Don't Lose Yo Mafia

On January 14 2011 07:32 GGQ wrote:
Nah I would only win if I was lynched. Thus the purposefully bad posting in this thread. Guess the stalker caught on. GG.

On January 14 2011 07:52 Impervious wrote:
Ya he does - he could hit one of the wrong people.....

On January 17 2011 07:23 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Or maybe the mason converted the vigilante the first or second night? That hasn't been suggested. It could explain why there is apparently no Vig shot yet.

On January 17 2011 08:56 Hesmyrr wrote:
ARRRGH I knew I was going to die unfortunately =/ (hence the double signup on the other threads). My buddies should know what to do. Good luck town!

On January 12 2011 22:30 Hesmyrr wrote:
Masons are like weeds; I suspect they'll be quite unkillable unless accidentally stumbling into big bad stalker

On January 18 2011 11:21 Impervious wrote:
You want a serious discussion? Ok, here it is.


This post, and LunarDestiny's vote, is what made me change my vote. And here's the thought process:

As the Vigilante, you'd want to have as many people left as possible, to draw hits instead of yourself. As a Stalker, you'd want to do the same. His vote + modkill mentality seems to indicate that he wants as few people left as possible. From that, I kinda threw those two roles off.

As a Townie, you'd want to eliminate any masons, the Tracker, or the Vigilante. Which is why a coinflip would be a terrible idea (way more likely to hit a fellow townie than anything else at that point in the game). I figured it was possible, but less likely than the remaining roles.

As a Tracker, you want to find the Stalker (possibly the Vigilante as well, but the key target is definitely the Stalker) and then be converted to a Mason (more useful role once you have the information you're looking for), so having as few people as possible left are what you'd want, to increase the chance of finding the Tracker (+ Vigilante) and a Mason. As a Mason, you'd want as few people involved as possible, so you can influence lynches to go your way.

Because of that, and what LunarDestiny said and did, I figured it was likely he had one of those two roles. However, there was no way we'd get a vote on him at the time. He voted for OriginalName. As much as I find him very suspicious, because he has such an original name (yes, I am joking here), my thought was that if we had to lynch one of the two players (since the momentum was already there), the one he voted to lynch would be the best one to keep alive, and the one he wanted to keep alive was the best one to lynch (small chance of getting a fellow mason or tracker if the tracker had found the masons already).

Changing my vote is what ended up getting the majority at the end of the day, which eliminated one of the roles that I figured chaoser might have had, if LunarDestiny had one. If it was just a fluke, it was just a fluke. However, if my thought process is right, LunarDestiny is a mason.

His in-depth analysis of the two schools of thoughts that the Masons could be using seem harmless, but it really seems like a ploy to throw attention away from himself now. Alot like that "coin flip" comment he made before picking someone to vote for, rather than voting for no lynch.

I wanted to wait another day before putting these thoughts out there, to see what LunarDestiny did, but if I'm gonna have some suspicion and votes thrown on me already, may as well put it out there before I die.

On January 18 2011 22:13 SouthRawrea wrote:


That's quite cynical of you. So your logic behind this is because Hesmyrr is an experienced player (and in fact the best in your opinion) that his plan is near-immaculate and we must band together to destroy it like some sort of hardcore raidboss. You're going overboard here buddy. Just because you play mafia well does not mean you are some sort of schemer. There are different strengths a player can have in mafia and that usually doesn't involve coming up with some sort of elaborate plan. (Ex: Scumhunting) WHY ARE YOU SAYING THINGS TO MASONS ANYWAYS? Your so called plans were redundant and as I had previously stated you could hardly call them plans.
This is counter-productive and is the exact kind of behaviour that I was pointing out in my earlier post.

1)Undying Weeds
Mason only have to maintain a group of 2 to survive.
-The only chance of them dying is that one of them is lynched. (1 remains)
-Mason convert occurs before Stalker Nightkill. (2 remain)
-Stalker nightkill another mason. (1 remains)
-And another get lynched next day. (dead)
The chance that this happens is very small. This plan reduces the number of times that mason convert another and so it reduces the chance of converting the stalker.

2)Overwhelming Majority
This plan requires masons to maintain a group of 3 or 4 (depending on the number of players).
Even with the group of 3, they can influence the vote since last lynch only took 4 players. The drawback of this plan is that it puts all masons in danger because masons have to convert more times and therefore increasing the chance of them converting the stalker. But if they are able to maintain their numbers and get to the late game, they can easily win

Really? They may be opposite alignment, but they have similar roles, respective to their actual alignment - they are the ones with power to kill at night. They need to outmaneuver eachother, and the first one to find the other nets a considerable advantage for their side.

Wait, what? Until you're converted, the last thing you should be doing is trying to help the masons, because unless you actually get converted, you're helping the wrong side.....

As unconverted traitors, your current winning condition is winning with stalker. If you think you will be converted in the future, you want to win with town. As I pointed out earlier, because masons don't want to risk converting the stalker, you aren't likely to be converted so you should put winning with mafia as your current goal.

Exactly why we should be trying to lynch masons right now - put even more pressure on them.

If the masons were going with the pair mentality, then there were only two last night. One got killed. Meaning there is one left. If we lynch that mason now, we've got a solid chance of winning. If they were going for the larger group mentality, and we can lynch another one right now, we've knocked them down to 1, which puts a lot of pressure on them, possilbly forcing a slipup.

No, they probably won't die from lynching and nightkills, however, the more lynches and nightkills you successfully do, the more they have to convert, and that means they are more likely to slip up. We should be actively hunting masons for that reason - not necessarily to kill them off completely by lynching/nightkilling the last one, but by forcing a slipup.

Then why did you not go for a "no lynch" during the previous day?

I'm sticking with my gut instinct here. Something's fishy.

You can't really have much misinformation in a short game. A short game can lead to mistakes made due to lack of information as well. There's not as much difference in the overall results as you're making it out to be.

Trying to help the masons while you're a traitor is flawed thinking..... Almost every traitor could be converted to a mason by the end of the game, but if we initially try to help them before being converted, and they win while you're still a traitor, you lose.

Yes, we should have good reasons behind it. I thought your initial posting was a little suspicious, and your actions during the first vote were as well. I decided to vote the opposite of your vote, for the reasons I already stated (momentum for a lynch + chance at hitting a role). Maybe it was a fluke, maybe you're a mason and knew about chaoser, maybe you're the vigilante and chaoser had already found you, I dunno. But there was something wierd about how you reacted in that first vote, and have acted since.

I initially went for no lynch..... In the post prior to yours.....