EPTCan I give you Drunk Batman?
Pick Their Power Mafia 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Can I give you Drunk Batman? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 19 2011 02:10 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Only if its better than shitty batman from last game. No, it's the exact same, just with better flavour text to explain your ineptness. I wrote it down somewhere, but now I can't find it  | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 19 2011 03:11 GMarshal wrote: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! I wanted to play in this! *shuffles off to cry in a corner* If there are list checks I will laugh and laugh and laugh Maybe I'll make a compulsive anti-list-check role. Muhahahahahahha | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Alternate win condition then? Care to share? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 25 2011 10:41 Tackster wrote: Well: I didn't realise you had a role list... Last PYP i had a terrible vote effect. You imply it's negative they know possibly 5-8 roles but want to give them 25 to pick from. Mafia will know 25 roles and all of their mates. They can pick the killers, docs, checkers and predict what effects will be used against them. They can avoid wasting KP on bulletproofs. Town will know 25 roles and have to check 25 people.... Any pro-town secret mechanics (such as you can kill a mafia IF [condition]) will be void. Mass claim is a terrible plan... As well, mafia will be able to completely avoid things like veterans, bullet-proof townies, hatters, vengeance roles, etc. It doesn't seem like a good plan this early into the game. As well, if mafia picked for each other at all, that gives them a free fake-claim, with which they can skew things. Say they have a KP role, or a role similar to someone else, then they'd use that role in an anti-town way, and it would appear as though the other, non-mafia, player were doing it. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Does the no claiming who you made powers for follow the spirit or the letter of the law? For example, if we just asked general questions about a role, and someone else answered, without ever saying they actually made the role, does this circumvent the rule, or no, because it breaks the spirit of it? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
-We vote for the use of the wand KP along with the normal lynch. We also include the vote of "No Kill" -We stop discussing Voldemort and Harry Potter and try to scum hunt -We only bring them up again if they act scummy, (Read: Beyond talking about their roles) -If ON disobeys town wishes, we lynch him Thoughts? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 25 2011 11:41 redFF wrote: could be bus drivers and roleblockers... so no So, instead, we give a KP to someone who is questionably town, and let him use it however he wants? RBs makes no difference for whether or not we tell him who to kill, as if he announces his kill slightly before the day post (as he should), this problem is still existent. Mafia can still target him with RB just to keep the KP out of play (or choose not to RB because they don't think he can aim). If he announces his kill slightly before the day post (as he should), then he can still claim bus driver, if that person isn't dead and someone else is. This way, gives us more information about more people, for who they vote for. The fact that the kill might not go through, is secondary to that, because that problem still exists whether or not we follow this plan, and this way we generate more discussion. On July 25 2011 11:43 sandroba wrote: Yeah, I hate this idea, if mafia has a rb only kills that will go through will be townies. I want the wand back and I agree that we should stop discussing this. San, that's huge WIFOM, and even then, ties up a mafia RB with ON constantly, who only has 1 KP that we know of, and keeps the KP itself out of play (not necessarily a bad thing). Also, are you able to use the wand yourself? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Also, I'm wondering YM, because if you can use it today, it might be best to fire it off, and then WIFOM about your kill/protection. That's assuming you're town of course. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 25 2011 13:14 redFF wrote: erm i've read the books and seen all the movies except the new one, so average i guess? So... On July 25 2011 10:41 redFF wrote: Can the Elder Wand be used at any time or only at night? How did you know the "stick", or "wand" was properly called the Elder Wand? (That's the first mention of it by that name in the thread) This leads me to believe you're in contact with Jackal or one of the role creators of ON/Jackal | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
The Jackal thing is different though, because of the part where it says something about another player's alignment, so I'm trying to figure that out. Could ON actually be mafia, but just flips green, thus the "disguised as town" from Jackal's PM? Like a GF that keeps working after death. Other than that, I'm drawing a blank, besides that Jackal's scum. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
For example, if you reveal who you picked your role for or details about said role your penalty will activate. Outing supersoft's role, seems to make you look like town, acting in the heat of the moment that you think he's scum and killed YM, who was very likely to flip town. However, the seeming lack of a penalty so far, makes me think that you didn't actually create supersoft's role. It makes me think that you're in contact with the creator of supersoft's role (via scumteam), and outed it to buy cred, by exposing the killer, and possibly revealing a townie. This is why a penalty didn't activate, because you didn't actually create his role. Can we check him, please? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 04:58 BloodyC0bbler wrote: use a dt check on SS first. Don't trust someone whos suspect to give real feedback. Make him earn his damn check. You do not reward roleclaimers ffs. How contradictory. You think that having SS use his rolecheck is rewarding him (not town, just him) for roleclaiming, but then say we should wait for another DT to check supersoft to confirm him as town or not. Here's how that fails: -Framers -Fake DT claim to take out Day DT -Continual Role block after today on SS -Having to have an actual DT claim to confirm him So, you don't want to reward roleclaimers, but then want another DT to claim to confirm a known DT, who's alignment is unknown? That makes no sense at all. The best thing to do, is to use his check, and have him announce his result to town. The catch is we don't act just based on his check. We can check a lynch candidate if we want, but that gets dangerous if he's scum, though another 1-1 trade wouldn't be that bad. The other thing we do is check someone suspicious, who isn't necessarily getting lynched today and having him announce his check, and just leave it until we can confirm him. Then if he gets popped, we know all his checks and results, and if we can act on them, and if he gets confirmed another way, well we know all his results too. I'd actually suggest checking you or DB, and then leaving it for now. As well, why would we check people asking to be checked, and why would anyone be dumb enough to ask for a DT check on them without already being suspicious anyways? If they're asking to be checked, they're town or a covered role. Town wouldn't want to waste a DT check on themselves, as compared to suspicious people. Use the tool to hunt mafia, not to confirm town. An innocent check doesn't prove innocence, but the only way we're getting a red check back at this point is millers or a day-framer. Day 1 has the least chance of anything interfering with the check, and is the best time to use it. I'd rather have 1 check in, than have none and SS gets shot tonight. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 05:33 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Check the bolded part. In almost every case of someone asking or begging for a dt check they are town or covered role. Most people do this to confirm themselves and thus starting a blue circle that can rofl stomp mafia. It is very common practice for people to want to be cleared as to move through a game with 0 harassment from anyone. No mafia would willingly throw himself up for a dt check as it would screw him in the end. You say no townie would want it used on them, but that would again, leave you a pool of 0 people to check. you are then down to the idea of "we want you checked you let yourself get checked or lynched" which is a horrible way to play. Seriously, you all are talking about role use being the huge factor in catching people. I now say, everyone go back read pick your power 3 and realize playing lets analyze roles, or someones role means they are legit, etc.... and realize roles do not say shit about the players alignment. Who cares if SS's check is an alignment check if you don't know his alignment. Have a watcher/tracker check him. If he visits anyone at night at this point in time he is mafia. have a dt check him. Dt's could breadcrumb results, or the like. Seriously, before a plan is proposed you sort it out, you make it ideal, you account for multiple situations. So far the only situation proposed by you lot is SS is likely town for shooting a red. Likely town does not mean town. What? So, instead of using a check, and just leaving it, until we have a second DT out themselves or breadcrumb and die, you're saying never use the check? Did I understand that correctly? Please tell me how what you're trying to say is optimal play. How is not having a check better than having one? The only situation proposed by you, is that we don't use the check at all. That's asking a claimed and outed DT to not check people or reveal his checks, until another DT checks him. In what world does that make sense? Ask yourself how you would play this out in a normal game. If a DT claimed, would you ask him to not check anyone until another DT checked him and claimed it? That sounds really dumb to me. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On July 26 2011 05:44 BloodyC0bbler wrote: In a normal game, on day 1, if someone claimed dt and said x was red, I would kill the dt first. Every time. In a setup where mafia, third parties, or town can be a dt, I will never trust the claimant ever on day 1. Nor should anyone else. Ok, so where's the part where we're trusting him by having him use a check on an agreed upon target? That's what I'm wondering about. You're saying that by letting him check, we're implicitly trusting him to be town, but that is not the case. We can let him sit in unconfirmed limbo for now, but why not use his check? It doesn't hurt us to use his check, the same way that killing the DT actually tells us whether the check is true or not. | ||
| ||
