|
|
|
On December 08 2010 12:27 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
ok if i got a result like this:
ace team rocket
ver team rocket
bloodycobbler team rocket
fishball team rocket
amber team rocket
kingjames team rocket
obviously that's no fair
no point in analysing it really. sometimes i want to see specific people be certain roles before the game starts and there is no way anyone could really predict that
quoted because i want that team to fail. All the way RNG please... :/
|
On December 08 2010 13:42 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 13:13 Gabriel wrote:On December 08 2010 12:27 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
ok if i got a result like this:
ace team rocket
ver team rocket
bloodycobbler team rocket
fishball team rocket
amber team rocket
kingjames team rocket
obviously that's no fair
no point in analysing it really. sometimes i want to see specific people be certain roles before the game starts and there is no way anyone could really predict that quoted because i want that team to fail. All the way RNG please... :/ that would require me to be a player malongo -> Gabriel
Hello Sir BC. I remember long time ago you used to write delicious recipes for TL. Maybe that was in my previous life. 
|
On December 09 2010 05:17 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 13:59 Gabriel wrote:On December 08 2010 13:42 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On December 08 2010 13:13 Gabriel wrote:On December 08 2010 12:27 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
ok if i got a result like this:
ace team rocket
ver team rocket
bloodycobbler team rocket
fishball team rocket
amber team rocket
kingjames team rocket
obviously that's no fair
no point in analysing it really. sometimes i want to see specific people be certain roles before the game starts and there is no way anyone could really predict that quoted because i want that team to fail. All the way RNG please... :/ that would require me to be a player malongo -> Gabriel Hello Sir BC. I remember long time ago you used to write delicious recipes for TL. Maybe that was in my previous life. So you're malongo? =) hehe
i find your lack of faith disturbing... (Starwars Mafia Please. Im playing the wookie).
|
On December 10 2010 03:38 L wrote:
Lol what the fuck is this.
Just get in maybe u turn to be mewtwo.
|
DrH you should cut it to 30 players and start pming everyone.
|
On December 10 2010 06:17 Incognito wrote:
Adding one more player is grossly inadequate for offsetting that extra third party player. We already accounted for the third party (sorta) so we should be fine either way. Your call.
At least someone speaks with some sense. One less pikapi is not going to change balance.
|
On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun.
I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first.
|
On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first.
How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1.
Game started long before first day post. Interesting that you still defy chances: mafia takes some time to get in contact. Maybe you want to propose a lynch candidate right now? I actually have one right in front of me.
Edit to pretify
|
On December 10 2010 10:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:06 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:40 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 09:16 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Also @LSB: I don't think we should say "we need to lynch inactives". While it may pressure scum to come out from hiding, I have seen it hit town more often than not. I think we need to deal with who is out and talking and giving us things to analyze rather than just blindly shooting into a room with a shotgun. I rather start the blind shoot into this small room with a shotgun. We are not getting analysis going too far away day one. Picking the right guy at the right time is picking a dead weight at first.
How can you possibly say this? The game literally just started, and we have 48 hours to scumhunt. Again, I am going to say, there is no reason to dismiss the idea of finding a lynch candidate Day 1.
Game started long before first day post. Interesting that you still defy chances: mafia takes some time to get in contact. Maybe you want to propose a lynch candidate right now? I actually have one right in front of me. Edit to pretify Editing is against the rules. This is a warning. A second edit will result in a modkill.
-_-' Just missed a quote tag. Just ask for it.
|
On December 10 2010 10:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:14 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:
You want to propose me as a lynch candidate because I am trying to generate discussion instead of being like "Oh yeah, ok, let's just jump on the plan to lynch inactives. See you guys in 2 days." No.
I don't get this. In response to: Show nested quote +Game started long before first day post. Interesting that you still defy chances: mafia takes some time to get in contact. Maybe you want to propose a lynch candidate right now? I actually have one right in front of me. Unless I'm misunderstanding his post, he seems to be accusing me. Although the bolded portion doesn't really make much sense to me. Can you clarify it Gabriel?
Mafia needs time to coordinate. Is that clear? I dont get your bolded either.
|
On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:15 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:11 LSB wrote:[quote] Remember, the town's best weapon is analysis. By checking the inactives, we flush out the mafia to the limelight where they easily could be found. We want the mafia to attempt to distract the town, this way we can catch onto what they are doing. The town has to be vigilant to guard against these attempts + Show Spoiler +Discussing a plan is one of the best ways to generate activity and catch a scum btw I'd rather we just kill the inactives. I think checking them is a waste. The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check. Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out.
I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box.
|
On December 10 2010 10:51 Infundibulum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:47 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:35 Hesmyrr wrote:On December 10 2010 10:25 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:23 Hesmyrr wrote:
Moreover D1 lynches are always crapshoot. It is good and fine to publicly discuss and prod one's suspects, but at least waiting until D2 so one have more actual data to support the case on him/her seems just better. This is a large setup so we cannot just afford to let all the lurkers pass-by. They're always crapshoot because we have players that go about finding scum in a crappy way. I suggest that everyone else vote for you as well. Chances of finding scum D2 > Chances of finding scum D1 always just purely on the basis that amount of information available will increase as the game progresses. Although lynching inactives is always a start, we shouldn't discount the power of day one analysis I've seen it many times actually. Kenpachi/Coagulation (Almost, but we switched)- Deconduo's Don't lose your village game Me/Pyrr- TLMMM 2 Masq- Haunted Mafia Bill Murray (Almost, but Ace made us switch x.x)- Penalty Mafia And many others... I don't like lynching inactives Day 1 because we run the risk of lynching someone that is going to be modkilled. Unless I am mistaken, DocH is running a rather strict modkill policy: miss a vote = modkill. So if we lynch someone that wasn't going to vote anyway, it's rather redundant. I am a man that strives for efficiency.
On December 10 2010 10:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:Why?
Well. Why not? Its not like Infundibulum is a mafia newb to make that post.
|
On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:19 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:17 LSB wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that Lynching an inactive takes up an entire town lynch, which is far more useful and powerful than a DT check.
Our lynches must work twords lowering mafia KP. At the same time, DTs must be used to work towards lowering mafia KP too. Analysis is great, but it can only go so far before WIFOM kicks in and confirmation is needed. Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town.
I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum  because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote.
|
Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain
A) your vote
B) your deep posts?
On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D:
On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive.
On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all.
On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night?
On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course  I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think
On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2.
|
On December 10 2010 11:15 tube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:
[quote]
Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. ok well im basically the only person who has talked and is new, so you must be suspecting me in which case i would respond by asking how i'm a "half decent" target
I was refering to the "im new i dont understand pose". May be actually new or not see my previous post.
|
On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:26 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:21 LSB wrote:
[quote]
Again, what do you propose to do about inactives? Well, here is my thought process. Wasting a lynch on an inactive sucks. However, I would prefer to use a lynch than a DT. Using a lynch is hit or miss, but it only wastes one action, while making more headway to finding scum with the DT. Using the DT on inactives pretty much wastes the DT if it is on town, while a lynch on a player is still a bit hit or miss (unless good analysis is done), and accidentally lynching an active townie would be more hurtful than an inactive townie. I am hoping it does not come to this and that everyone contributes though. I would love for a game without a bagillion modkills. Wait. What? Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't?
Is it really efficient at this point lynch an active player over the inactive that is going to die anyways?? Really? I mean mafia is not going to die because he doesnt vote, blues are not going to die because they dont vote. Meh i want to flip infundibulum badly.
|
On December 10 2010 11:28 Infundibulum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:25 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:
[quote]
Wait. What?
Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't? Is it really efficient at this point lynch an active player over the inactive that is going to die anyways?? Really? I mean mafia is not going to die because he doesnt vote, blues are not going to die because they dont vote. Meh i want to flip infundibulum badly. It is stupid to lynch someone that is going to be modkilled because that is like not lynching anybody at all. That is what my first post was trying to say.
Well now that you have started posting it is not "lynching anybody" to lynch you. And the big fallacy there is that we just dont know who is going to be modkilled because it is enough for a guy to vote or even abstain at the last minute. So your argument is: we shouldnt vote inactives because they are going to be modkilled, except that the ones that we want to get sniped are those that are actually not modkilled (whatever the definition of inactive you may have).
Im still voting Infundibulum. Kenpachi is still missing?
|
On December 10 2010 11:34 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:20 Gabriel wrote:Interesting: my half good "im new" shot is now voting for me. Kenpachi care to explain A) your vote B) your deep posts? + Show Spoiler +On December 10 2010 07:11 Kenpachi wrote:
oh shit.. i cant really imagine Professor Oak dead D: On December 10 2010 07:47 Kenpachi wrote:
Pikachu - Townie
Raichu - Miller
Chansey - Medic
Cloyster - Veteran
Alakazam - Detective
Electrode - Mad Hatter
Mew - Special Detective
Gengar - God Father
Koffing - Mafia Grunt
Weezing - Mafia Shrink
Mewtwo - 3rd Party Vigilante
notice how our only way of killing at night is Mad Hatter and 3rd party.. 3rd party is technically against us and will probably kill town over mafia due to immunity and their goal is to be last alive. On December 10 2010 07:50 Kenpachi wrote:
yea claiming is a no no. and i hate lynching inactives. doesnt work at all. On December 10 2010 08:01 Kenpachi wrote:
how many people can Mafia target per night? On December 10 2010 08:12 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:11 Eiii wrote:There always seem to be posts about how we all need to establish a 'pro-town environment', which is obvious of course I (and I'm sure lots of other newer players) have no clue what that *means* though, especially when we can't PM each other. (That might turn out to be more of a blessing than a curse though.) So... can someone enlighten me? basically, where we can point out scum easily without confusing them as town.. i think On December 10 2010 08:14 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 08:13 KtheZ wrote:
Do we have a limited amount of double lynches? I think its 2. what would posting history 4 hours into the game show you?
A) You dont want to be active posting
B) You want to "look" active
C) You read the rules but you actually dont know mafia KP? That was rare.
D) You dont want to lynch inactives because that doesnt work.
E) You want enlightment.
F) You vote for me out of literally nowhere. I mean: i post to flip Infundibulum and you come right after me. Care to explain at least?
|
On December 10 2010 11:28 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 11:25 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:20 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 11:12 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 11:04 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:58 Gabriel wrote:On December 10 2010 10:46 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 10 2010 10:42 LSB wrote:On December 10 2010 10:34 jcarlsoniv wrote:On December 10 2010 10:31 LSB wrote:
[quote]
Wait. What?
Lynch is less important than a DT check? I would rather waste a Day 1 lynch than a Day 1 DT I feel. Day 1 lynches are tough. Definitely not impossible, but tough when everything is just starting out. Using a DT on someone who isn't going to even bother contributing wouldn't be worth it. Using DT checks on active members is definitely more important. I'm a bit confused now though...You want to DT check inactives AND lynch inactives? That just seems like a waste of resources. Lets say there are three people that are lurking. That's not a far fetched number, mafia love to lurk. Sure we lynch one of them during day one, but what about the other ones? Not all the DTs have to check of course. But maybe setting something such as a probability system would be enough to flush out the mafia. Roll a 1 check inactive A. Roll a 2 check inactive B. Roll a 3 check whoever you want. That plan will need to be modified, if not scrapped once we get our D1 vote list out. I rather check the active player and lynch the inactive player. The active player right now is more likely to be +info in the future anyways, while the inactive is just... well... inactive. By the way one of the worst game aproachs is the "im noob just reading and getting used to play". If you are town you rather post something small but with actual meaning. I still have a decent target day 1 unless he posts a few more than oneliners. Inactives is also my treasure box. I have no idea what that last line means. Why don't you tell us/vote for who your "decent target"? +info always benefits town. I have a half decent target in the "im new guys" list. However right now i really want to flip Infundibulum because A) He came out of nowhere to dismiss lynching inactives (and that is really nonsense for a player that has played a lot of games) B) I cant believe jcarsoniv just posted a single Why? to LSB vote. With a game of 31 people and a little more than half the people having posted recently it's just dumb to blindvote someone for "just showing up." What do you read into the line about efficiency that I don't? Is it really efficient at this point lynch an active player over the inactive that is going to die anyways?? Really? I mean mafia is not going to die because he doesnt vote, blues are not going to die because they dont vote. Meh i want to flip infundibulum badly. If you read the rules you would know that people who don't vote will be killed by Dr.H (the moderator). So yes, Infund is correct that it would be more efficient.
I still put it this way: You rather have an active poster that is somehow contributing the town dead instead of a non contributer that *may get modkilled* or *may be just hidding*. Note that in everycase *May* just depends on him because he can just post oneliners or vote at the last minute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
