|
/in as replacement, or if we're desperate.
|
Sorry I haven't posted anything yet, I'll start reading the thread now.
|
Remember that analyzing players is much better then analyzing a team. I felt that a lot of people in thread were focused on teams rather then individuals (GM's analysis). If you find two scummy people and they happen to be on the same team, thats great, but be honest to yourself when you find someone scummy. I'll explain later after I get this out of the way.
Ok, I didn't hear much mention of this, but there is a fantastic way to scum-hunt in team games. Basically with 2 players, they will have be discussing thoughts with each other and what not, so even if you didn't have a list of the teams, you could figure out who is paired with who, just based on interactions. While that may sound quite obvious, it will undoubtedly leak into the play of two mafia teams if they aren't extremely careful.
Think about it like this. Both scum teams have a total of 4 people, who are all allowed to converse with one another. What would be the point of making 3 separate QTs for the groups? There, we will see it start to see it shine through, that 4 players are doing the scheming, not 2 groups of 2.
Because we are players who push constant activity, and we can see that mindset in this game, and I would be surprised if one of the mafia regulars on a scum team wasn't right in with the usual crew. There is a good source of activity this game, so I'm thinking it should become quite apparent with our tendency to be quick-draws here.
Lurkers are not cool, and ultimately by-pass this method 
And shame on everyone who discouraged poor hyshes with his train of thought. While a completely obsurd plan that would be impossible, and then really awful play on top of it, it does hint at the glaring weakness a frisky mafia team will get gutted for.
On November 03 2011 08:42 hyshes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:31 Forumite wrote:On November 03 2011 08:00 GreYMisT wrote:
One thing that will be interesting this game will be analyzing the behavior of teams. do we judge the 2 players as a unit, looking for scum behavior in both? Or is one player acting scummy enough to vote. Tricky... Two posters means twice the risk of mistakes, I would have liked to say that means it´s twice as easy to find scum, but Town make stupid scumslips too. I think we´ll have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Actually the best way of playing this kind of mafia is splitting up your team. If only one of you knows your role, then only one can make mistakes. The only thing you need to do together is analysis of the other teams. To prevent any possible mistakes, must the one who knows the role only paraphrase what his teammate says. Ofcourse by the second night the one who knows should tell the one who don't (a few nights later depending on the size of the game). There is an obvious easy mistake to make here: the role should always be hidden, even it's town.
It was heading in the right direction, but you would have overshot your destination by a few hundred miles at the rate you were running. "This kind of mafia" is the key phrase that we should consider in our analyses.
That said, orthodox scumhunting is at it's finest here. I had certain suspicions rummaging through the thread, so I was very happy to have GM a step ahead of me. I was fairly certain redff was scum (not so much kitaman). I'm very curious about how their claim would have fleshed out, but with no counter-claim, and the 50/50 risk of being dead wrong as scum, I can't really reach any gamestate where mafia would do that. And that early. Holy shit, you guys had like 2 votes on you. Split milk I guess.
Forumite and prphlz was a poor lynch choice, I think there were better options available. The second player I was suspicious of behind red was WBG, mainly from this post.
On November 03 2011 08:48 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:41 GMarshal wrote:On November 03 2011 08:39 prplhz wrote:On November 03 2011 08:33 wherebugsgo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:29 GMarshal wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On November 03 2011 07:47 GMarshal wrote:
oh, wait, this is majority lynch. I knew I forgot to talk about something important.
For fucks sake, if you get someone to L-2 stop voting for him until the last 12 hours of the day, and give warning before hammering. Remember, more time is always good for town, and giving the lynchee time to dump information can only be good. Leaving the player at L-2 ensures we avoid any "accidental" lynches. Lynch minus two is three votes. Are you advocating that we just split the vote once someone reaches 3 votes?? I don't trust that this will be a great idea, particularly as people are often not available when you need them, and vote-splitting is great for scum. While we'd only need two more to lynch, that's not very comforting either. In such a situation we'd basically need to last-minute voteswitch if we think that we have a townie at 3 votes. Otherwise, we take the risk of no-lynch. Of course it opens us up to scum manipulation too. Scum can throw in a late vote "to stop a no-lynch" and then bam we lose a townie. I meant two votes to lynch, so if a player needs 7 to lynch, stop at 5. This policy would only be in effect for the first 36 or so hours of each day, but from personal experience, nothing sucks more than lighting bandwagons ending the day 3 hours in because everyone agrees someone is "scummy" and then seeing them flip green. GM are you not understanding what I'm saying? A person gets lynched at 5 votes. Lynch minus 2 is 3 votes. gm thinks this is a 12 player game hahahahahahaha Oh, frag, I forgot its a 9 team game. Oops. In my mind the smallest game that exists has 11 players :-P In that case I suppose I can live with leaving a player at L-1, but if anyone quickhammers I will rip them a new one. ... I'm suspicious, but I'll let this slide for a sec because something bigger just appeared Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 08:42 hyshes wrote:On November 03 2011 08:31 Forumite wrote:On November 03 2011 08:00 GreYMisT wrote:
One thing that will be interesting this game will be analyzing the behavior of teams. do we judge the 2 players as a unit, looking for scum behavior in both? Or is one player acting scummy enough to vote. Tricky... Two posters means twice the risk of mistakes, I would have liked to say that means it´s twice as easy to find scum, but Town make stupid scumslips too. I think we´ll have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Actually the best way of playing this kind of mafia is splitting up your team. If only one of you knows your role, then only one can make mistakes. The only thing you need to do together is analysis of the other teams. To prevent any possible mistakes, must the one who knows the role only paraphrase what his teammate says. Ofcourse by the second night the one who knows should tell the one who don't (a few nights later depending on the size of the game). There is an obvious easy mistake to make here: the role should always be hidden, even it's town. What in the eff Pretending you don't know what your role is, is something that scum like to do. You're advocating people split their team up so your team makes less mistakes (townies should not be afraid of making mistakes, but scum should be). Town don't strive to prevent all mistakes. Town strive to find scum. That's it. On the contrary, it's SCUM who strive to prevent mistakes. They don't want to be caught. So...not only is your "plan" unworkable, the things you are suggesting we should do are what scum would do, not town. ##vote Team Edward
I felt like that was a backwards conclusion to make. I know bugs is a universally aggressive player, so seeing him draw out this line, from what I can tell, a newer player, seems like play focused in the wrong direction.
And then this drops of the map. Incredibly odd. I concluded that radfield convinced him it was a bad idea to pursue this, but radfield's posts have not impressed me. I'm mostly suggesting that people take the "Interactions" philosophy to heart when they analyze. There is no direction to point blues in with the known info, so please don't try.
|
On November 05 2011 11:05 supersoft wrote:
i knew it! sandroba and GM are scum together!
Team SS leaded the lynch backed up with an okayish case on sandro.
suddenly GM appeared with a huge analysis of our PC. he doesnt mention the SS case at all!!!
after kitared convincingly claimed, GM switched on viking.
correct me if i'm missing something!
I think you need to focus on one person at a time. iGrok is telling me sandro is at the top of his list, but I haven't gotten more then a gut feeling from filtering him. Your suspicions hold a lot more weight then.
|
On November 05 2011 11:55 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 11:34 bumatlarge wrote:And shame on everyone who discouraged poor hyshes with his train of thought. While a completely obsurd plan that would be impossible, and then really awful play on top of it, it does hint at the glaring weakness a frisky mafia team will get gutted for. On November 03 2011 08:42 hyshes wrote:On November 03 2011 08:31 Forumite wrote:On November 03 2011 08:00 GreYMisT wrote:
One thing that will be interesting this game will be analyzing the behavior of teams. do we judge the 2 players as a unit, looking for scum behavior in both? Or is one player acting scummy enough to vote. Tricky... Two posters means twice the risk of mistakes, I would have liked to say that means it´s twice as easy to find scum, but Town make stupid scumslips too. I think we´ll have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Actually the best way of playing this kind of mafia is splitting up your team. If only one of you knows your role, then only one can make mistakes. The only thing you need to do together is analysis of the other teams. To prevent any possible mistakes, must the one who knows the role only paraphrase what his teammate says. Ofcourse by the second night the one who knows should tell the one who don't (a few nights later depending on the size of the game). There is an obvious easy mistake to make here: the role should always be hidden, even it's town. It was heading in the right direction, but you would have overshot your destination by a few hundred miles at the rate you were running. "This kind of mafia" is the key phrase that we should consider in our analyses.
That said, orthodox scumhunting is at it's finest here. I had certain suspicions rummaging through the thread, so I was very happy to have GM a step ahead of me. I was fairly certain redff was scum (not so much kitaman). I'm very curious about how their claim would have fleshed out, but with no counter-claim, and the 50/50 risk of being dead wrong as scum, I can't really reach any gamestate where mafia would do that. And that early. Holy shit, you guys had like 2 votes on you. Split milk I guess. Forumite and prphlz was a poor lynch choice, I think there were better options available. The second player I was suspicious of behind red was WBG, mainly from this post. On November 03 2011 08:48 wherebugsgo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:41 GMarshal wrote:On November 03 2011 08:39 prplhz wrote:On November 03 2011 08:33 wherebugsgo wrote:On November 03 2011 08:29 GMarshal wrote:On November 03 2011 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On November 03 2011 07:47 GMarshal wrote:
oh, wait, this is majority lynch. I knew I forgot to talk about something important.
For fucks sake, if you get someone to L-2 stop voting for him until the last 12 hours of the day, and give warning before hammering. Remember, more time is always good for town, and giving the lynchee time to dump information can only be good. Leaving the player at L-2 ensures we avoid any "accidental" lynches. Lynch minus two is three votes. Are you advocating that we just split the vote once someone reaches 3 votes?? I don't trust that this will be a great idea, particularly as people are often not available when you need them, and vote-splitting is great for scum. While we'd only need two more to lynch, that's not very comforting either. In such a situation we'd basically need to last-minute voteswitch if we think that we have a townie at 3 votes. Otherwise, we take the risk of no-lynch. Of course it opens us up to scum manipulation too. Scum can throw in a late vote "to stop a no-lynch" and then bam we lose a townie. I meant two votes to lynch, so if a player needs 7 to lynch, stop at 5. This policy would only be in effect for the first 36 or so hours of each day, but from personal experience, nothing sucks more than lighting bandwagons ending the day 3 hours in because everyone agrees someone is "scummy" and then seeing them flip green. GM are you not understanding what I'm saying? A person gets lynched at 5 votes. Lynch minus 2 is 3 votes. gm thinks this is a 12 player game hahahahahahaha Oh, frag, I forgot its a 9 team game. Oops. In my mind the smallest game that exists has 11 players :-P In that case I suppose I can live with leaving a player at L-1, but if anyone quickhammers I will rip them a new one. ... I'm suspicious, but I'll let this slide for a sec because something bigger just appeared On November 03 2011 08:42 hyshes wrote:On November 03 2011 08:31 Forumite wrote:On November 03 2011 08:00 GreYMisT wrote:
One thing that will be interesting this game will be analyzing the behavior of teams. do we judge the 2 players as a unit, looking for scum behavior in both? Or is one player acting scummy enough to vote. Tricky... Two posters means twice the risk of mistakes, I would have liked to say that means it´s twice as easy to find scum, but Town make stupid scumslips too. I think we´ll have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Actually the best way of playing this kind of mafia is splitting up your team. If only one of you knows your role, then only one can make mistakes. The only thing you need to do together is analysis of the other teams. To prevent any possible mistakes, must the one who knows the role only paraphrase what his teammate says. Ofcourse by the second night the one who knows should tell the one who don't (a few nights later depending on the size of the game). There is an obvious easy mistake to make here: the role should always be hidden, even it's town. What in the eff Pretending you don't know what your role is, is something that scum like to do. You're advocating people split their team up so your team makes less mistakes (townies should not be afraid of making mistakes, but scum should be). Town don't strive to prevent all mistakes. Town strive to find scum. That's it. On the contrary, it's SCUM who strive to prevent mistakes. They don't want to be caught. So...not only is your "plan" unworkable, the things you are suggesting we should do are what scum would do, not town. ##vote Team Edward I felt like that was a backwards conclusion to make. I know bugs is a universally aggressive player, so seeing him draw out this line, from what I can tell, a newer player, seems like play focused in the wrong direction. And then this drops of the map. Incredibly odd. I concluded that radfield convinced him it was a bad idea to pursue this, but radfield's posts have not impressed me. I'm mostly suggesting that people take the "Interactions" philosophy to heart when they analyze. There is no direction to point blues in with the known info, so please don't try. Guess you didn't read the thread very well, did you bum? I pushed Team Edward ALL DAY yesterday. I thought they were the best lynch yesterday. It never "dropped off the map." It's just dumb people who drowned it out with their retarded idea to lynch team viking, and the GM-team red21 interaction that got the PC claim out there. Second, Radfield supported lynching Team Edward too! Guess you didn't see that, but let's reiterate his words for you, shall we? Show nested quote +On November 05 2011 02:28 Radfield wrote:sorry bugs, not on my comp. and yes, lol at asking who the cop is checking  Unless there is a counter claim, we're not lynching kita/red. With a 50% chance of the cop being in the game, it's a ballsy claim, and done earlier in the day than a desperate scum move typically would(unless you're iGrok). If you are the Parity Cop, and kita/red are lying, you absolutely need to claim. It is by far the most info a parity cop will net us. That leaves us a whole slew of teams on the table. I think Team Edward is still by far our best bet. Team Switzerland is a good bet at this point as well(Bum&iGrok), but I don't think adding another team to the mix is the best play right now. Likewise Team Nipple. Team SS is best left for another day in my eyes. Show nested quote +On November 04 2011 22:42 Radfield wrote:Well, a lurker lynch at this point means You Kurumi... At some point presumably you will have time today, yes? Who do you think is the best target for the lynch? Do you still think no-lynch is the best option? If you think we should no-lynch, which teams do you think are likely town. We need to consolidate our votes at this point. Sandro + Decon: Anyone voting for Sandro+Sevyrn needs to reaffirm that they still think this is the best lynch. I don't think it' a terrible lynch, as Sandro is rubbing me the wrong way. However, he is a solid player and I'm confident he will either start to make sense or start to look very red. Kurumi + RoL: Lurker Lynch. Kurumi has used a lot of words and very little content, while RoL has used no words at all.. I'm not sure why you are playing the upset card here though Kurumi. What you posted was fairly generic, despite whether you are trying to be helpful or not. Also, RoL's actions DO reflect on you, whether you like it or not, just like Bugs reflects on me, and so on. It's not your fault, but it's something you have to accept. On November 03 2011 09:55 iGrok wrote:On November 03 2011 09:36 kitaman27 wrote:@Crofty, have you been in contact with GM yet? @iGrok, why no post yet? I did post yet. I've been talking with my partner so far. You know me, all I ever do is lurk the first half of D1. I'll break this wide open end of D1 or N1, don't worry iGrok, it's now the second have of day 2, so it's time for you to break things out. I'll admit that I'm mildly skeptical of you actually discussing much with your partner considering the circumstances, but that's neither here nor there. I assume you have plenty to contribute to the lynch discussion at this point. Chaoser and Hyshes: A good lynch target at this point, though I'm willing to be swayed. Hyshes: I do not think Hyshes is scummy because he came into the thread and proposed a bad plan. In fact, that is NOT what happened. Hyshes did not propose any plan at all, because his 'plan' was obviously impossible long before he brought it up. Yet this did not stop him from speaking at length about it. Does this make him scum? Of course not, but certain people here feel that proposing bad plans is a townie trait(certainly not always true) but that is most emphatically NOT what happened. Since then he has contributed nothing to the lynch discussion, and has played the newbie card several times. Chaoser: I fully agree with his views regarding posting logs. The game of Mafia should be played as Mafia. That being said I also recognize how supersofts plan was abusive to town. Town players generally do not react angrily to abusive pro-town plans(see PYPI where everyone who was really upset about Jimbo smurfing IRC was scum). However, I'm willing to write that off as a null-tell at best. What I am NOT willing to write off as a null tell is the fact that Chaoser has almost no contribution outside of his own defense. In PYPI Chaoser came alive with posts to defend himself and very little else(as scum). He is doing a similar thing here, as well as giving himself excuses for future inactivity(advisory capacity). To be perfectly clear Chaoser, I do not think you are scum because you are defending yourself, simply because you are only defending yourself. What are your reads Chaoser, who is scum, who is town, who should we lynch today. Show me that I'm wrong.... dazzle me... Yeah, that definitely makes it seem like Radfield was opposed to us lynching chaoser and hyshes. Like I said earlier today, I'm not going to tolerate people being illiterate during this game.
Ah I see that chaoser is that team. Chaoser is a different story, I haven't read his posts too closely. I am referring to you pushing hyshes without more then what radfield surmised in that last post of his. Those posts by radfield are exactly what I'm talking about when I'm saying "unimpressed". I'm used to radfield being more helpful and conclusive, and I'm not seeing that here. He hasn't given me much reason to put him red, but it's odd play and it should be noted.
I never said radfield wasn't pushing it publicly, but I feel like there was a missing conversation where you pushed a team who you thought was scum, and where nobody really "convinced" radfield it was a bad lynch, yet Forumite/prphlz took priority for you guys. Making a case that people agree with then giving way to another lynch that wasn't on your radar from what I can tell by both your posts, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You seem to want to fight about saying something I didn't say, so commence getting over that. Team Edward won't be our lynch tomorrow, but I will read chaoser's posts again. The only thing radfield and you seem to be harping on about is lack of content, which is usually not a strong case.
|
On November 05 2011 12:21 redFF wrote:
bum we had 3 votes on us and there might not have been a lynch if we waited until l-1 to claim because it would have been close to the end of the day.
Fair enough, I don't think you and kita can be scum at this point, so an analysis from you would be weighted heavily. Also I think mafia might risk a night not killing you if they feel there is a stronger team, so punishing them for that train of thought by being influential is a plus.
|
Good luck people, my life was short, but
+ Show Spoiler +so is the average size of the mafia's wiener :D
|
Why is the post-game longer then the actual game? I don't understand what's going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
