|
On January 27 2012 18:32 Dirkzor wrote:
Risk: Why can't you see that a votecircle (atleast night1) is the best way to make sure that mafia don't get a big amount of the votes? If everyone just give away 1 vote to whoever they want mafia will most likely give votes to themself and some town will give a vote to scum. This means scum will get an increase in votes. That increase could be anything from 0-11.
If you can't see that you are either not very smart or scum deliberatly trying to make us not follow this plan.
Because although circle-jerking is the 'safer' path to take, it automatically gives the mafia an advantage. It is inherently pro-mafia as it denies the town access to a powerful mechanic, and it also lets the mafia build up incremental VP every night. I can already tell you what 'information' we'll get from a circle jerk night one.
Assuming the setup is balanced without vote swapping (50% of mafia win), you are increasing the win percentage of mafia if you support circle jerk. I'm not accusing you of mafia, however I am explaining why I am working on trying to make a proposal that gives an edge to the town
In addition, there is another inherit advantage, mafia can only eliminate 1 VP from the game a night rather than the 2 VP. This means that the Town KP (lynches) are much more effective as they take out more influence.
As for your concerns about mafia gaining absurd amounts of votes, the 'balancing' act portion is there to prevent the mafia from making such large swings. After one night of large swings, everything will be reset so that any advantage a mafia makes will be reset the next day.
|
On January 27 2012 13:56 LSB wrote:
Preliminary Observations
All circlejerk/circle group/announce who you are transferring systems are fundamentally the same. Because they allow the mafia to generate VP advantage because they are guaranteed to receive ½ votes from a townie.
For announcing plans, transferring 1 vote is preferred, because transferring two votes creates a D3 LYLO. Assuming Mafia would be able to build (at least) +2 Vote power per night simply because they can stop (with a bullet) whoever they will transfer votes too, if we miss on day 1+2, day 3 would be 11 total people, Mafia-16 Vote power, Town-21 vote power. If town messes up, mafia will gain +5 vote power and win.
But that puts town at a disadvantage at best, so what about giving votes without announcement? What is the alternative plan? The best plan would transfer almost all of the votes (so less VP is lost per day), and would not guarantee mafia VP.
Proposal: Balancing Act
Night 1: Give all but one vote away to who you think is the most town. Announce who you gave the votes to the next day. Because only one person died, we should be able to figure out who that person gave their votes to.
The main issue is if 3/4 people attempted to transfer to the dead person. That’s where night 2 comes into play
Day 2: We would account for all vote transfers, and suspicious behaviors would be checked on.
Night 2+: All people with 3 votes continue to transfer votes to anyone with only 3 votes. People with 1, 5, 7+ votes will not be included.
All people with 5+ votes will be assigned to transfer all but three of their votes to someone with only 1 vote. This will have a normalizing force so people who have a vote advantage one day will no longer have a vote advantage the next.
Day 3: More suspicious activity should be present.
This is a very rough proposal, however this is the only option besides 1 vote circlejerking
There are many benefits and harms.
Benefit one: Encourages people to play pro town and not do stupid things, so they can get more votes and keep votes away from mafia. We’ll have a higher level game without people trying to lie or ‘fish’ which confuses the waters
Benefit two: Allows us to get soft confirmation of the top 4 vote holders at times. This is because if 4 people control over half of the vote and the game is still continuing, that means that one of the has to be town.
Neutral: Less vote power is lost per night. Only 1 or 2 vote power is lost a night.
Harm: Potential for interference. If a mafia ends up with a lot of vote, there is a potential for the mafia to enact plans. However this is limited by counter interference from smart town members and the lynch
if you are suggesting that we do this then it needs further fleshing out because as it stands i am still much happier "circle jerking" night1.
When players announce their votes to what extent would they be expected to justify their decision?
How do we ensure players do this?
How concerned are you about unknown roles interfering with this plan?
Do you think that we can determine whether players are telling the truth about their votes and make them accountable if they lie?
If you were scum how would you react to this plan?
|
I say anyone that wants to circlejerk for the first night, put your intentions down, maybe close to deadline we'll get a list of people agreeing to it here, and then the rest of the people can do whatever they feel like doing, voting for who they think is town or whatnot.
Maybe having to pick between two by Day 2 we can draw some conclusions about who the scumteam is?
|
Well as promised, now I'm going to start to look at other people's posts
On January 27 2012 18:50 Palmar wrote:
What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why.
Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions.
Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen.
If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway.
I have arrived at the same conclusion as Palmar after analyzing the game, at first I did not give much weight because I thought I had the perfect plan (but Paperscraps corrected me). I have a Green read on Palmar because 1) he's sticking out his head too much, and 2) he's arriving at the plan that mafia would not be guaranteed an advantage
Next up is the leading lynch, risk.nuke
On January 27 2012 00:44 risk.nuke wrote:
I think I would prefer a system where you can send your votes wherever you please. Obviously you will have to tell us what you do.
Why is this a better idea then everyone gets the same amount of votes?
Mafia can't lurk. Cause lurkers will likely end up on 1 vote and be useless.
I didn't think about this point, but I really like it. One of the major problems of any game is mafia lurking till the end. This forces mafia into the limelight should they ever want to try to acquire votes. Note, mafia will not be able to transfer votes to their lurkers because people would need a good explanation why NetStalker should be receiving votes from multiple people.
On January 27 2012 04:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 02:57 Dirkzor wrote:
@Lay
I don't know if you misunderstood the mechanic or I misunderstood your post.
It IS possible to have more then 5 votes during the daytime. If everyone give their votes to palmar he could potentially have 31 votes day 2. Come night 2 he would have to give away atleast 24 votes to one person.
I think that paperscraps have a point that we need to agree on a method to control the votes.
1) and 2) are only viable for a short amount of time (as lay pointed out) but can be good in the start to keep votes spread out.
3) is the best way to continuosly keep track of where people put their votes. 3 takes more management, but will be better in the end. I suggest Day 1 and 2 circle trading to start stability, then once the game starts intensifying and we get more information we can switch to plan 3 when everyone's ready. Given that 1) is trading 1 vote and 2) is trading all but 1 vote, I'd have to go with 1 because if mafia somehow gets ahold of votes and don't give them away, we give them less VP to vote with and can stop them before it's too late.
I don't like this post. In fact this plan is very bad. If I was mafia, I would love this plan and support it, because of an easy counterplan.
First of all, look at the concept of stability. Sentinel proposes that stability is more important in the early game than in the late. This is very wrong. Stability is more important in the late game than in the early.
In the early game, although it is bad if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it. However if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 3, it could suddenly lose the game.
Day 1/2 we have the freedom to try to achieve information at the risk of loosing vote power, day 3/4+ we do not simply because there is the high chance of loss
My plan accounts for that because it focuses on stabilizing the late game, after a very tumultuous night 1.
Secondly, look at information. Sentinel makes the fundamental assumption that circle-jerking will provide meaningful information. It won't, but it will provide a lot of WIFORM. However vote transfers will always have lots of information because every vote transfer is known. People will need to account for their votes.
Sentinel's plan achieves neither of his goals of stability. In fact, there is a very dangerous counterplan that guarantees mafia an overwhelming advantage day 3
Counterplan: Between Day 1 and Day 2, give town 1 VP, and give mafia 1 VP
1: All mafia live. N3 Mafia has 13 VP, town has 17 VP. If town gives up 2 VP.If one townies mistransfers, mafia wins
2. 1 Mafia is lynched. N3 Mafia has 10 VP, town has 20 VP. If town gives up 5 VP, mafia wins. More likely, 1-2 townies will mistransfer leading to Mafia entering with 12-14 VP, and town having 15-16 VP. This sets up lylo as the town has to be unanimous in order to unseat mafia.
I believe this flaw is intentional and therefore I have a Red read on Sentinel
Conclusion: I should read the thread before posting. And
##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
|
I am worried that we are putting too much faith in people playing well, but i think on balance we will need to take risks and day1 is a time that we can afford to take them.
I no longer support a "circle jerk"
|
On January 28 2012 02:40 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 13:56 LSB wrote:
Preliminary Observations
All circlejerk/circle group/announce who you are transferring systems are fundamentally the same. Because they allow the mafia to generate VP advantage because they are guaranteed to receive ½ votes from a townie.
For announcing plans, transferring 1 vote is preferred, because transferring two votes creates a D3 LYLO. Assuming Mafia would be able to build (at least) +2 Vote power per night simply because they can stop (with a bullet) whoever they will transfer votes too, if we miss on day 1+2, day 3 would be 11 total people, Mafia-16 Vote power, Town-21 vote power. If town messes up, mafia will gain +5 vote power and win.
But that puts town at a disadvantage at best, so what about giving votes without announcement? What is the alternative plan? The best plan would transfer almost all of the votes (so less VP is lost per day), and would not guarantee mafia VP.
Proposal: Balancing Act
Night 1: Give all but one vote away to who you think is the most town. Announce who you gave the votes to the next day. Because only one person died, we should be able to figure out who that person gave their votes to.
The main issue is if 3/4 people attempted to transfer to the dead person. That’s where night 2 comes into play
Day 2: We would account for all vote transfers, and suspicious behaviors would be checked on.
Night 2+: All people with 3 votes continue to transfer votes to anyone with only 3 votes. People with 1, 5, 7+ votes will not be included.
All people with 5+ votes will be assigned to transfer all but three of their votes to someone with only 1 vote. This will have a normalizing force so people who have a vote advantage one day will no longer have a vote advantage the next.
Day 3: More suspicious activity should be present.
This is a very rough proposal, however this is the only option besides 1 vote circlejerking
There are many benefits and harms.
Benefit one: Encourages people to play pro town and not do stupid things, so they can get more votes and keep votes away from mafia. We’ll have a higher level game without people trying to lie or ‘fish’ which confuses the waters
Benefit two: Allows us to get soft confirmation of the top 4 vote holders at times. This is because if 4 people control over half of the vote and the game is still continuing, that means that one of the has to be town.
Neutral: Less vote power is lost per night. Only 1 or 2 vote power is lost a night.
Harm: Potential for interference. If a mafia ends up with a lot of vote, there is a potential for the mafia to enact plans. However this is limited by counter interference from smart town members and the lynch if you are suggesting that we do this then it needs further fleshing out because as it stands i am still much happier "circle jerking" night1. When players announce their votes to what extent would they be expected to justify their decision? How do we ensure players do this? How concerned are you about unknown roles interfering with this plan? Do you think that we can determine whether players are telling the truth about their votes and make them accountable if they lie? If you were scum how would you react to this plan?
You bring up a valid point. I will need to clearly flesh out the plan.
Night 1
Everyone will transfer 2 votes to anyone as they wish.
Day 2
Everyone wakes up and announces who they transferred their votes to and post a short justification. It should be easy to figure out all vote movements. A few things to note
Votes to and from lurker
A justification is crucial because no townie would randomly give votes away. We can ensure that people will follow this as this is the correct play to do. Someone who insists that they didn't follow the plan is immediately under suspicion.
Unknown roles- I don't know much about this setup, but I am assuming it should be pretty standard, since one new mechanic has already been introduced. However if there are roles that directly interfere with vote trading, this would allow us to see exactly what happened and provide the town with a more accurate description of possible mafia interference.
Night 2
People with 5+ votes will give all but three of their votes to people with 1 vote
People with 3 votes will give all but 1 of their votes to people with 1 vote or 3 votes.
If there is too much imbalance in the voting and we are in danger of
Day 3
Repeat Day 2, and so on so forth.
The purpose of the plan is to deny mafia a good counterplan since there is so many uncertain variables
Mafia counterplan:
Very day focused. Attempt to gain trust of the town and play power roles and very high profile in an attempt to gain large VP swings during N3. However, this is difficult since people with 1 vote are the most likely to receive votes.
During the night there is very little you can do. Mafia lurkers- Transfer votes to high profile mafia members. High profile members- Try to keep as much votes inbetween each other, however it shouldn't be an issue loosing 2 VP if to gain a little trust with the town.
Problems: This may result in the bleeding of a few VP from the mafia. This is because lurkers will only have 1 vote, and active members would need to constantly rebalance any votes they received.
Why you should prefer this plan
-Lurkers become less important in the game, mafia lurkers will be neutralized, town lurkers will not cause as much damage
-Circle Jerk is inherently mafia supporting town has no benefit besides "can't mess up too badly". This plan inherently has town supporting elements
-Re-balancing automatically brings stability over the longer term, the nights where it is most important.
|
On January 28 2012 02:59 LSB wrote:Well as promised, now I'm going to start to look at other people's posts Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 04:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
3 takes more management, but will be better in the end. I suggest Day 1 and 2 circle trading to start stability, then once the game starts intensifying and we get more information we can switch to plan 3 when everyone's ready.
Given that 1) is trading 1 vote and 2) is trading all but 1 vote, I'd have to go with 1 because if mafia somehow gets ahold of votes and don't give them away, we give them less VP to vote with and can stop them before it's too late. I don't like this post. In fact this plan is very bad. If I was mafia, I would love this plan and support it, because of an easy counterplan. First of all, look at the concept of stability. Sentinel proposes that stability is more important in the early game than in the late. This is very wrong. Stability is more important in the late game than in the early. In the early game, although it is bad if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it. However if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 3, it could suddenly lose the game. Day 1/2 we have the freedom to try to achieve information at the risk of loosing vote power, day 3/4+ we do not simply because there is the high chance of loss My plan accounts for that because it focuses on stabilizing the late game, after a very tumultuous night 1. Secondly, look at information. Sentinel makes the fundamental assumption that circle-jerking will provide meaningful information. It won't, but it will provide a lot of WIFORM. However vote transfers will always have lots of information because every vote transfer is known. People will need to account for their votes. Sentinel's plan achieves neither of his goals of stability. In fact, there is a very dangerous counterplan that guarantees mafia an overwhelming advantage day 3 Counterplan: Between Day 1 and Day 2, give town 1 VP, and give mafia 1 VP 1: All mafia live. N3 Mafia has 13 VP, town has 17 VP. If town gives up 2 VP. If one townies mistransfers, mafia wins2. 1 Mafia is lynched. N3 Mafia has 10 VP, town has 20 VP. If town gives up 5 VP, mafia wins. More likely, 1-2 townies will mistransfer leading to Mafia entering with 12-14 VP, and town having 15-16 VP. This sets up lylo as the town has to be unanimous in order to unseat mafia. I believe this flaw is intentional and therefore I have a Red read on Sentinel Conclusion: I should read the thread before posting. And ##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel
If I'm understanding you correctly, your logic on why my plan is bad VP-wise is based on the fact that if we give mafia power Day 1, then by giving them more power Day 2 it's lylo Day 3.
On January 28 2012 02:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Anyways, I think more people are for circlejerk, at least the first night when we have no info to use, than against. It's far from dead at any rate.
On January 28 2012 02:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I say anyone that wants to circlejerk for the first night, put your intentions down, maybe close to deadline we'll get a list of people agreeing to it here, and then the rest of the people can do whatever they feel like doing, voting for who they think is town or whatnot.
Maybe having to pick between two by Day 2 we can draw some conclusions about who the scumteam is?
I'm going to post these because when people brought up Day 3 lylo scenarios over the 5 pages of text in this thread since I made the accusing post (that was page 13, now we're on 18) I changed it to one day only. And in your own words,
if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it.
And to that extent, my original plan was this.
On January 26 2012 12:24 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Alright, let's keep it simple and trade one vote each night to the person below us on the list, and last person gives one VP to the top person? That way we all stay at 3 and everything's fair.
Everyone posting their thoughts on the plan agreed up until Palmar's post, then the debates on what to do began. I'm not saying that first plan was flawless, and it's bad for the exact reasons you've said - after two nights, mafia has too much of an advantage.
I'm still keeping my opinion the same, circlejerk night one.
|
EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 28 2012 03:14 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 02:40 layabout wrote:On January 27 2012 13:56 LSB wrote:
Preliminary Observations
All circlejerk/circle group/announce who you are transferring systems are fundamentally the same. Because they allow the mafia to generate VP advantage because they are guaranteed to receive ½ votes from a townie.
For announcing plans, transferring 1 vote is preferred, because transferring two votes creates a D3 LYLO. Assuming Mafia would be able to build (at least) +2 Vote power per night simply because they can stop (with a bullet) whoever they will transfer votes too, if we miss on day 1+2, day 3 would be 11 total people, Mafia-16 Vote power, Town-21 vote power. If town messes up, mafia will gain +5 vote power and win.
But that puts town at a disadvantage at best, so what about giving votes without announcement? What is the alternative plan? The best plan would transfer almost all of the votes (so less VP is lost per day), and would not guarantee mafia VP.
Proposal: Balancing Act
Night 1: Give all but one vote away to who you think is the most town. Announce who you gave the votes to the next day. Because only one person died, we should be able to figure out who that person gave their votes to.
The main issue is if 3/4 people attempted to transfer to the dead person. That’s where night 2 comes into play
Day 2: We would account for all vote transfers, and suspicious behaviors would be checked on.
Night 2+: All people with 3 votes continue to transfer votes to anyone with only 3 votes. People with 1, 5, 7+ votes will not be included.
All people with 5+ votes will be assigned to transfer all but three of their votes to someone with only 1 vote. This will have a normalizing force so people who have a vote advantage one day will no longer have a vote advantage the next.
Day 3: More suspicious activity should be present.
This is a very rough proposal, however this is the only option besides 1 vote circlejerking
There are many benefits and harms.
Benefit one: Encourages people to play pro town and not do stupid things, so they can get more votes and keep votes away from mafia. We’ll have a higher level game without people trying to lie or ‘fish’ which confuses the waters
Benefit two: Allows us to get soft confirmation of the top 4 vote holders at times. This is because if 4 people control over half of the vote and the game is still continuing, that means that one of the has to be town.
Neutral: Less vote power is lost per night. Only 1 or 2 vote power is lost a night.
Harm: Potential for interference. If a mafia ends up with a lot of vote, there is a potential for the mafia to enact plans. However this is limited by counter interference from smart town members and the lynchif you are suggesting that we do this then it needs further fleshing out because as it stands i am still much happier "circle jerking" night1. When players announce their votes to what extent would they be expected to justify their decision? How do we ensure players do this? How concerned are you about unknown roles interfering with this plan? Do you think that we can determine whether players are telling the truth about their votes and make them accountable if they lie? If you were scum how would you react to this plan? You bring up a valid point. I will need to clearly flesh out the plan. Night 1Everyone will transfer 2 votes to anyone as they wish. Day 2Everyone wakes up and announces who they transferred their votes to and post a short justification. It should be easy to figure out all vote movements. A few things to note Votes to and from lurker A justification is crucial because no townie would randomly give votes away. We can ensure that people will follow this as this is the correct play to do. Someone who insists that they didn't follow the plan is immediately under suspicion. Unknown roles- I don't know much about this setup, but I am assuming it should be pretty standard, since one new mechanic has already been introduced. However if there are roles that directly interfere with vote trading, this would allow us to see exactly what happened and provide the town with a more accurate description of possible mafia interference. Night 2People with 5+ votes will give all but three of their votes to people with 1 vote People with 3 votes will give all but 1 of their votes to people with 1 vote or 3 votes. If there is too much imbalance in the voting and we are in danger of Day 3Repeat Day 2, and so on so forth.
The purpose of the plan is to deny mafia a good counterplan since there is so many uncertain variables Mafia counterplan: Very day focused. Attempt to gain trust of the town and play power roles and very high profile in an attempt to gain large VP swings during N3. However, this is difficult since people with 1 vote are the most likely to receive votes. During the night there is very little you can do. Mafia lurkers- Transfer votes to high profile mafia members. High profile members- Try to keep as much votes inbetween each other, however it shouldn't be an issue loosing 2 VP if to gain a little trust with the town. Problems: This may result in the bleeding of a few VP from the mafia. This is because lurkers will only have 1 vote, and active members would need to constantly rebalance any votes they received.
Why you should prefer this plan -Lurkers become less important in the game, mafia lurkers will be neutralized, town lurkers will not cause as much damage -Circle Jerk is inherently mafia supporting town has no benefit besides "can't mess up too badly". This plan inherently has town supporting elements -Re-balancing automatically brings stability over the longer term, the nights where it is most important.
Does it have to be 2 votes?
You are essentially suggesting that we create choas to prevent the mafia from being able to exploit our actions
If we do this Every town aligned player needs to put real effort into justifying themselves. This will force mafia to post in a way that helps us to determine their alignment.
If we do not then we will have created a choatic situation that mafia can take advantage of.
|
From my experience from playing as mafia and making counterplans I will separate plans into three general categories.
The Perfect Plan
Harry Potter Mafia - Perfect mass claim. Host gave each player a unique name that was tied to their alignment, and then revealed all of the names. Through workarounds, town forced people to nameclaim and win easily. (Mafia had no chance of winning)
Mafia XXX- Although I wasn't mafia, if the mafia D1 Night kills the person playing his first mafia game because they don't know how to deal with the plan, I'm assuming the plan was pretty good.
Perfect information
Diplomancy Mafia- We knew everyone's vote power. We would have won through perfect movement the next day but the game ended due to inactivity (which was also part of the plan. We I was doing really risky thing that basically killed Ace and netted me a lot of VP
PYP3- Information is beautiful pre-game plan. I made a plan beforehand, if I was town, I would severely modify it, maybe even scrapping it. If I was mafia, I would modify it to benefit mafia. If I was SK, I would just need to know where the tracker and gun cop was. I rolled SK and proceeded to kill the tracker, then people caught on that I didn't follow the plan because I made a bad play
Typically perfect information plans are easily to exploit and build an advantage
Uncertain Plans
PYP2- With a large portion of the game being unknown, it was very difficult to do anything. In addition, our power role was locked out and used against us. We lost that game.
My first attempt at a 'perfect plan' obviously had problems, so I'm now defaulting into developing an uncertain plan
|
On January 28 2012 03:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town?
Person with 1 vote who you most trust as town.
So if N2 it is
A: 3
B: 3
C: 3
D: 1
E: 1
F: 1
G: 7
H: 5
I: 1
J: 1
K 3
L: 3
A, B, C, K, L will transfer 2 votes to one of A,B,C,K,L,D,E,F,I,J
G will transfer 4 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J
H will transfer 2 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J
|
On January 28 2012 03:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 02:59 LSB wrote:Well as promised, now I'm going to start to look at other people's posts On January 27 2012 04:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
3 takes more management, but will be better in the end. I suggest Day 1 and 2 circle trading to start stability, then once the game starts intensifying and we get more information we can switch to plan 3 when everyone's ready.
Given that 1) is trading 1 vote and 2) is trading all but 1 vote, I'd have to go with 1 because if mafia somehow gets ahold of votes and don't give them away, we give them less VP to vote with and can stop them before it's too late. I don't like this post. In fact this plan is very bad. If I was mafia, I would love this plan and support it, because of an easy counterplan. First of all, look at the concept of stability. Sentinel proposes that stability is more important in the early game than in the late. This is very wrong. Stability is more important in the late game than in the early. In the early game, although it is bad if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it. However if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 3, it could suddenly lose the game. Day 1/2 we have the freedom to try to achieve information at the risk of loosing vote power, day 3/4+ we do not simply because there is the high chance of loss My plan accounts for that because it focuses on stabilizing the late game, after a very tumultuous night 1. Secondly, look at information. Sentinel makes the fundamental assumption that circle-jerking will provide meaningful information. It won't, but it will provide a lot of WIFORM. However vote transfers will always have lots of information because every vote transfer is known. People will need to account for their votes. Sentinel's plan achieves neither of his goals of stability. In fact, there is a very dangerous counterplan that guarantees mafia an overwhelming advantage day 3 Counterplan: Between Day 1 and Day 2, give town 1 VP, and give mafia 1 VP 1: All mafia live. N3 Mafia has 13 VP, town has 17 VP. If town gives up 2 VP. If one townies mistransfers, mafia wins2. 1 Mafia is lynched. N3 Mafia has 10 VP, town has 20 VP. If town gives up 5 VP, mafia wins. More likely, 1-2 townies will mistransfer leading to Mafia entering with 12-14 VP, and town having 15-16 VP. This sets up lylo as the town has to be unanimous in order to unseat mafia. I believe this flaw is intentional and therefore I have a Red read on Sentinel Conclusion: I should read the thread before posting. And ##Vote: [UoN]Sentinel If I'm understanding you correctly, your logic on why my plan is bad VP-wise is based on the fact that if we give mafia power Day 1, then by giving them more power Day 2 it's lylo Day 3. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 02:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Anyways, I think more people are for circlejerk, at least the first night when we have no info to use, than against. It's far from dead at any rate. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 02:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I say anyone that wants to circlejerk for the first night, put your intentions down, maybe close to deadline we'll get a list of people agreeing to it here, and then the rest of the people can do whatever they feel like doing, voting for who they think is town or whatnot.
Maybe having to pick between two by Day 2 we can draw some conclusions about who the scumteam is? I'm going to post these because when people brought up Day 3 lylo scenarios over the 5 pages of text in this thread since I made the accusing post (that was page 13, now we're on 18) I changed it to one day only. And in your own words, Show nested quote +if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it. And to that extent, my original plan was this. Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:24 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Alright, let's keep it simple and trade one vote each night to the person below us on the list, and last person gives one VP to the top person? That way we all stay at 3 and everything's fair. Everyone posting their thoughts on the plan agreed up until Palmar's post, then the debates on what to do began. I'm not saying that first plan was flawless, and it's bad for the exact reasons you've said - after two nights, mafia has too much of an advantage. I'm still keeping my opinion the same, circlejerk night one.
Let me simply it
Your first plan is the obvious plan. It is really obvious. It doesn't say anything about your alignment
Your second plan circlejerking night 1 and night 2 but free for all night 3 is deceptive and has a very effective counterplan. That's why I think you are mafia
Your third plan is like your second plan, but the counterplan isn't as easy. It is still worse than my plan
|
On January 28 2012 03:23 layabout wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 28 2012 03:14 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 02:40 layabout wrote:On January 27 2012 13:56 LSB wrote:
Preliminary Observations
All circlejerk/circle group/announce who you are transferring systems are fundamentally the same. Because they allow the mafia to generate VP advantage because they are guaranteed to receive ½ votes from a townie.
For announcing plans, transferring 1 vote is preferred, because transferring two votes creates a D3 LYLO. Assuming Mafia would be able to build (at least) +2 Vote power per night simply because they can stop (with a bullet) whoever they will transfer votes too, if we miss on day 1+2, day 3 would be 11 total people, Mafia-16 Vote power, Town-21 vote power. If town messes up, mafia will gain +5 vote power and win.
But that puts town at a disadvantage at best, so what about giving votes without announcement? What is the alternative plan? The best plan would transfer almost all of the votes (so less VP is lost per day), and would not guarantee mafia VP.
Proposal: Balancing Act
Night 1: Give all but one vote away to who you think is the most town. Announce who you gave the votes to the next day. Because only one person died, we should be able to figure out who that person gave their votes to.
The main issue is if 3/4 people attempted to transfer to the dead person. That’s where night 2 comes into play
Day 2: We would account for all vote transfers, and suspicious behaviors would be checked on.
Night 2+: All people with 3 votes continue to transfer votes to anyone with only 3 votes. People with 1, 5, 7+ votes will not be included.
All people with 5+ votes will be assigned to transfer all but three of their votes to someone with only 1 vote. This will have a normalizing force so people who have a vote advantage one day will no longer have a vote advantage the next.
Day 3: More suspicious activity should be present.
This is a very rough proposal, however this is the only option besides 1 vote circlejerking
There are many benefits and harms.
Benefit one: Encourages people to play pro town and not do stupid things, so they can get more votes and keep votes away from mafia. We’ll have a higher level game without people trying to lie or ‘fish’ which confuses the waters
Benefit two: Allows us to get soft confirmation of the top 4 vote holders at times. This is because if 4 people control over half of the vote and the game is still continuing, that means that one of the has to be town.
Neutral: Less vote power is lost per night. Only 1 or 2 vote power is lost a night.
Harm: Potential for interference. If a mafia ends up with a lot of vote, there is a potential for the mafia to enact plans. However this is limited by counter interference from smart town members and the lynchif you are suggesting that we do this then it needs further fleshing out because as it stands i am still much happier "circle jerking" night1. When players announce their votes to what extent would they be expected to justify their decision? How do we ensure players do this? How concerned are you about unknown roles interfering with this plan? Do you think that we can determine whether players are telling the truth about their votes and make them accountable if they lie? If you were scum how would you react to this plan? You bring up a valid point. I will need to clearly flesh out the plan. Night 1Everyone will transfer 2 votes to anyone as they wish. Day 2Everyone wakes up and announces who they transferred their votes to and post a short justification. It should be easy to figure out all vote movements. A few things to note Votes to and from lurker A justification is crucial because no townie would randomly give votes away. We can ensure that people will follow this as this is the correct play to do. Someone who insists that they didn't follow the plan is immediately under suspicion. Unknown roles- I don't know much about this setup, but I am assuming it should be pretty standard, since one new mechanic has already been introduced. However if there are roles that directly interfere with vote trading, this would allow us to see exactly what happened and provide the town with a more accurate description of possible mafia interference. Night 2People with 5+ votes will give all but three of their votes to people with 1 vote People with 3 votes will give all but 1 of their votes to people with 1 vote or 3 votes. If there is too much imbalance in the voting and we are in danger of Day 3Repeat Day 2, and so on so forth.
The purpose of the plan is to deny mafia a good counterplan since there is so many uncertain variables Mafia counterplan: Very day focused. Attempt to gain trust of the town and play power roles and very high profile in an attempt to gain large VP swings during N3. However, this is difficult since people with 1 vote are the most likely to receive votes. During the night there is very little you can do. Mafia lurkers- Transfer votes to high profile mafia members. High profile members- Try to keep as much votes inbetween each other, however it shouldn't be an issue loosing 2 VP if to gain a little trust with the town. Problems: This may result in the bleeding of a few VP from the mafia. This is because lurkers will only have 1 vote, and active members would need to constantly rebalance any votes they received.
Why you should prefer this plan -Lurkers become less important in the game, mafia lurkers will be neutralized, town lurkers will not cause as much damage -Circle Jerk is inherently mafia supporting town has no benefit besides "can't mess up too badly". This plan inherently has town supporting elements -Re-balancing automatically brings stability over the longer term, the nights where it is most important. Does it have to be 2 votes?
We can change the policy of 2 votes on later days (possibly when stability is more important, especially on night 3). But it is preferable to have 2 votes on Night 1 because this will mean that mafia can only eliminate 1 KP at night.
You are essentially suggesting that we create choas to prevent the mafia from being able to exploit our actions
If we do this Every town aligned player needs to put real effort into justifying themselves. This will force mafia to post in a way that helps us to determine their alignment.
If we do not then we will have created a choatic situation that mafia can take advantage of.
Exactly, mafia will be forced to post in a way that helps us. If they do not (almost every game has a mafia lurker), their lurkers will be neutralized.
Also, it's very hard to control choas. If mafia tries to transfer votes between members, that gives us more information. If mafia plays power roles, that gives us more information. My best line of attack is stay green for D1/D2, and play power D3.
If you mean sitting back and hoping to get lucky, yes that is a plan, but it has a very high chance of failing.
|
On January 28 2012 03:30 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town? Person with 1 vote who you most trust as town. So if N2 it is A: 3 B: 3 C: 3 D: 1 E: 1 F: 1 G: 7 H: 5 I: 1 J: 1 K 3 L: 3 A, B, C, K, L will transfer 2 votes to one of A,B,C,K,L,D,E,F,I,J G will transfer 4 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J H will transfer 2 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J '
Alright then, sounds good. In that case, one more question. This is probably the last thing that's keeping me attached to circlejerking.
If mafia are acting pro-town and get votes (say G and H are mafia, other two could exchange votes), couldn't they possibly have a lylo day 3?
Say A B G and H are all mafia. Day 3, 43 VP left in the game. Day 2 mafia had 18 VP, if either B or C receives votes (and G and H circulate to B and C as well), it would be 20 mafia and 23 town.
On January 28 2012 03:33 LSB wrote:
Let me simply it
Your first plan is the obvious plan. It is really obvious. It doesn't say anything about your alignment
Your second plan circlejerking night 1 and night 2 but free for all night 3 is deceptive and has a very effective counterplan. That's why I think you are mafia
Your third plan is like your second plan, but the counterplan isn't as easy. It is still worse than my plan
I was concerned more about how many votes to circle (1 or 2), and again I said first 2 nights before everyone started talking about day 3 lynch or lose scenarios.
The third plan... answer my question and I'll agree with that statement.
|
If I am understanding correctly from the anti-circle circle trade people, messing up on N1 is acceptable. Town needs to take risks to get an advantage. We should give our votes to who we think is pro-town and then justify ourselves D2. I agree that people's justifications will be useful, but at what cost?
By your guys logic, players such as Node, Jackal58 and jaybrundage shouldn't get any votes due to them being less active than others, which implies less town.
Here is where I get caught up. Who has to the most to gain from being active and pro-town? Mafia does. I am not saying that the lurkers can't be mafia, but it is unlikely. Mafia want to get voting majority in whatever way possible they can right?
Between the active players we are split on what to do N1, which is far worse than going with one plan or another. Solidarity goes a long way in mafia.
Also what is the point of the free trade plan + justifications if we are just going to make people balance the votes back out the next night to those with 1 vote. The people with 1 vote should be weaker townies and mafia. What is the point of not trading to them N1 if we are just going to give them votes back N2.
Now onto the business.
On January 27 2012 22:57 Palmar wrote:
The difference between finding mafia to lynch and finding townie to pass your vote to is night and day. Remember, if you just randomize it, you still have 70% chance of hitting a townie. Add in even a tiny bit of thinking and that percentage goes up.
When you're trying to lynch scum it's the opposite, and you will be influenced by outside factors (it's harder to get wagons started on scum). However, this is your decision and your decision alone, so you have complete control over the outcome.
There is no such thing as safe play in mafia. It's not safe to do the circle of trust because we don't know what abilities the mafia has, and we cannot possibly gain an advantage through that method. With no advantage we don't know how the game is balanced.
"I just chose at random" This justification completely negates what your plan is trying to do, which is to get scumtells from peoples justification on their trades. Another contradiction
By your logic and probability, townies should trade their votes at random N1, ~70% chance to trade to another townie. So, which one is it Palmar? Free trade + justifications or randomized trading.
On January 27 2012 19:57 Palmar wrote:
whatever, I don't have the energy to argue with dumb.
I will not be following whatever plan you guys cook up. I will be following my own plan.
This is so anti-town. Solidarity is crucial, not dissidence. You are forcing the town to do one of two things, follow you or lynch you. Seems like a scummy power play to me.
##Vote: Palmar
|
On January 28 2012 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:30 LSB wrote:On January 28 2012 03:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town? Person with 1 vote who you most trust as town. So if N2 it is A: 3 B: 3 C: 3 D: 1 E: 1 F: 1 G: 7 H: 5 I: 1 J: 1 K 3 L: 3 A, B, C, K, L will transfer 2 votes to one of A,B,C,K,L,D,E,F,I,J G will transfer 4 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J H will transfer 2 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J ' Alright then, sounds good. In that case, one more question. This is probably the last thing that's keeping me attached to circlejerking. If mafia are acting pro-town and get votes (say G and H are mafia, other two could exchange votes), couldn't they possibly have a lylo day 3? Say A B G and H are all mafia. Day 3, 43 VP left in the game. Day 2 mafia had 18 VP, if either B or C receives votes (and G and H circulate to B and C as well), it would be 20 mafia and 23 town.
I'd be perfectly happy with that. G, H deviated from plan, obviously mafia. B/C is revealed to be mafia. 3/4 mafia are found. Town wins.
Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:33 LSB wrote:
Let me simply it
Your first plan is the obvious plan. It is really obvious. It doesn't say anything about your alignment
Your second plan circlejerking night 1 and night 2 but free for all night 3 is deceptive and has a very effective counterplan. That's why I think you are mafia
Your third plan is like your second plan, but the counterplan isn't as easy. It is still worse than my plan I was concerned more about how many votes to circle (1 or 2), and again I said first 2 nights before everyone started talking about day 3 lynch or lose scenarios. The third plan... answer my question and I'll agree with that statement.
The thing is this, although there is a possibility of lylo Day 4, it is a small possibility and relies on all mafia surviving and gaining multiple votes. Remember, mafia cannot pass the votes to each other all the time or else it would be very obvious who they are, even after just two rounds. It is much more likely that they won't control enough votes. If they attempt lylo, it makes our job very easy.
|
On January 28 2012 04:45 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 28 2012 03:30 LSB wrote:On January 28 2012 03:20 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
EDIT: Didn't see the post LSD made after he voted for me. Is it assigned, like (X with 5 votes is going to vote for Y with 1 vote, Z with 7 for W with 1, etc.) or is it just the person with 1 vote that you trust the most as town? Person with 1 vote who you most trust as town. So if N2 it is A: 3 B: 3 C: 3 D: 1 E: 1 F: 1 G: 7 H: 5 I: 1 J: 1 K 3 L: 3 A, B, C, K, L will transfer 2 votes to one of A,B,C,K,L,D,E,F,I,J G will transfer 4 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J H will transfer 2 votes to one of D,E,F,I,J ' Alright then, sounds good. In that case, one more question. This is probably the last thing that's keeping me attached to circlejerking. If mafia are acting pro-town and get votes (say G and H are mafia, other two could exchange votes), couldn't they possibly have a lylo day 3? Say A B G and H are all mafia. Day 3, 43 VP left in the game. Day 2 mafia had 18 VP, if either B or C receives votes (and G and H circulate to B and C as well), it would be 20 mafia and 23 town. I'd be perfectly happy with that. G, H deviated from plan, obviously mafia. B/C is revealed to be mafia. 3/4 mafia are found. Town wins. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 03:33 LSB wrote:
Let me simply it
Your first plan is the obvious plan. It is really obvious. It doesn't say anything about your alignment
Your second plan circlejerking night 1 and night 2 but free for all night 3 is deceptive and has a very effective counterplan. That's why I think you are mafia
Your third plan is like your second plan, but the counterplan isn't as easy. It is still worse than my plan I was concerned more about how many votes to circle (1 or 2), and again I said first 2 nights before everyone started talking about day 3 lynch or lose scenarios. The third plan... answer my question and I'll agree with that statement. The thing is this, although there is a possibility of lylo Day 4, it is a small possibility and relies on all mafia surviving and gaining multiple votes. Remember, mafia cannot pass the votes to each other all the time or else it would be very obvious who they are, even after just two rounds. It is much more likely that they won't control enough votes. If they attempt lylo, it makes our job very easy.
Well, that's virtually everything. I'm on board with this plan.
|
On January 28 2012 04:24 Paperscraps wrote:
Also what is the point of the free trade plan + justifications if we are just going to make people balance the votes back out the next night to those with 1 vote. The people with 1 vote should be weaker townies and mafia. What is the point of not trading to them N1 if we are just going to give them votes back N2.
Note this, if only weaker / inactive players have 1 vote, that means the majority of players either have 3 votes or 5 votes. The three votes would trade with each other (or with a 1 vote with proper justification), and personally I would rather have an Active person with 3 votes, rather than 5 votes, because of the danger of people holding too much votes (as you have stated).
|
On January 28 2012 04:24 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 22:57 Palmar wrote:
The difference between finding mafia to lynch and finding townie to pass your vote to is night and day. Remember, if you just randomize it, you still have 70% chance of hitting a townie. Add in even a tiny bit of thinking and that percentage goes up.
When you're trying to lynch scum it's the opposite, and you will be influenced by outside factors (it's harder to get wagons started on scum). However, this is your decision and your decision alone, so you have complete control over the outcome.
There is no such thing as safe play in mafia. It's not safe to do the circle of trust because we don't know what abilities the mafia has, and we cannot possibly gain an advantage through that method. With no advantage we don't know how the game is balanced. "I just chose at random" This justification completely negates what your plan is trying to do, which is to get scumtells from peoples justification on their trades. Another contradiction By your logic and probability, townies should trade their votes at random N1, ~70% chance to trade to another townie. So, which one is it Palmar? Free trade + justifications or randomized trading. Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 19:57 Palmar wrote:
whatever, I don't have the energy to argue with dumb.
I will not be following whatever plan you guys cook up. I will be following my own plan. This is so anti-town. Solidarity is crucial, not dissidence. You are forcing the town to do one of two things, follow you or lynch you. Seems like a scummy power play to me. ##Vote: Palmar
You're not helping anyone with that. You're just being dumb. Seeing as you're probably town you're working directly against your win condition.
I didn't suggest anyone randomized, I was just pointing out what a great starting point we had even if we simply randomed. Don't try to see things that aren't there.
|
does anybody know why prplhz has voted for wherebugsgo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
