You realize i spent the vast majority of the time referring to ver instead of versatile, and ver WAS their godfather right? That was intentional and the scene of quite a lot of hilariousness in our IRC chat between me and qatol.

Canada4732 Posts

May 08 2009 01:12 GMT

#1278

Actually yours seems quite a bit easier than LTTs had the game gone the distance.

The amount of spicy meatballs in this game made for a fun, tasty treat.

because I saved your ass

Oh please. I started up a three page long mans train on versatile.

Canada4732 Posts

May 08 2009 01:19 GMT

#1284

That's because I didn't really follow up on it until I saw Ace and Her get into a spat.

Once i saw the binaries of her/ace + ace/you i figured we could set up at least 2 days worth of lynches off her poor play, and that's when I started 'forcing' it.

Edit: Oh, I see. Ver. You're a clever one.

Canada4732 Posts

May 08 2009 19:19 GMT

#1378

Hey, i'm glad so many people knew so many mafia on day 1-2 and did nothing about it.

Either the entire town side had collective aneurysms or a bunch of people are trying to get some unwarranted post game bragging in.

Canada4732 Posts

May 08 2009 21:22 GMT

#1391

I think the best possible suggestion for our games would be to remove the office of mayor and just add more interesting blue roles.

Canada4732 Posts

May 08 2009 21:34 GMT

#1394

mayor was only in this game to stimulate day one posting haha

You're such a tricky one

Canada4732 Posts

May 09 2009 19:40 GMT

#1422

Malongo,

if the town had another 3 active people with their heads out of their asses, the votes on day 2, 3 and 4 would have been different and we wouldn't have been able to pull a 2 mafia lynch and plop it onto 2 townies AND cut the double lynch. If the town didn't have multiple members trying to incriminate themselves by posting like retards and refusing to explain their wild accusations, voting would have been different too. Both versatile and ace played very poorly during day 2 which gave us a huge opening which we capitalized on.

The reason why it seems like things were so lopsided is because the vast majority of blues stuck their necks out and got raped. There were ZERO vigi hits on mafia, ZERO CK hits on mafia, a late start to double lynching and incredibly poor accuracy from town. Mafia teams were 5 people each: if you double lynched us correctly on that day 5 post, we would have dropped to 4kp, and been largely fucked if you followed that up with another successful double lynch. Needed more time to smoke out mafia? Doesn't seem like it due to all of these "lol i knew 3 mafia on day 2" posts we're getting.

Additionally, Qatol and I talked about having to kill the other family the moment he told me he called out Ver. When I was arguing that mafia would work together despite having to kill each other at the end, I wasn't talking out of my ass. I was actually giving you the exact reason why it would happen regardless of the end rules. Mafia having to kill each other at the end is irrelevant if they recognize what mafia have in prior games: More days means more clues. More clues means you can't hide forever. You NEED the other mafia's killing power to chop the town down to size.

I mean, go ahead and look at what happened each day as you listed it. Each were good plays by us and terrible plays by the town. Should we lose for playing near perfectly? Should we lose because the vast majority of your players decided to play footsie in PMs and got raped for it? According to you, the town should have had an equal chance to win despite a grand total of 4 members of the entire town actually putting in meaningful work. Sorry but that's not balance.

Canada4732 Posts

May 10 2009 04:03 GMT

#1459

Get your fucking ego out if you want to discuss balance, should we lose? wtf?

Rofl.

If this game was balanced, the team that performed better should win. Correct? Town played horribly. Mafia played near perfectly. Mafia should win under those circumstances, and they did.

I think you need to take a step back, drink a cold one and relax before making another post here.

Canada4732 Posts

May 10 2009 05:13 GMT

#1462

Thats exactly the point. You are still arguing who played better look at your arguments. Im arguing about balance.

That we played better or not is not a matter of argument. Town played like complete shit, we did not.

Maybe you should learn how an argument is formed before telling me what my argument is. Feel free to separate a premise from a conclusion and read my posts again.

Canada4732 Posts

May 10 2009 19:35 GMT

#1474

seems like its part of this argument... :D.

No shit. Its a premise. Its also a correct premise. However attacking a premise doesn't mean you've killed the conclusion, especially if your critique is horrendously poor. So no, i'm not arguing that we played better: that's fucking obvious. I'm making an argument about the balance of the game. Feel free to read what I responded to, because it seems like you don't even know what you're talking about at this point.

Hey sherlock! so the game is balanced because the side that played best won? oops you have a logic problem right there. If a team played better than the other and won doesnt imply that the game is balanced. Learn some logic its not Balanced<=>Better team win. Its obvious that the better team can win and the game still be imba. Just to make you think a bit.

I never claimed that the game is automatically balanced because the better team won. The game would be balanced if the better team won every time regardless of which side they were on. I said that the fact that the better team won is evidence pointing towards the fact that the game was balanced. I picked out the point in time that you were referencing, day 5, at which point the town was completely outplayed and noted that if the town should have been close to death if the better team should win the game. A number of other players made the same point.

But here's a better question for you: Do you believe town played better than us? Provide proof to dismantle that premise of mine. If you can't, then you need to do what I originally suggested and bring your frame of reference from the doomed day 5 perspective to the day 0 perspective and see how town could have done better. You need to do this because my statement about who should win from day 5 forward would stand pretty clear: at that point town was grossly outplayed.

Feel free to look at what town players of higher stature have been saying. Read Ace and Camilto's positions.

Again, go back to the start and pretend the town didn't shoot itself in the foot multiple times a day.

Canada4732 Posts

May 11 2009 01:19 GMT

#1481

L you guys didn't play it perfectly man.

Near perfect =/= perfect. Every lynch, area of discussion and pretty much every pm ring was under our control. Some things could have been better, but very few.

Canada4732 Posts

May 14 2009 02:41 GMT

#1485

They were under your control because town sucked.

Exactly. If the town wasn't so terrible the game would have been very different, which is exactly why I said that you can't judge the balance of the setup by the result. Don't get me wrong, when I say perfect play I mean that pretty much everything fell into place as we wanted, not that we're somehow magic mafia gods. Please examine my posts in the context of a disagreement about balance, thanks.

: )