EPTMini Mafia IV
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On January 20 2011 22:04 Jackal58 wrote: Their posts may be all fluff and no stuff but they will post. I'd actually want less fluff and have players post less but bigger posts cause mafia can easily blend into a whole group of people writing fluff and then we're fucked. If everyone is writing big posts then mafia is hard pressed to write big posts too and so if they write small posts they stick out like a sore thumb. If they write long posts there's more a change they'll mess up and give themselves away. Either way they react, we win. Right now the main thing we're looking for is for everyone to "check in" with a post. When does day end lol? Mad scared lol | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
4. BloodyC0bbler 5. ShoCkeyy 6. Pandain So to get my fellow super secret friendship club member to speak up #Vote: Pandain =]] | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
The problem with abstaining is that we basically let mafia have a free turn. Rather than voting, and therefore collecting vital information and discussion, no one is lynched, and we end up on day 2 being none the wiser. It's basically as if we started on day 2. I've thought about how if there were blue roles like DT or medic then longer time till LYLO via abstaining is actually better for town. But that assumes there are even blue roles to begin with and like others have said, dependence of blue roles is bad. Feel like that's why mafia win so often on TL Mafia. Town either tries to hatch some sort of plan or PM circles get formed too easily or everyone is inactive till a blue comes out and is like "HI! I'M BLUE! ANALYZE THIS!". That being said, I feel like we should focus on a small set of players a day instead of making it a 5 person accusation clusterfuck. So many times I've been in a game where town had done that. 4-5 people who aren't even mafia start accusing each other and mafia just sits back and laughs. Maybe in mini games that happens less? Post big, post less, say more please. Reading through 30 pages of back and forth spam makes me a sad (panda). | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
Of course I was laying low seeing as all the active kids kept dying first Staying low doesn't help the town. I wasn't in that game but is active players were being killed off by mafia, I don't think that's a bad thing, it just means the active players are getting somewhere with what they were saying. The point of the game isn't to stay alive but to help town win. I'd take my death over inactivity that leads to town loss any day. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. To be fair, he's at work and can only post via his cell. Just saying. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On January 21 2011 06:50 Pandain wrote: I don't like this post either. Let's take a look at it. First off, lynching inactives itself is a bad strategy. I shall be lenient to him because even I make this mistake, but lynching inactives is a horrible thing to do. When we say "lynch inactives", we mean "lynch lurkers." We want to differentiate the lurkers from the inactives/bored. If we say we'll lynch the inactives, the inactives won't respond. IF we say we'll lynch the inactives, the bored won't really respond. Only the mafia will respond if we say lynch the inactives. Which is why you never want to end up LYNCHING an inactive, just pressuring all of them to post. Furthormore, he just repeated information without actually adding anything to it. Finally he goes for the "easy" kill. This is typical mafia to me. I now offer Nemesis as a viable option for a real lynch. I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat. There have been games where inactivity lost town the game. And I'm not talking about people being active and then becoming inactive. I'm talking about inactives staying inactive. Town doesn't want to waste lynches on them past day one and then you get like 3-4 inactives just sitting around at the end of the game making it almost impossible to weed out the last 2-3 mafia that are hiding within their ranks. Also, you're talking about semantics. Whether we mean inactive or lurker, inactive means they ain't posting and so from the point of view of the town, it's the same thing, a bad thing. Its like our policy to lynch millers. Doesn't matter if they are real mafia or not, if someone comes up as red, its better to lynch them than not to. Saying we're going to lynch inactive might not do anything but voting and pressuring them will get them to post so your point on that is wrong too. If they are truly "inactive", as in they are away from the comp, they won't come defend themselves and we can get a sense of whether they are "inactive" or a "lurker" as you put it. I'm actually weary of people who go "omg he wants to lynch inactive, he's mafia!" Everyone knows what people mean when they say lets lynch inactive day one, it's just a way to generate discussion. Most games start with people saying lynch inactive. And most of the time they're not mafia. Why did you jump to quickly to say he's mafia? We got a whole day left and not everyone has said anything yet. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
Did you just say this? .I disagree with this post. While lynching inactives is suboptimal as a strategy when compared to lynching mafia, I wouldn't say it's a bad strat Do you disagree? I mean, I assume you do but like the example I listed, lynching inactives isn't a bad strat for day 1. While we might not hit mafia, we do weed out the forest that they can hide in once the game gets to late game. I'm not saying lets lynch an inactive every day, which you seem to be painting the people who have said "lynch inactive" as. I'm saying inactives are bad. I don't want inactives. I'd rather lynch one of them than going on a wild goose chase. That being said, if someone sees scummy, I'd go after them. But at this point, before everyone has even responded in the thread, a push to lynch someone is premature at best, scummy at worst. Not to say you're scum, fellow secret friendship club member =p Also, I don't think this game will have the problem of inactively, everyone seems semi active so far =] so i am happy. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
##Vote Shockeyy I haven't seen you post anything useful at all so far other than excuses for being inactive and useless one-liners. Shockey already said he's at work like twice so I think it's unfair/weird for someone to be calling him out when we still got a day left. But I'd rather wait till tomorrow when everyone has weighted in before just throwing FoS all willy nilly. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On January 21 2011 07:39 GGQ wrote: Whether or not everyone has posted has nothing to do with whether or not Nemesis's posts are scummy. Pandain was right to call him out. Maybe not for you, but it does for me. I like to consolidate all the information I can get before I make a decision. I almost got kicked out of a game by BM cause I kept trying to consolidate vote lists/changes in votes. I'd rather have people do that instead of people (mafia) jumping on a bandwagon early and just riding it to the end. I'm just scared of people being rash. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
I got enough out of him, the point is to pressure as many people as possible in a limited amount of time. Speaking of which, why is chaoser still voting me since I've obviously spoken. You've spoken but all you've given is definitions and what we SHOULD do with no clear plans/idea on how we're going to even go about doing it (differentiate between town lurkers/inactives and mafia lurkers/inactives). You stated that your main goal is get town to be active which is a non-committal thing to do. Your analysis of Nemesis was pretty bad, pretty much calling him out on saying pretty much the same things everyone else was saying/everyone else usually says on Day 1 (Lynch inactives, blah blah blah). Though I do think Nemesis' over aggressiveness was a bit weird, I think your actions/posts haven't been much better. So I'm keeping my vote on you for the time being. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
Chaoser, lets lynch shockeyy instead! Aside from not posting much, I don't know how I feel about shockeyy. i'm going to stick to my vote on pandain. Why go for someone he supports when you can just go for the main target. His jumping around on votes really makes me suspicious. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
| ||
