EPTMiscellaneous/Multi-Purpose Mafia I - Page 17
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
Mig
United States4714 Posts
| ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22632 Posts
I don't know what you're saying GM, I'm not even sure which part you're disagreeing with. I'm not saying there is no such thing as bad logic, what I'm saying is that if town is accepting bad logic over good logic, it's your responsibility to use bad logic so you can push your ideas. I don't think your comparison to starcraft is fair, because starcraft has measurable statistics that can blatantly be improved upon. In mafia there really is no such thing as definite bad play and good play. My point is that the problem is the people who get themselves lynched. Let's create an example: + Show Spoiler + You're in a game with 7 players, two of them are mafia. It's day 1, and town lynches some vocal but controversial player (Palmar) who flipped, quite predictably to GMarshal the town hero, town. The lynch was mostly based on the fact that one of the townies (Jackal) suggested that Palmar may have been trying to hard to be pro-town, and must therefore be scum, so one of the mafia (Sandroba) and the rest of town (Curu and Deconduo) quietly agreed with the lynch based on Jackal's logic. Sandroba pushes the idea a bit to help secure Deconduo's vote. GMarshal had meanwhile nailed the one mafia (sandroba) contradicting himself and being overly cautious given his usual aggressive nature on day one, in addition, it's against Sandroba's usually critical behavior to agree with such an obvious townie lynch as Palmar. GMarshal wrote an analysis on Sandroba, but town mostly ignored him, although Palmar was never going to agree with a lynch on himself and shouted quite heavily for people to read GM's analysis, and cast his vote on Sandroba. In addition, the clever lurking mafia Kenpachi also voted for his scumbuddy Sandroba. So in the end, Palmar gets lynched based on jackal's accusation he was trying too hard to be pro-town, and the votes end as follows: Palmar: 4 Deconduo Curu Jackal Sandroba Sandroba: 3 GMarshal Palmar Kenpachi And Palmar get's lynched. So reading the above example, let's look at what usually people perceive happened in this game, and what really needs to be looked at, here is what I think is both an incorrect, and a correct analysis of day 1, and who is to blame. + Show Spoiler + So, in this situation it's typical for Palmar to call the town terrible for not listening to logic and lynching Sandroba. GMarshal who will obviously get shot during the night is just going to rage a bit about people for not picking up on his logic. In addition, when Kenpachi cleverly instantly buses Sandroba on day 2 for massive town cred, and a guaranteed victory in lylo, GMarshal is going to feel really justified when Sandroba lynches scum. "Only if you had listened to me on day 1" And the worst part, the player more responsible than anyone else for the town losing, Palmar, is going to come back in the postgame and call Jackal an idiot for pushing the lynch on him. Jackal will of course be hanged on day 3, after mafia kills deconduo, and Kenpachi and Curu are the last 2 standing, resulting in a mafia victory. Very often this will result in Palmar and GMarshal somehow feeling they played okay, but the town was just bad so they lost beacuse of that. This is wrong Both are terrible, and need to shut up and look at their own play. GMarshal looked pro-town on day 1, no one talked about lynching him, and he instantly nailed mafia with a good analysis. GMarshal played terribly. I don't give a fuck what you know if you can't convince town to follow your logic. If what it takes was using some retarded logic like Jackal's "Palmar is trying too hard to be pro-town", to get the lynch, that's what GMarshal should have done. Now, I'm not saying Curu's, Jackal's and Deconduo's play is excusable, because they're also bad for not seeing that GMarshal was pushing a correct analysis. But there seems to be this thing around here where we focus way too much on blaming the people who make the incorrect decisions, and far too little blame on people who make the right decisions, but cannot push them. Everyone played terribly on day 1. And the worst fucker of them all? Palmar. Palmar is ridiculously bad this game. He allowed himself to get lynched by another townie on shitty reasoning. Thing is, after the game, Palmar won't recognize this, he'll be mad at the "bad town" who lynched him with such "obvious scum" alternative. But the truth of the matter, Palmar just failed at making people realize he's town. I don't give a shit how stupid the reasons where, if that's what it takes, Palmar should've made up some terrible reasons to clear himself. If you get lynched, it's your own fault. Notice that I'm not trying to reduce the blame on the town heroes who lynched an obvious town on bad logic on day 1. I'm just pointing out that peopel who were right like GMarshal, are equally much to blame for being unable to push their ideas, and the person who gets lynched is the most to blame. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22632 Posts
That was pure honesty from my side, I was so fucking disappointed in myself for getting myself lynched, it's inexcusable to get lynched as town. I felt terrible that game. | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On August 18 2011 19:47 Palmar wrote: I don't know if people remember how shitty I felt when I got lynched in PTP. That was pure honesty from my side, I was so fucking disappointed in myself for getting myself lynched, it's inexcusable to get lynched as town. I felt terrible that game. I thought You were a noob back then and the bro stuff only helped that calling people noobs when You were a noob.. what I've become?! | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22632 Posts
On August 18 2011 20:31 Kurumi wrote: I thought You were a noob back then and the bro stuff only helped that calling people noobs when You were a noob.. what I've become?! I am a noob! Just a very enthusiastic noob. | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
I've noticed mafia have underestimated you hugely because of PTP, and its come back to bite them in the ass a lot. Your style of play seems to be quite random, but it works quite well. You've caught quite a lot of mafia in pretty much all the games I've seen you play in. | ||
Qatol
United States3165 Posts
On May 08 2009 12:44 Qatol wrote: Ace's moral of the game (I think it really applies): It's not what you know, it's what you can convince people to believe. This is really where the Mafia game is won and lost and people just don't get it. In this game you are a mafia mayor and I know this because I read it correctly. Does it matter? Not really, because now I have to convince the town that you truly are. Likewise we all know quickstriker and JeeJee are innocent but in the grand scheme of things it means shit - people believe they are guilty. Once you get people to believe certain things about other players you can start either dividing the town and standing back silently watching them devour each other as mafia, or as a townie bring them all to focus on a few people. The idea is all the same - persuasion is much more powerful than outright facts. If you can lie skillfully or find a crucial mistake to exploit while keeping a straight story people will often trust you easily. Persuasion is one of the most important tools for playing successfully. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22632 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
Ask Kavdragon how aidnai got lynched in Personality Mafia. ETA: Also tunneling is a trait of a bad player. No one should ever be proud of tunneling because you are literally labeling yourself as a player that doesn't consider what the other person says, or what else is going on around you. If you would care to, list who you think are the top 10 players in terms of catching Scum. I'm pretty sure not one of them are notorious for tunneling. You can't consistently catch Scum and tunnel because it just doesn't work. In fact I like players that tunnel when I'm Scum - they are some of the easiest people to sheep around since they can't see past their own (mostly wrong) biases. You may also notice that some of the decent Scum hunters usually catch scum by seeing only a few posts, comparing it to what is actually going on or what should be going on and destroying people based on what they did or didn't say. If you tunnel you just can't do that. The list of players I consider downright terrible usually includes people that can't do this. Terrible towns and terrible players exist and these kinds of players are usually found within them. | ||
|
Curu
Canada2817 Posts
The thing I hate most is people who sign up but then don't play at all. They'll make one or two useless posts a day and sheep onto someone's vote. I don't understand why they sign up for the games - they obviously don't have interest enough to put effort into reading the thread and actually contributing. I was guilty of this myself in a game, so I resolved not to sign up for games where I could not give the proper interest needed. It hinders the Town so much and ruins the hard work the host put into creating and balancing the setup. Another thing I don't like is a post-by-post analysis. These posts are often useless without the context and while it is the easiest thing in the world to hit filter and then analyze each post when you're actively looking for stuff in them that makes them scummy, oftentimes it is a futile exercise. I'm trying to get myself out of this habit as well. I find that on TL Mafia not enough people ask questions to try to gauge a person's mindset. It's actually a surprisingly useful tool to force people to give an opinion and opens opportunities for scum to contradict their earlier thinking and/or slip. I got ridiculed and called scummy for asking CreamyButter a question in Arkham Asylum even though his answer pretty much confirmed him as a Traitor (although I didn't see it at the time - derp). Aside from that I've been told that my posts are oftentimes hard to follow. I was completely flabbergasted when I couldn't convince Kurumi, heist, or DropBear in PTP2 that Palmar was Mafia (even after his flip, they were STILL sad that he died) when he basically told us that he was Mafia. Then after that the host pretty much said "Drazerk is scum o wait lol oops ignore that" but people still wouldn't believe me on him either. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
But Town in general likes to be lazy and hope for the blue roles to do everything. It's why I generally don't play in games with lots of Town roles. PYP games are an exception since Mafia gets to pick roles too though. | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
On August 19 2011 01:39 Curu wrote: The thing I hate most is people who sign up but then don't play at all. They'll make one or two useless posts a day and sheep onto someone's vote. I don't understand why they sign up for the games - they obviously don't have interest enough to put effort into reading the thread and actually contributing. I was guilty of this myself in a game, so I resolved not to sign up for games where I could not give the proper interest needed. It hinders the Town so much and ruins the hard work the host put into creating and balancing the setup. This is why from now on my standard games will be 20 player games instead of 30. Another thing I don't like is a post-by-post analysis. These posts are often useless without the context and while it is the easiest thing in the world to hit filter and then analyze each post when you're actively looking for stuff in them that makes them scummy, oftentimes it is a futile exercise. I'm trying to get myself out of this habit as well. This is a good point. Probably proof that nobody actually reads the post game analyses or guides. On June 21 2011 16:11 Ver wrote: 4) Do not do a post by post analysis EVER. I have no idea who came up with this but it's seriously silly and doesn't do anyone any good. All it does is clog up the thread with fluff, not help your case at all because it's not like mafia give themselves away with every post at all (it's the key, defining slipups, incongruities, or general patterns you are looking for, not minor quibbles), and distract your analysis severely because you are approaching someone with a verdict in hand and trying to 'prove it' or you are simply not analyzing the important things. If you find one thing that makes someone mafia, that is it, they are mafia. It doesn't matter if you find 30 things that have a chance they might be mafia, it doesn't say anything. Its been a few months, and people still keep doing PBP. But also notice how almost everyone ignores PBP analysis. When you make a PBP analysis, people don't take you seriously. Because no mafia is going to be stupid enough to slip up in every single post. Its usually only a handful that are actually telling. If you're a townie with a limited time to read the thread, you're going to ignore these posts. Its better to be clear and concise than long winded. You're competing for our attention with the other posts in the thread, as well as the voices inside our heads. The worst thing you can do is break those trains of thought by posting walls of quotes and repeating yourselves in the thread. When you read your posts in the context of the thread, ask yourself this question: am I zoning out while I'm trying to read this? If the answer is yes, then you're probably repeating yourself. Don't repeat points unless it is an important point that is getting lost in the thread. Weight. Your posts mean more when you make 10 of them, as oppose to making 100 of them. In some games, players have literally 200-400 posts by the end of day 2. This is unnecessary. While you may think that posting more will get you noticed more, its actually a good way for people to get confused as to what you are actually doing. While yes, posting more frequently may get you more thread presence, it doesn't necessarily mean that you will be able to influence the right decisions. Usually, posting too much comes at the cost of blinding other people to what is in front of them. You tend to drag out irrelevant points and bury real slip ups that are in the thread. Notice how some players don't need to be incessantly posting in order to have a big impact on the game. | ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6785 Posts
| ||
|
Mig
United States4714 Posts
| ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6785 Posts
On August 25 2011 15:09 Mig wrote: What type of heroes? Ones from movies/books/tv/etc or like Ver the town hero. I don't wanna be to specific, I'd like to include as wide of variety as possible. (I hadn't actually thought about using TL users but I'll have to make a few now lol). | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22632 Posts
And the sad thing is that it's correct, no lynching is anti-town. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
It allows people to hide bad decision making and by extension scummy decision making, behind the glorious "we must lynch" attitude Um...thats not a problem with majority lynch. It's even worse with "Most Votes Win" | ||
|
OriginalName
Canada1140 Posts
Damn spoiled now. | ||
|
Meapak_Ziphh
United States6785 Posts
On August 25 2011 23:17 Palmar wrote: It allows people to hide bad decision making and by extension scummy decision making, behind the glorious "we must lynch" attitude. This is true. On August 26 2011 01:58 Ace wrote: No lynching is not anti-town. This is also true. I personally don't like majority lynch because it promotes lazy play. If you're a lurker (town or mafia) you can run in, plop a vote on the lynch leader and just say "well don't wanna no-lynch hurr durr." In my mind this just aggravates the problem of lurkers and gives mafia absolutely no incentive to even try to play. Another thing I hate about majority lynch is that it makes it less about "vote for who you think is scummy" to "vote to kill someone." This is a terrible attitude to have as, once again, it allows lurkers (again both town and mafia) to not even justify their votes with real reasoning. I completely agree with Ace that no lynching is not anti town however the problem is that if several people start questioning a lynch of someone they feel is town and they ultimately force a no lynch then the rest of the town will immidiatly jump on them as mafia trying to save their buddies. Any dissenting town voices (who often happen to be the ones actually playing rather than sheeping along) will be labeled as mafia simply because they tried to save someone they believed was town. | ||
|
OriginalName
Canada1140 Posts
On August 26 2011 08:01 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: This is true. This is also true. I personally don't like majority lynch because it promotes lazy play. If you're a lurker (town or mafia) you can run in, plop a vote on the lynch leader and just say "well don't wanna no-lynch hurr durr." In my mind this just aggravates the problem of lurkers and gives mafia absolutely no incentive to even try to play. Another thing I hate about majority lynch is that it makes it less about "vote for who you think is scummy" to "vote to kill someone." This is a terrible attitude to have as, once again, it allows lurkers (again both town and mafia) to not even justify their votes with real reasoning. I completely agree with Ace that no lynching is not anti town however the problem is that if several people start questioning a lynch of someone they feel is town and they ultimately force a no lynch then the rest of the town will immidiatly jump on them as mafia trying to save their buddies. Any dissenting town voices (who often happen to be the ones actually playing rather than sheeping along) will be labeled as mafia simply because they tried to save someone they believed was town. In anycase No-lynching vs. Lynching should be looked at on an entirely case-by-case scenario. One reason to no-lynch is never really the same in a different game unless the scenario is exactly the same (Low likelyhood of that happening) The reasoning of the no-lynch itself is what should be examined. The we must lynch attitude can also stem from a confident case on somebody that should be followed through. In either case there is no definitive way to pin down theory without examples to support or look at. Although in general lynching is much better trying to no-lynch is in any case a null tell in my opinion without looking at other evidence. | ||
| ||
