EPTTeam Melee Mini Mafia II
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
| ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
I could team up with YellowInk if he's still around? | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On September 15 2010 07:22 Bill Murray wrote: you could do worse, meeple. YellowInk is a really good player. I don't doubt the quality of his play, but rather whether he has the time for one of these | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
| ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On September 16 2010 19:44 YellowInk wrote: C'mon meeple, can't you be any more convincing than this?  Korynne did PM me and I'll say now that I can play, but fair warning that I'll probably post little more than once per (real life) day. You likely won't see me hanging around sniping people like you've seen previously. That being said, once I get into a game sometimes I just can't help myself no matter what other obligations I have...  I'm flexible to whatever time settings the rest of you would like - if I were a host I'd want to pick out whatever time setting made my own life easiest. hehe... sweet deal man... dunno that much about your play since I was gone basically the whole time you started playing but I'm down. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
| ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
Man, we should have a SAW mafia sometime... | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
I'm wondering if Korynne would put Southrawrea into a group of reds... I don't think she picked that group by random and also wondering if having a group of three is more or less "powerful" than having a group of 2. Personally I'm leaning to weaker, seeing as now its three people who have to play the part of a single role. More chances for discrepancies and tells... | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
If they're green, then you're right its harder to convince them to vote a certain way, more resistant to mafia corruption. But isn't it weaker if they're red? | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
@BM Why the vote? Can you explain...other than just fluff posting... I doubt that the quote is actually a slipup, but if it was that's clever. @Incog Can you really characterize a person's play by a single game... I know myself I played very differently my first game than my second, usually you're really excited the first game eager to contribute but that calms down after a while. I'm sure it's hard for you to remember your first game :p I do agree that neither have been really pro-town but that's a common characteristic On September 20 2010 16:04 Incognito wrote: Also Korynne, as a good host you really should answer reasonable questions and be consistent in your answers. As much as its cute to answer in story mode, its just a headache if you don't tell people the rules. Not to mention unfair. Especially if you are clarifying rules in PM land. Also the no-lynch thing: A no-lynch should be allowed. Depriving the town of that option is pro-mafia and is nonsensical especially in a small game. In 30 player games, a single lynch doesn't hurt all too much, but being forced to lynch in an 8 person game is brutal. Especially since you have to lynch when there are an odd number of players left.Last edit: 2010-09-20 16:07:20 Why the edit?? And after all that high talk about what a good game host should do... tsk On September 20 2010 16:08 Ace wrote: I was pretty much out of it all day. What did I miss? Cmon I know you can do better than that... Vote: Team 6 BC's only real post is this: On September 20 2010 05:06 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Ok as this is a super super super small style of game. Team game so technically very few players in terms of lynches we have to be extremely careful. To start with we need to generate discussion and yes I have seen some of this going on already woo we need to sit down and seriously think things through. Lynching based off inactivity remember kills a team not just one specific member but the team itself. IF an entire team is inactive maybe we can opt for them. Opting on inactivity lynches based solely off one player in a team however seems like a bad idea, especially for the trio we have. As for a general start past this RVS [vote] rastaban/foolishness Both are normally fairly active players and outside of one spam post, both are afkish. Plus no one decent to vote for. For a verteran player, this says absolutely nothing... I mean he says lynching off inactivity is bad, and makes a RVS vote, saying repeatedly that its a nothing vote and he doesn't want to be held accountable for it... As for RoL, we find the same lack of commitment except he adds in some fluff about whether or not there is medics in this game... On September 20 2010 15:52 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: lol wow I just caught up and that SR post is retarded. Well a couple of things I saw. Foolishness Medic lists are useful because of the psychological implications of it. Will a medic follow it, will a medic protect themselves, etc. I am really wondering if a medic protects an ENTIRE team or just one of the individuals on it, that will definitely show how strong a medic is. Since this is basically everything x2 I would assume most roles are the same and have entire team implications. IE: DT check effects both members of a team (since no reason it shouldn't) therefore a medic protection should cover an entire team. Although if that is the case, I sincerely doubt medics can protect themselves. It will be really OP if a medic could just hoard protections on themselves all game since the mafia couldn't possibly kill them. On the other hand if they can only protect half a person they are a useless role. So medics either suck, are OP or aren't in the game. I'd lean towards not being in this set up especially since Korynne remained vague on the answer. I assume the logic is the same as when one of the mafia games had 6 variations of detectives but only 4 were authentic. The point in that was to add more to think about and take into consideration, but in reality it wasn't practical at all because it would break the game. On that note, I will just go with my team mate and vote for Rasta/Foolishness for picking at incognitos post and ignoring the validity of medic protection list (even though I think medics probably aren't in this game, or at LEAST can't protect themselves) To summarize because I like Incognito's idea about that. 1. For the moment I am leading towards foolishness/Rasta just because we have nothing better to go on. 2. Really doubt there is a medic role since it seems like it would be really OP, or really shitty depending on how Korynne decided to balance it, and her unwillingness to clarify in thread makes me think its not important. 3. Vote for Foolishness/Rasta just to make it clear. Its day one though, so I reserve my right to completely change my mind for little to no reason :D | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On September 21 2010 04:49 BrownBear wrote: When you read the thread, it should become obvious what is content and what isn't. What you post isn't content. What Incognito posts is. It's like night and day. Also, [Vote]No Lynch rasta and LSB have very good points, so I'll stick with this plan for now. I know it's a reversal of my earlier position, but I believe their logic is sound. We only get a single "No Lynch" if I understand correctly... you really think we should waste it on the first day? | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
unvote Team 6 vote: No lynch | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On September 22 2010 04:52 Infundibulum wrote: Actually an addendum: YellowInk has a point that it would be stupid to use our no lynch today, when we don't need to, when we could potentially end up in a missed lynch = loss situation later in the game. I think this is the strongest argument against lynching Day 1. Is there something amiss with this logic that i'm not grasping? I think the general thoughts are that: Pros: - Prevents a somewhat uneducated decision, hoping for some better information tommorow Cons: - We only have one, we waste it now and we're screwed later - We go into Day 2 with just a little less information than we would if we lynched and found out someone's alignment. I think normally most people would go with the lynching day 1, if not only to get the info... but with such a small game every mislynch is a huge blow. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On September 22 2010 05:08 SouthRawrea wrote: Oops I meant to bold the very last part and finish my train of though. All other scenarios are quite even but in the situation where we get no medic saves and choose to NL on day 1, we miss out on 1 potential lynch even though we survive for an equal amount of days. We have a maximum of 3 lynches in any scenario except no save + no lynch in which we have only 2. (This is of course assuming that our medic isn't a godly one. Hold on... so we only get 2 lynches if we have a no lynch and no save scenario... balls to the walls... wait... Assuming we use our no lynch now and assuming that we have no medic saves... Today:_______________6 v 2 Tommorow____________5 v 2 Day 3:_______3 v 2______or_______4 v 1 Day 4:__town lose or 2 v 1____2 v 1 or town win Day 5: town win or town lose in both cases What am I missing... this gives a 50% chance of town win, based on total randomness and no saves. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On September 22 2010 05:30 Foolishness wrote: Give me a scenario where we use No Lynch today and we end up screwed later. Remember no medic saves. Well... technically can't we use a No lynch in a 3 v 1 scenario to prolong the game into a 2 v 1 with a higher chance of catching the last guy... | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On September 22 2010 05:39 Incognito wrote: This post is interesting. YI wants to avoid a situation where town is divided with votes? That's interesting, since usually town gains more information from close votes...note how he splits his vote from his own team mate. Like Pandain, the only weird votes I see are coming from Divinek and YI. Otherwise its just two teams voting for Team 1. If town, meeple and YI should be coordinating votes. While both voted for team 6 previously, one switched to Team 1 while one switched to no lynch. No real reason to split your votes if you're town...this 1-1 split vote makes it interesting because meeple effectively negates YI's vote. The thing is, why is this bandwagon interesting? I don't see anything interesting about it except what your partner voted. Meeple, how are we screwed later if we "waste" our no lynch today? The only reason I can see is if a medic makes a save. And that is a terrible reason. Aww, this is disappointing. You only start fishing for info now? Pretty pathetic, I might say. *** I get why people want to no lynch. In a 1 KP game town always wants to lynch when there are an odd number of townies and don't want to lynch when theres an even number. The reason why we probably won't get any information from this lynch is because of the nolynch. Not that hard for anyone to policy no lynch when theres an even number of townies. There's nothing fishy about this lynch. The general apathy in this game is astonishing in its ability to do that. I'd rather there be something fishy about this lynch, but apparently we won't be graced with that information. Eh you're right, me and YI aren't really coordinating that much... probably should be. I never agreed with a Team 1 vote... About the wasting our no lynch... I was just summarizing the reservations I picked up... could've been misinterpreted though. I thought that saving our No lynch could possibly avoid a situation where we are forced to lynch but don't have a good target and as a result we lose. In any case, I don't mind using it now, since we don't really have alot of evidence or solid leads. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
Now comes the analysis of their posts knowing that they were town. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
BM: + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2010 19:39 Bill Murray wrote: @pyrr excuse me? are you admitting he is your scumbuddy? @everyone else If pyrrhuloxia is mafia, southrawrea could be as well. It might be null, but I feel like that could be a slip. I am liking pro-town discussion of Incognito and Foolishness, and are not really suspicious of teams 8 and 3 as a result. Incognito is capable of spotlighting as scum, so I'm not saying he is cleared, but I have played with him where he is scum, and this does not feel quite the same. Due to meta, and his amazingly pro-town play, I would definitely not be ok with his lynch at this juncture. I am not fully convinced Pyrrhuloxia's team is a mafia slot, though, and am going to reserve my vote for the moment as such a small setup can be volatile. I would be happier with a lynch on team 2, as I found SouthRawrEas post to be all fluff and no content. @mod votecount please ##vote: team 2 Expresses doubt about South's greenness due to fluff posting... says that he enjoys Incog and Foolishness's analysis, but adds a caveat about Incog's ability to spotlight as red. + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2010 05:59 Bill Murray wrote: LSB's admission is only icing on the cake @LSB: how would you be so CERTAIN they're scum? You have a scumlist, buddy? This makes me confident in my earlier read he is appealing to pyrr's authority. Scummy, scummy, scummy. @meeple: I find it funny you ask me to justify my vote when I voted SR on fluff, then make a secondary reason as for voting being fluff yourself. I also dislike you speculating that I was 100% pyrr/SR are the scumteam.... if that was the case, I would have been putting a second vote on Pyrr's team. I didn't. I'm voting SR because I am unsure if Pyrr actually made a slip. The way SR is acting now, though, in the above post, makes me believe that my initial reaction to who I'm voting is actually wrong. I needed to stack on pyrr because his team is way more important as I'm feeling both SR's team #2 with bumatlarge and divinek are scum with Pyrrhuloxia's team #1. My reasoning and justification are how SR is acting towards pyrrhuloxia. I will also give justification in relation to why we should lynch vs a no lynch day 1. I am not saying "let's not ever no lynch", but that we could use it day 2 if we don't lynch scum day 1. day 1 lynching scum: 6 v 1 night kill day 2 5v1 <- possible win here mislynch + night kill day 3 3v1 (mylo) <- obvious no lynch unless 100% certainty night kill day 4 2v1 (LYLO) if we DON'T mislynch now, and no lynch later, we can save it for a MyLo potentially. That's why we need to take a chance on lynching scum today. this is assuming we fuck up later, but we rocked on day 1. I'm not even really worried about this is Pyrrhuloxia's team #1 flip scum, which I expect them to do based upon SouthRawrEa being a newer player who is a dead giveaway. Though I am more sure of SR based upon his posting, AtA, and my not liking bumatlarge's posting earlier, I feel like they implicate team #1 through SR, and there being a vote on a slot that I find scum is enough for me to want to wagon said slot. ##unvote: pyrrhuloxia/LSB ##vote: SR, bumatlarge, and divinek States that SR is a new player and a scum giveaway and they implicate team 1. + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2010 17:06 Bill Murray wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2010 08:56 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Alright, I am going to be addressing both BM and BB with this, since this seems to be using faulty logic. BM you are arguing that we achieve the same result by no lynching day one or two, this is wrong because on Day 2 we have more information to work with PLUS we have higher percent of just randomly offing a mafia simply because there is one less team in the game. Completely faulty logic. As the game progresses our information increases so saying day 1 = day 2 no lynching is completely wrong, even if it is mathematically the same in regards to WHEN the day ends. Also BM you assume that we are rocking out day 1 and fucking up rest of the time? That's such an unlikely scenario considering as the game progresses information increases. BB inactivity is an easy mafia ploy to pull off day one claiming little to no reason or content to post, so its a given that they SHOULD be posting and if it continues it is very scummy and antitown, in the current set up I am willing to let it slide and not lynch of inactivity Day 1, but come down on it hard Day 2. I would disagree with the we-should-lynch mentality, simply because no-lynching day 1 actually gives us an extra day. Obviously if we're 100% sure we have a scum we should lynch, but failing that we should no lynch, because then we have an extra day of analysis and a nightkill target. Get the cop (if he exists) to rolecheck team 1 or 2 tonight, and if he finds a scum, have him claim and get the medic (if HE also exists) to protect him. This obviously assumes blue roles exist, but since we have a 3/4 chance that they do, I think it's pretty safe to assume there's at least 1 blue in the game (if we get lucky, we get two!) I do agree with the fact that we need to get good discussion going, and that we need to get LSB to 'splain himself further about his accusation. This entirely reeks of shit to be blunt. It starts with kind of what I was saying but dissolves into the most retarded plan I have ever read. The whole DT CAN CHECK SOMEONE THEN SAY WHAT HE CHECKED AND THEN MEDIC PROTECTS HIM = GG is retarded. You are basing SO MUCH off of the chance its a 1/4 scenario where we lucked out and got both a medic and a DT. When deciding what to do we have to see what would benefit us the MOST in every possible scenario, which I believe is clearly day 1 no lynching (in our current predicament) Obviously if we have a strong suspect we should ALWAYS go for it, but quite simply the reasoning that you are justifying no lynch is nonsensical. Now, to get some discussion going: What do you guys think of the possibility of having cop (if cop exists) claim day 2? Obviously he shouldnt claim now, because if he exists there's only a 1/3 chance that medic also exists and can protect his ass tonight. However, I'm assuming that since cop is more than 1 person, and this game is mostly talented players, the rolecheck tonight should turn up something good. I think it would absolutely be worth it to trade cop for 1 of the mafia. Obvious flaw with this: If there's no cop, and mafia fakeclaims, who's gonna counterclaim? Still, I'd love to hear other peoples' opinion. DT should only claim if he feels a good enough reason to. Personally I think as soon as the DT confirms someone as red he should claim. Trading mafia for DT in a small game like this seems beneficial. The only reason NOT to do that is if that individual is getting lynched anyway for whatever reason, but if the vote is close I would still claim as a DT and make sure a mafia got killed. Besides that claiming for the sake of claiming is stupid. I disagree. If team 2 are mafia, and I get team 2 lynched, it is 100% likely on both days they will flip mafia. I don't look at it "randomly", I look at who is fucking mafia and who isn't fucking mafia. That being said, over the past couple of pages, I have been really happy with SR and Divinek. I was happy with bumatlarge until he started using really odd language. bumatlarge, explain the ending of your most recent post, as seen here: ...What? Basically, I am fine with no lynch at this point. I was pretty sure I had caught scum, but I am admittedly not so sure now. vote: no lynch Expresses doubts about his previous convictions and changes his vote to no lynch + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2010 19:28 Bill Murray wrote: Foolishness trendily lurks until D2 too bad if he doesnt die N1 he is likely mafia, as he likes to lurk D1 as mafia just like he does as townie or blue so that is very, very, very null from him. I cannot emphasize this more. The funny thing is, though, mafia could choose to not hit him and use it as an argument. "Foolishness didn't die, he is mafia, get him" on day 2. That's the problem with his high level of play if it goes unchecked, it makes all arguments pretty WIFOMy which is why I like to pressure people who lurk I like to do that more on day 2, or forward, though. I like a lynch on D1 vs a No Lynch, so I am tempted to wagon. If I wagon, would you guys take it the wrong way? I like wagons as town these days, but I don't like mislynches, and I haven't seen anything glaring at me saying "this player is scummy as fuck" like I had originally thought I had. It's funny everyone is dead set on a team I initially thought was scum. The minute I back off, people start believing. The world works in mysterious ways. I am going to vote simply to consolidate my vote with my partner's, and Vote: Team 1 Tomorrow we can pressure people based around their posts, and our general suspicions on teams 7 and 2 if they flip red. If they flip townie, then I'll have to look at a couple certain teams, too, so I'm actually happier with this lynch than teams 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and possibly even 2. Votes Team 1 to with Ace, and still expresses concerns about teams 2 and now 7 Ace: + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2010 17:40 Ace wrote: Ah damn I was somewhat supporting your post until you said We need this lynch for information. What information are we getting from a lynch besides his alignment flip? LSB is still the scummiest person so far in my book though. + Show Spoiler + On September 21 2010 18:40 Ace wrote: actually I dont think your case by itself is really that strong, it just seems convenient. LSB's accusation of Team 2 and his weak explanation, which didn't even seem to answer my concern is still my prime motive for leaning towards them. I'll rethink this again later for sure but for now ## vote Team 1 States suspicions about LSB and votes for him + Show Spoiler + On September 22 2010 03:03 Ace wrote: this is such a terrible lynch. Just way too many easy voters. Bill Murray unvote them, this lynch just doesn't seem legit at all. ##unvote Team 1 Gets anxious about the easy votes and unvotes Team 1 + Show Spoiler + On September 22 2010 09:33 Ace wrote: No it isn't. This post is blatantly misleading. No lynching is for when you can't conclude someone is scummy enough to lynch. Like I've said, the town does not have to lynch every day. So most of the time it's in your best bet to No lynch unless you are in a situation where there is clearly going to be a benefit. Being in the end game does not matter for a No lynch, all it means is that you're decision has a more immediate consequence but it's also easier. Towards the end of the game it is actually much rarer to have a No lynch. Remember what I said? It's in your best bet to avoid a lynch when you aren't sure someone is scum or there is no clear benefit. At the end of the game you have so much information between votes, player interaction, the knowledge of what roles have been revealed and your own ties to players that it's really not often you'll be No lynching then. In a typical game a single medic save gaining you a day is false. Saving a player and them possibly being confirmed innocent is a pretty big deal don't you think? It may not directly add more days to your win condition but adding more players to the likely pro-town pool, that TWO players know about is pretty heartbreaking for scum once it's revealed. Using a No Lynch now would actually be the best bet...if this were 10 hours ago and this was a normal setup with infinite No Lynches. Clearly though, LSB has been posting god knows what and well I'm a little intrigued by this post of yours. I thought you were a good player so how could you actually believe this nonsense you just posted? The only thing worrying me is that Incognito seems to have pegged both your teams also which shows his scumdar is operating on great batteries like mine, or he's just good at picking off easy townies. So I'm going to ask you this one time: Let's assume you were a detective. What team would you investigate tonight and why? Accuses Yellowink (Team 7) Now lets see... Amongst the people that are included in the "easy votes" on Team 1 are: bumatlarge Divinek Infundibulum YellowInk SouthRawrea Incognito Also the people that accused BM/Ace YellowInk - albeit halfheartedly + Show Spoiler + On September 19 2010 14:22 YellowInk wrote: I think we should hang Ace and Bill Murray. LSB + Show Spoiler + On September 22 2010 08:20 LSB wrote: As for the things I'm supporting 1) No lynch. 2) Bum's medic plan The thing is, if I was mafia, I would be supporting an erronous plan, trying to get the town to take part of a plan that is easily exploitable. A great way to do that is to support your plan! Your plan has problems. Strangely you haven't address these problems. Right now you are saying, "LSB seems skummy, so therefore I don't need to worry about the holes in my plan". That isn't logic, that's misdirection. I'll repeat myself: We should use the DT and the Medic in the places where they will be most effective. The Medic should focus on making sure that someone doesn't die. And the DT should be used to try to investigate targets. I don't like the list idea, since it tells the mafia what to stay out of. Again, please address this problem. Tell me why I am wrong, don't just make a long post on why I'm supposed mafia to distract others from seeing that your plan has a problem. I don't have this list of possible plans in my pocket and try to use them. If I think of something, I'll use it sure. I moved on of course, chiefly no lynch once we figured out that it could be used. What I am saying is that your accusations twist my words. You admit that you can't read my posts at face value because if you do, you'll find that I'm a townie. You now are relying on the fact that I haven't taken any positions? What positions are you accusing me of not taking on? Planning: You claim that I haven't made a plan. Therefore I am Mafia. Thats just silly. I'm not going to make a plan unless I think of one. Ace/BM is scumYou said that I didn't give enough input into the Ace/BM lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. Because I think there're town Rastaban/Foolishness is scum: You said that I didn't give enough input into the Rastaban/Foolishness lynch. Well, I don't feel like I should. So you expect me to 1) Pull out plans or die, or 2) Accuse random people. <sarcasm>Sounds townie to me </sarcasm> I would have liked more time to see what Bum would do, and how SR would play this game. But like you said, people wanted me to post. So I did, and I said that I didn't really think that they were mafia since new posts didn't fit with my general theory. Conclusions: I think we should examine some of the players that bandwagoned on Team 1... especially Team 2 since we know BM had some serious concerns about them. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
Vote: Team 6 | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On September 24 2010 07:35 LSB wrote: Misconseptions Just saying, that was not a strong accusation at all. I then retract myself mid post. If it was an accusation, I would have ended my post with a vote. Don’t misquote me please Miscellaneous Yeah, ACE/BM was vanilla town (their names were in green) 2nd post coming soon Oops sorry about that... did a search of various team 4 scum terms and that popped up... retracted | ||
| ||
