EPTif that's okay
Hammer Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
if that's okay | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
/in lets do this | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:30 Palmar wrote: screw it, I'll fill this up >childish joke here< | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 26 2012 21:21 jaybrundage wrote: I think this is a bad idea. Trading away votes like that makes it so that the scum can easily manipulate the vote and when one of there teammates can swing the lynch by putting a crap ton of there votes on a one guy. Think about it this way if all the mafia put there votes on one person then we can have about eight votes on one guy. If they all pool there votes and then that's not including any townies that might happen to put there votes on the mafia votebag. This one person has huge potential to sway the lynch and ensure that the mafia can lead the lynch to a townie with out all piling there votes and revealing themselves. The Sentinal Method gives us the ability to have each townie be accountable for his votes. Also importantly for us to know the power behind each vote. And to make sure to give us no surprises. If we are allowed to trade haphazardly then the scum can use there vote bag to hammer the vote if we get close to lynching a townie. @Palmar Putting everyone's votes on you is a terrible idea. I'm not even sure why you are mentioning it. What exactly are you saying in the italicised paragraph? + Show Spoiler [Rules] + Votetrading: 1. Every player starts the game with 3 Voting Power, VP, or Votes. During the nightphase a player must give away at least ONE of their votes to ONE other player, who gets the use of those votes in the future. A player can not give away all of their votes.PM the hosts to give away your votes. 2. If a player has more than 5 votes, then he must attempt to give away enough to put him at 5 or less votes. 3. Any votes you have when you die to a lynch are lost. 4. If the one you gave votes to died during the night, then the trade fail and you keep your votes. If you die during the night, then any final attempt to trade away your votes is still resolved. Any other votes you carry at the time of death are lost. 5. The VP of each living player, and each player who died during the night, is revealed in the Daypost. How they got their VP is not revealed. Presumably point 2 means that a player cannot have more than 5 votes. Or did the bit beneath the red text in your role PM explain how you could get more votes? If we follow the plan this should never happen anyway since we should each town player should be voting for the player below them on the list, in order for mafia to do what you suggest some of them would be unable to vote for the players below them, town could see this and get to lynch scum. I intended to suggest the vote trading but i seem to have been beaten to it. So instead i will add some of my thoughts: If there was no plan and players decided who to trade privately then.. Since the mafia know each other, they could vote-trade with each other. This means that the mafia could avoid giving votes to town completely and so can always have at least 12 votes (3 starting votes each, 4 players) and up to 20 votes (max 5 votes each 20 players). The only way for Mafia to lose votes (as far as we know) would be when one of them is lynched. The mafia could very quickly gain a large proportion of the votes and this would mean that they could protect themselves from the lynch very easily, if townies were to votes carelessly. The no-flip mechanic makes it easier for scum to push miss-lynches since town will not see the flip, it also means that mafia has much less of a reason to bus. Voting in this game becomes less risky (you cannot be as easily held accountable for killing town) and so Mafia can take better advantage of their voting power, which could very quickly become quite significant. + Show Spoiler + Consider the likely event in which a town player is lynched day1: there will be 42 votes left and 12 controlled by mafia, if players were to vote independently but mafia were to trade with each other then they would not lose any of these votes but would very likely gain from 2-6 votes from town players who would not know they were giving votes to scum. Lets assume mafia gain 4 votes, and they land a night kill Day2 begins and scum now have 16 votes out of 39-41 votes and 16/20 or 16/21 to lynch. (worst case scenario would be each scum ends up with 5 votes and 20 are needed to lynch) Because of this i feel that the vote-trading mechanic favours the mafia greatly and that we need to come up with a strategy to prevent the mafia from exploiting it. The "vote circle" should force mafia to give votes to town and is better than people deciding their votes privately. Blah blah blah wall of text: Game mechanics (that we know of) seem to favour mafia so we should act in a way to minimise this or turn the mechanics to our advantage. The best way to do this (in my opinion) is for you to give your votes to the player below you. Additionally Mafia will have a huge information advantage and the ???-flips make voting analysis much harder, this means that discussion during the day is more valuable during this game than it would e in other games. We will need use this time to the best of our abilities and we should not hammer under any circumstances. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 02:20 Paperscraps wrote: One thing that needs to happen before this day ends, is unanimous agreement on a trading system. The 3 decent ideas so a far are: 1. Circle trade 1 vote to the person below you. 2. Circle trade all but 1 vote to the person below you. 3. Everyone posts in this thread who they will trade their vote(s) to during the night. All of these ideas have pros and cons, but the worst thing for town right now is not to be in agreement be the end of the day. If we are split or have wild cards like Palmar, then we don't have the complete transparency we need for these systems to be effective. Personally I think number 1 is the best, most town-favored option. I am always open to more discussion and more ideas. don't number 1 and 2 imply number 3? I think that players should definitely announce who they are giving their votes to. If a town player is killed during the night then.. If everyone trades 1 vote then a townie will die with 2 votes and we lose two vote from the game. If everyone trades 2 votes then a townie will die with 1 vote and we lose 1 vote from the game. The thing for me that is important is whether or not town benefit from there being more votes in the game. I personally feel that more votes is good for town. If the overwhelming majority agree and players do not go along with the plan then we lynch them. How long do you think circle trading votes will be viable? There could come a point in the game in which Mafia could not circle votes and gain control of the lynch, while this should out them it does mean that they could quite easily get 2 free kills towards the end and then win. That being said i think that circle trading day1 and 2 is sensible | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
But isn't paperscraps probably town? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
that's silly | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
nobody yet. Voting for Palmar now is dumb though, and i don't like that you have done that. The thing is, i think the plan is good but there are drawbacks and we have not fully addressed them. After a few miss-lynches the scum could exploit the "circle vote trading" and win, so if we agree to follow the strategy then we should likely decide how long we shall do it for. At the same time it seems likely that there will be roles that can significantly affect the game and so it may be best to agree on the best plan for now and then adapt it as the game grows older and we gain more information. + Show Spoiler [likely there will be power roles?] + since all of the mechanics we are aware of seem pro-scum it seems probable that there will be pro-town mechanics that we are not aware of. I think we should consider something else: A player that trades votes to a player that gets killed will have their vote refunded. This will mean that for the next night they will have an extra vote to trade or they will keep an extra vote. If there are extra votes we need to consider what players who get them should do with them because the Mafia will essentially have the power to decide who gets the extra vote(s). I support the everyone trades 1 vote to the person below plan. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 05:45 VisceraEyes wrote: This is actually something I hadn't even considered. However, we can't "decide" what to do about it now because scum would be likely to exploit it somehow if we decide to do the vote-rotation. Actually, with this in mind it seems more like a scum-favored decision to rotate the votes predictably. ##Unvote: Palmar Suddenly the thought of just giving our vote to the most town-seeming individual has merit. I'm just gonna shut up then. 1 vote each? 2 votes each? some give vote and some rotate? which idea has merit? If say everyone gave 1 player 2 votes then that player would decide the lynch next day and would then have to give away enough votes for another player to decide the following days lynch. That seems like an extremely risky plan. If they were given 1 vote then we would have a similar but less dangerous situation. + if that player was town and was given or was about to be given lots of votes couldn't the mafia just kill them and ruin everything? If we agreed to give votes to one player we would not be able to reliable check who had given them to that player and who hadn't. Knowing who is giving votes to who is something that could be valuable and i don't think we should allow mafia to deny us that information. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 06:05 risk.nuke wrote: I'm back. I'll do exacly as palmar. I'll give my ONE obligatory vote to the person I think is town the most. The vote system seems to me like a very pro-town mechanic. Having a vote circle completly nullfies that. Conclusion: Votecircles are dumb FoS: VE, did you seriously just attempt to lynch palmar day 1. Explain why the vote system is pro-town when mafia can effectively never lose their votes yet town can almost never avoid losing their votes. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
but can we really? With a KP and the ability to give votes in secret and announce giving votes in public, surely mafia can get around giving away their votes to town if they want to? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
what do you think the best approach to trading votes is? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 08:09 risk.nuke wrote: Yes, wbg. that everyone understood. Assuming nobody here is full on retard they can figure that out. Wbg are you telling me you approve of vote circles? I think he is and it would be a vote circle, with everyone in it. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 08:27 VisceraEyes wrote: WBG, I'm iffy on the vote-circle, and here's why: we can't know who the extra votes are going to. Scum are going to kill someone, and whoever tried to give that person a vote is going to have an extra vote. Will scum design the kill to give themselves extra VP? We can't know the answer, and we won't know even if we lynch the receiver. That's the fundamental flaw in the plan: it provides the most opportunity for everyone to have the same number of votes, but it ensures that someone is going to have more than everyone else and we have no idea if we can trust that person or not. At least by giving a vote to someone who appears pro-town in-thread, we can keep who gets the extra votes within our power. RE: Palmar - Palmar's agenda right now is accruing votes from sheep - he's not going to approve of this plan regardless of his alignment unless he's trolling us. The question becomes: would scumPalmar put stick his neck out like this, bucking the only semblance of a nearly universally accepted plan just to try and gain some VP for the next cycle? I think he would, because he's likely to succeed regardless of his alignment. But town may disagree. I'm willing to kill Palmar today if he doesn't shape up, but I'm also willing to give him until tomorrow. Right now he's one of only two scum reads I have. I'll echo you and say that we need more activity. This seems like a pretty weak reservation to have. The goal of the "votecirlce" is to minimise the extent to which mafia can use the vote-trading to their advantage. This systematic approach gives us an expected outcome and allows us to hold players accountable for the their vote-trading. Being able to give 1 player a extra vote is hardly threatening at all, when there are 45 votes in all and scum will not necessarily gain the vote themselves. Please stop trying to make Palmar an issue, he never lives long anyway. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Otherwise plan well planned. Back tomorrow. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On January 27 2012 18:50 Palmar wrote: Also, are you guys seriously stupid enough to not see the problem with the circle-jerk plan? If this is the way you guys think, I don't have much faith we'll succeed much at all this game. For example, Node should probably die very fast because there's no way he's this dumb. In fact, all townies who lack the critical thinking to see the problem, should die. Mafia is about making choices. Much more than you can deduce from reading someone's posts and checking if they're doing scummy stuff, you can hold them accountable for their actions. You need to understand the reasoning behind why people do what they do. What this plan does is remove responsibility. Instead of using analysis and logic to assign our vote, everyone simply gives their vote to whoever they have a town read on. You should keep who you vote for to yourself until the next day, at which point everyone should claim to whom they gave the vote, and why. Giving votes has the potential to give us information. If a player gives his vote to someone on weak reasoning, or if the player receiving the vote is very likely to be mafia (or at some point flips mafia), we have a reason to investigate that player, based on his actions. Suggesting we remove the tool of analyzing how and why people give their votes away is terrible. It's anti-town and it should not happen. If we follow a circle-jerk plan, we remove this aspect of the game, we give mafia a free pass, and a guarantee that they will not lose any voting power. I would hate to be in a situation as scum if I had two options: a) Lose some voting power. b) Make a case as to why I think a scumbuddy is town. That's seriously scary if you're mafia. I mean, good mafia players will have no problem cooking up a good case, but good mafia players are hard to catch anyway. Apply some brain power, reap rewards. It's very likely the most town looking people will be protected by medics, providing an even further deterrence for mafia from shooting them. Remember, mafia has to give 4 votes away tonight. It takes 4 townies having the strongest read on scum as town, to balance that out, or otherwise the mafia has to make cases as to why they think their scumbuddies are town. That's hard to do. do you actually think we're so bad that we can't handle this? I guess the fact that the circle jerk plan got any support at all answers my question though. So circle jerking is bad because if we didn't do it then every player would have to say who they are going to give votes to before they do it and that we could analyse that? This seems like an unrealistic expectation to me, because players often vote to lynch without providing any reasoning or just repeating what others have said. Why would players have to make cases? What is there to stop players simply not explaining their actions or misleading us? If you are town then you know that you are town but you do not know the alignments of other players. Every time you give away a vote you are giving a town controlled vote to a player that could be town or scum. For this reason it does not make sense for players (of either alignment) to be trading away lots of votes. It also means that whenever you trade votes you want to be as sure as possible that you are giving them to town. As the game progresses we will get more information and should be getting more accurate reads. On day1 the majority of reads suck. This means that day1 has the most potential for mafia to gain votes. Circle-trading minimises/near-eliminates this potential and it allows players to show through their actions that they want to help town. Circle trading day1 is the safest option we have. On January 28 2012 00:03 prplhz wrote: Since circle trading is effectively dead, can we talk about how stupid the risk.nuke lynch is? why do you think it's dead? why are you telling people that it is dead? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
| ||
