EPTit seems to me that claiming is basically asking to die
i am also wondering whether or not corrupted townies should claim
Purgatory Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
it seems to me that claiming is basically asking to die i am also wondering whether or not corrupted townies should claim | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On December 29 2011 03:01 jcarlsoniv wrote: What is "town with dark powers"? Town Demon Hunter (x1) You are the latest descendent in a line of legendary demon hunters, who wield their dark powers against them. Each night, you may target a player other than yourself to attack. If your target is not an angel, he or she will be killed. You win with the town. Town Channeler (x1) Your study of the dark powers has enabled you to move people and objects across the planes. Each night, you may target a player other than yourself to banish. That player will be sent to purgatory for the night. You may not target the same player three nights in a row. You win with the town. Town Seer (x1) Your study of auras has enabled you to use dark powers to differentiate the pure from the sinful. Each night, you may target a player to read. You will receive "Angel" or "Not Angel" as a result. You win with the town. Note: Please carefully read and consider all elements of the game setup before playing. If you do not understand the game, you may begin pursuing strategies which are not beneficial to your team! | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On December 31 2011 07:15 Blazinghand wrote: Grackoroni, Bluelightz, layabout, xsksc, we meet again-- but this time outsude the classroom. I am looking forwards to this. i will do my best to earn another tune! what are people's opinions about claiming in general? specifically what do people think is best for corrupted townies to do? voting will be done via pm's but should people declare there votes in the thread and will the final vote-counts be announced? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On December 31 2011 07:42 Zephirdd wrote: Ohohoho alphabetical ordering makes me the last on the list. Can't wait, see you all on the 2nd. Happy new year festivities! <edit> IMO any player should refrain from discussing the game until the game starts(for example, best play for a corrupted player). The reason is that you may and must change your position depending on your role. shouldn't we take advantage of the open set-up by discussing it? Besides everyone will either be town or pretending to be town once the game starts, and seeing as 12/18 players are town, surely it would benefit the majority to start discussion early. the only reason i would hold back on discussing something now would be so that i haven't got any opinions/stances that i have to adhere to if i get angel/demon but even then as i am in control of what i write there is very little danger of me ruining my chances as as angel/demon, by taking stances that i cannot maintain. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
do you actually have faith in players to follow sound advice and play well? i would just like to get opinions that don't have a 1/3 chance of being dishonest and/or misleading (that isn't to say that people will be honest pre-game anyway) also if its bad advice you need to learn to recognise that as part of the game anyway | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
and this game i promise not to let spell check make me write palmer | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 04 2012 16:17 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: You are informed when you are corrupted. If the sage is still alive you say "I got corrupted" and then the sage cleans you of corruption. 2 cycles of demon powers taken care of. (they only get to corrupt every other night) As I said, I am not very worried about them until we lose our demon hunter or sage. whilst it is entirely possible that you have not carefully read the OP you do realise that if the acolyte lives they can simply kill that player. The other possibility is that they after claiming then they could be banished, in the hopes that the acolyte will try to stalk (which may be reasonable) or the AoD will try to slay which wouldn't really make sense)and will then waste a night action, it would however prevent cleansing or the use of the sense dark/not dark investigate. Claiming essentially gives the angels an extra KP, and may draw town night actions too, an illuminate on a corrupted town is an illuminate not on a demon, and a banish on an (unconfirmed) corrupted town is a banish that isn't protecting a valuable scum hunter or blocking an angel or demon. The benefits are situational but the cons for me are too strong to justify public claims, at least until the acolyte dies. Would an angel or demon claim corrupted town? what stops and angel? it may result in them being banished it may result in the seer investgated them (though it does not seem likely) it may result in the demon hunter attacking them? (which make littel sense) (because...) It makes little sense for the demons to claim corrupted town it makes it more likely that the seer might illuminate (and catch them) they could be counter-claimed by the actual corrupted town that was most recently corrupted which would likely result in night actions against both) to prevent the above they could choose to not corrupt which just seems silly | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
i think...: he lacks confidence in his own abilities that he may try to lurk that he has not tried to help that what he has written makes sense from a "town that has to get on a plane and will have limited internet acess" perspective he has provided us with very little that can be analysed effectively i do not think that there you can make all of those inferences + Show Spoiler + "profoundly unuseful" and "anti town" BH at this point in time nearly any case you can come up with needs to forced and isn't necessarily helpful You seem to like throwing your vote around but do you really think that at the current moment in time everyone should vote for bluelightz to kill him, possibly end the day and let night actions happen? if i were the type i might accuse you of "trying to gain town cred by forcing a case based off of thin air." i will not do that.  | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
I think that we should agree within the next few hours to commit to lynching a lurker day 1. The benefits of lynching a lurker day1: 1)Town blues can be active to prevent a day1 catastrophe 2)Town green can be active, which along with the blues would prevent a day1 town lynch. 3)In order to avoid being lynched angels and demons will also have to be active 4)If people take this seriously then there should be no lurkers, town does not need to worry about lurkers and there will not be a lurker townie mislynch day 1. 5)In the absence of lurkers then the day 1 lynch can be on somebody scummy + Show Spoiler + (as you cannot lynch a lurker if there aren't any)+ Show Spoiler + we also shouldn't no-lynch because that gives the angels a free kill and a no-flip for town 6)If we manage to force activity then we can establish a strong town atmosphere and force people to take stances, give opinions and provide useful information that can be analysed. We would essential transform lurking from a viable scum tactic to actively playing against your teams win condition. Cons (that i have thought of): 1)if somebody does lurk there are likely to be townie 2)sometimes things IRL come up and a player may be force to lurk for a period of time that would not warrant a modkill but would get them labelled a lurker. 4)(some town) people can get bored with day 1 and struggle to make relevant posts and may lurk 5)By making non-town active they could confuse influence manipulate and/or derail the thread to town detriment + Show Spoiler + but if they can do it after being forced to be active it is likely that they could do so anyway by providing a way for blues demons and angels to escape the lynch, in the event that vanilla town make up the bulk of the lurking players, we could inadvertently create a list of actives that is dense in demons angels and blues, because the demons and angels know their own teams they can potentially utilise this list better. I aim to create an effect similar to what happened in student mafia in which BH pressured non-contributors and townies stepped up and began offering information which made them easier to identify and there was a strong pro-town atmosphere.Whilst the situation is different i wish to achieve a pro-town result and i believe that we very easily can. This is not me advocating a lynch all lurker policy simply (what i believe to be) an effective way to utilise the day1 lynch to create a better town atmosphere or by lynching a player that town can ensure is definitely not a townie. Please consider this, and try to look at it objectively | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:43 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: He was useless to town...but he was also scum, so that tells us nothing of his town play. He also played in a way that allowed him to be correctly identified as scum. I see no reason to lynch him for meta purposes alone, and am perfectly content to give him some time to post something useful. That's always one of those sounds like a good idea things, that then never proves to be as useful as one would hope. It doesn't force angels and demons to be active, it forces them to be on par or more active than the least active townie in the game, and there always seems to be at least one afk townie. Also, lurker lynches don't generate much info since there is nothing very contentious about lynching someone with few posts, nor are they likely to have tied themselves to their teammates in their posts. key thing to note: the point is to agree to commit to lynch a lurker now this should force/encourage people to be active contribute and gain information. ideally there will not be a lurker to lynch, and town will consider establishing their innocence important to make "on par" as high as possible. I am not suggesting we lynch the least active player UNless they are lurking because if they are then they will have chosen to be a lynch target. If the least active player has posted and contributed then we should not lynch them. it is not about the actual flip it is about the day1 atmosphere + the other benefits that i shall not repost I do not expect an ideal outcome but i wholeheartedly believe that we could easily agree to and take advantage of this course of action as a town. I thought of this a while ago and have yet to come up with a flaw that makes it a bad course of action. + Show Spoiler + other than townies that lurk, who should be universally despised but not killed Information is something town always lack and try to gain and in this game information is more valuable owing to the AoD and Concealer roles that can deny information. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:52 Bluelightz wrote: Okay, im back guys :p Im gonna start responding to cases and make cases myself. Anyway, first I clearly said that I wouldn't be available till about now(Flight was delayed ;|) Anyway, my thoughts on lynching lurkers. It ends up lynching a townie usually one liner that makes a point that i had already acknowledged and completed disregards my wall of On January 05 2012 05:03 Zephirdd wrote: Many times people talk about policy lynches but they are rarely followed. No, I don't like policy lynches. L-A-Lurkers will most of the time target a town, because if a scum is targeted he will instantly become "useful" enough to avoid the lynch. Besides, the amount of information a lurker gives on lynch is nil. L-A-Liars may be decent, but I'm yet to see a mafia that lied "to help town". For example, Drazerk claimed a retarded role on XLVIII in order to attract mafia shots. A mafia wouldn't try that, ever; However lynching Drazerk there would be wrong, yet he would be a LALiars target. So no, I don't agree with LALiars either. general statement about policy lynching that really doesn't give me an opinion about what i actually wrote >angry smiley here< can somebody give a well thought out evaluation? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Can we agree to look at lurking as highly incriminating and scummy? In the likely event of rubbish cases on day1 can we agree to go for the lurkers? additional justification: 1)with 12 town 6 non-town and information denying cabalities information and an organised town are much more valuable than they would be in a normal game (they are crucial in a normal game with even a semi-comppetant scum) 2)in the likely event of a day1 mislynch, it would be preferable to have acheived a pro-town atmosphere rather than a safe-to-lurk atmosphere | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 05 2012 05:54 Zephirdd wrote: I thought the general rule was Scummy > Lurking Scummy > Lurking > Townie on lynch priority order? Of course, if by the end of the day-cycle we end up with no real case, we just lynch a lurker. But I really really wish we avoided that. This town isn't with a bad atmosphere either; discussion is rolling, things are going. I just wish a conclusion on the MrWiggles thing(is he really ingame) and that other players posted more, but I guess they are in different timezones eh. last post about this for now by being openly anti lurker and conceding that scummy reads on day 1 are unreliable at best (we cant all be ver), you change what is is to lurk - lurking becomes almost an act of direct opposition to town the rule (for day 1 only) would be Very scummy > scummy lurking > lurking > scummy > no lynch >town scummy would swap with lurking when we reach enough information to analyse and actually construct a good case if you know lurking will get you killed day1 why would you do it? reason i can think of: you cannot access the internet you don't care about the game you don't believe town will stick to their word somebody wrote "blow me town" in the thread | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
I have yet to read day1 analysis that has actually convinced me that someone is scum that person was then lynched and then that person has flipped scum. + Show Spoiler + i have read 12-ish games statistically the chance of lynching scum day1 is fairly low. As far as i can remember vaderseven wrote that on mafiascum there is an 80% day1 town lynch rate + Show Spoiler + though whether or not that game in which he wrote "that or roughly that" exists is a mystery Most of the day1 lynches i have seen have been panicked last minute lurker lynches or stupid bandwagons that are unsupported by reasoning. The lack of information day1 makes it hard to pin scum day1. For all these reasons i think that a day1 mislynch is likely Thus our plan should be to act in a way that leaves us in a good position if a day1 mislynch does happen. + Show Spoiler + analysis coming soon | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
This post is way more Anti-Angel then my post is being Anti-demon. what on earth is that even supposed to mean? as far as i am aware the only way to be anti angel or anti demon is to act in a way that reveal angels or demons or kills them. in that sense neither of your posts meet the criteria of anti-angel/demon because they are empty hypothetical's about events that we cannot choose between. we don't know who the demons are, we don't know who the angels are, how can we focus on lynching one faction over the other? the fact that we cannot distinguish between them in the thread and we cannot chose between lynching an angel or a demon also means that regardless of which team "poses a bigger threat" town's goal is still lynch one of them so the "threat" they present isn't even a factor to consider when making the decision. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Why would a player publicly state, or post to imply that they are bad at certain aspects of mafia? + Show Spoiler + this could be to do with the quality of their scum play; their ability to analyse; their irrational fears about the game set-up; or even pretending to not understand the game mechanics or asking really stupid questions+ Show Spoiler + town seem to do this last one a lot so even if somebody were pretending it would be a null tell Consequences of calling yourself bad or being highly apologetic: people may think that you are bad, subsequently they: -lower their expectations for you, they do not expect you to play or be trying hard to play optimally -may forgive you for playing sub-optimally or not contribute wrong -may expect you to make mistakes and allow you to do so -they might ignore you, because if you don't have any confidence in your ability why should they? When publicly calling yourself bad would you make do you make those (or similar) considerations? If you are a townie and you thinks you are bad then it seems unlikely that you would post like that had you considered the effects, because it makes it harder for you to convince people of your reads + Show Spoiler + or if you are a blue your investigation results If you are not a townie then you are scum and you have more information than town has. You are trying to beat town and having additional information is one of your key assets. It could very well be in your best interests to be ignored or get away with mistakes because helping town goes against your win condition. In my opinion then; such behaviour seems to be bad play from blues, bad but understandable play from some greens, and potentially good but often bad scum play. Therefore things like this are making me suspicious: + Show Spoiler + On January 04 2012 17:46 Dirkzor wrote: Game on! This setup scares the living shit out of me. So many nuances to keep track of. Anyway... I agree that Angels appear to be strongest in the beginning with 1/2 KP. But what haven't been mentioned is that Angels can kill the demon for us aswell. If we lynch Angel of Death and Angelic Acolyte we will have to lynch/Demon hunter the Demons. Since I don't know the Demon hunter or how good that person is, he could just aswell kill 3 town people the first 3 nights which of course would not be very favourable for us. It basicly means we would need to do more correct lynches while having a good demon hunter that don't fuck us over with continously town kills. Demons also have the Twist ability which basicly makes one (1) of their members immune to night actions, rendering the demon hunter to be less useful. What i wanted to point out that even if we get 3 correct Angel lynches (unlikely) the first 3 nights. The demons are equally capable to fuck us over. That is why I think that killing any angel or demon is good. Not one over the other. If we knew which angel or demon, it would be a different matter. On January 04 2012 18:22 Dirkzor wrote: Hehe... I must admit I didn't think that strat through. It kinda just came to me while writing  + Show Spoiler + has he not read the tl commandments? 3. THOU SHALL THINK BEFORE POSTING 4. THOU SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE and BH + Show Spoiler + 5. THOU SHALL NOT SPAM THE MAFIA THREAD Also this stuff why does it take BL 4 posts to answer the question of who he would shoot? On January 06 2012 00:27 Bluelightz wrote: Okay, First, I Assumed that I didn't do the analysis of everyone Next, I would re-evaluate all the possible things Lastly, even though I still have null reads I dont really trust my ability to analyze people's post's. Though if there we're more post's I could make a more accurate analyisis Now, my if I would answer your hipotethical situation given with the analysis I had I would shoot RoL. whilst new townie seems like a valid explanation for the bolded, it is still concerning (additionally all null null/town seems very strange) Thing + Show Spoiler + On January 04 2012 23:24 xsksc wrote: Hi guys. First multi-factional game for me as well, not really sure how we should proceed strategy-wise. Lynching an angel day 1 would obviously be ideal, although getting a demon is definitely better than a townie. Yeah, and then he went on to be one of the only useful townies that actually read the game and used his brain. Syllo, if Palmar does decide to mess around on day one again, would it not be better to wait and see how he behaves later on (like in TLXVIII), rather than just lynching him? P.S.thank you for answering so fast dirkzor | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
at the beginning he talks about hypotheticals involving roles, serveral players did this and it was largely irrelevant and so cannot really be used in analysis. he then wrote On January 05 2012 02:59 Grackaroni wrote: As you already mentioned the game only started 10 hours ago so I'm sure people would post if they could. If we can't be sure that a player is an angel/demon I think the safe lynch is bluelightz. His play in Student mafia was weak and so far this game he has posted nothing but one liners. Hopefully he will have solid content when he returns but I am not too optimistic. I just don't think I will get a good read on him and he's not somebody I would want at lylo, the only downside to lynching him is that it may not give us as much information as many other lynches. Perhaps he would be a good n1 target for the town demon hunter? If we can't be sure that a player is an angel/demon I think the safe lynch is bluelightz. very confusing to be pushing a lynch and saying that a lynch was safe (which implies the existence of reasons why the case is safe but does not offer them) I just don't think I will get a good read on him if we paraphrase then including this last bit results in "i think we should lynch a player that i do not think i will be able to get a good read on" it may not give us as much information as many other lynches lynch to kill scum not to get information Perhaps he would be a good n1 target for the town demon hunter? here grack suggests using towns KP on a player he doesn't think he can read who hasn't posted more than a couple of lines by this point in the game. It has also already been explained why he shouldn't have suggested BL would be useless The above post seems a lot more reasonable if there are scum goals behind it. it should be self evident this is why this is so, but i will say that most of those statements don't make sense if grack is town. On January 05 2012 08:26 Grackaroni wrote: KK I'm back. I suggested the Bluelightz lynch and it looks like BH took a lot of shit because of me he (kind of) tries to take credit for pressuring BL and takes the blame for "BH taking shit for him" I am pretty sure BH "taking shit" was not because of grack and that grack is possibly trying to "buddy" up with BH and paint himself in a good light for taking blame. + Show Spoiler + this is't particularly incriminating but reading that sentence did bug me There isn't much to analyse but he is a reddest shade of grey in my eyes | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Blazinghand Bluelightz Cwave Dirkzor Erandorr Grackaroni HarbingerOfDoom Jackal58 layabout Mr. Wiggles Palmar RebirthOfLeGenD Refallen risk.nuke syllogism Tyrran xsksc Zephirdd On January 06 2012 03:01 Blazinghand wrote: Say what you want about spam, at least you don't have to open THREE spoilers in my posts to see this kind of BS. Cmon man wheres your respect at. I didn't even notice you calling me out the first time I read through this! Stop it with the spoilers it makes it hard to search your posts. Usually my strat is to open a filter then use Control+F to find stuff but if you put everything in spoilers I need to like go through and CLICK THEM ALL. It's like a game of osu! but instead of fun pop music and video game music it's just the strumming of my tears hitting the desk as I click all these dumb spoiler tags. @BH if you remember how messy some of my previous posts have been (like in student) then i hope you understand that it is much clearer that way. It also allow me to get my ideas down in a way that is closer to the way in which i think them. (if that makes sense). basically i think of an argument and points to support it and then think of other things that relate to specific points that i have made so i add spoilers next to them so that they are where they need to be but do not detract from the overarching idea.iso i have decided to keep using spoilers but i will try to put less spoilers inside of spoilers if i can help it I just want a clean thread, there is no need to use so many caps.. TT hope the filters can make you forgive me @Dirkzor, it doesn't make you bad BUT it reduces my confidence in you. If you were confident in your abilities as town then the setup should only scare you if it is imbalanced against town, you never suggested this. Therefore you must not have confidence in your abilities, and i have explained why making people less confident in you is bad for town and sometimes good for scum. Therefore i highlighted it. Seems quite reasonable to me. *hopes it is at top of page* | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 04 2012 18:22 Dirkzor wrote: Hehe... I must admit I didn't think that strat through. It kinda just came to me while writing @dirkzor my bad context really does invalidate the point, i blame useless filters | ||
| ||
