is when that person NEVER gets hit by mafia? I'm pretty sure they can, but that's irrelevant. I'll give an example of what I mean. Mafia1 claims to be veteran. Mafia2 claims to be a detective who role checked Mafia1 and found out the he's mafia. The town rallies to lynch Mafia1, he turns up red and the town assumes that Mafia2 must be a detective. Do you see how that can be dangerous? With that being said, it is far far far safer to lynch the person calling the role check EDIT: with that being said using the three day plan proposed by myself maximizes the use out of a legit DT and is what we should be looking for.. having both a DT and a vet alive and target for the mafia is just bad - and we cant afford to have two liabilities hanging around. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On November 03 2008 00:36 Plexa wrote: Carrying on with the "last meal" train of thought (which i think is pretty solid) leads to Caller entering the spotlight. "NO IM KAWAIIRICE" could easily be extrapolated to the idea of a last meal without bending things too much (similar to mafia clues last game). Obviously if we see clues in the future relating to cuteness or food caller definitely needs to be examined closer wait wha while the clue is pretty solid the connection is a bit of a stretch. Just because I have the word rice in my profile (as part of a username, nonetheless) doesn't mean a meal necessarily. This is like the phone clues, just because there's a telephone doesn't mean that I'm the "caller." | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:21 Falcynn wrote: I'm pretty sure they can, but that's irrelevant. I'll give an example of what I mean. Mafia1 claims to be veteran. Mafia2 claims to be a detective who role checked Mafia1 and found out the he's mafia. The town rallies to lynch Mafia1, he turns up red and the town assumes that Mafia2 must be a detective since he was right. Do you see how that can be dangerous? which I'm sure they'll do. There's no way to keep the cycle of checks going to verify the entire circle without wasting DT power. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:21 Falcynn wrote: I'm pretty sure they can, but that's irrelevant. I'll give an example of what I mean. Mafia1 claims to be veteran. Mafia2 claims to be a detective who role checked Mafia1 and found out the he's mafia. The town rallies to lynch Mafia1, he turns up red and the town assumes that Mafia2 must be a detective since he was right. Do you see how that can be dangerous? Even the inverse is possible. If we lynch Mafia2, we assume Mafia1 is innocent as Mafia2 turns up red. although i would think with a lot of clues it'd be easy to tell if someone really is innocent or not. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:23 Plexa wrote: oh pfft, now I see what Amber meant. Well if they really wanted to I guess that the person claiming DT could ask for protection and have the other mafia put a hit on him and hope that he gets protected, which I'm pretty sure they can do...but we may need Chuiu to clarify.And then do you notice how suspicious it is when that person NEVER gets hit by mafia? With that being said, it is far far far safer to lynch the person calling the role check | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:25 Caller wrote: Even the inverse is possible. If we lynch Mafia2, we assume Mafia1 is innocent as Mafia2 turns up red. although i would think with a lot of clues it'd be easy to tell if someone really is innocent or not. yes, but thats a safe assumption to make since that means mafia 2 is the only 'DT' who spoke up. Which means either mafia 1 is innocent, or all out detectives are inactive | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5416 Posts
Now I am here! Catching up now... (I just read all the posts I've missed, now I need to digest!) | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Is the life of one DT worth that of one mafia? | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On the other hand if the DT is a fake they'll either reveal themselves really easily or end up sacrificing a mafia to keep the illusion alive for one more turn. | ||
| ||
)
) and if he's blue then we kill the person he spoke up about.
