EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OIa9B.png)
TL Mafia 'Area' LIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
We do need some sort of talking point however. I suggest we all say what we think vigilantes should do given the setup. I think that if they do shoot they should claim their shot well in advance to give a tracker the chance to track them. This would make it extremely risky for mafia to claim vigilante. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 21 2012 09:29 johnnywup wrote: We're assuming there even is a vig. No we aren't. I am asking a hypothetical. "What should One shot Vigilante* death millers do?" + Show Spoiler [*] + One-shot Vigilante Death Miller: You may Night Kill a player once per game. You flip Godfather on death. It's an interesting mechanic that could be very anti town. The mafia might try to exploit it with claims. By discussing it we can ensure that if there is a Vig out there they will know what the best thing to do is. If there isn't well i suppose we will have used up time that could have been spent insulting each other or trying to lynch a player for completely arbitrary or downright stupid reasons. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 21 2012 09:38 johnnywup wrote: you said it in a matter-of-fact way. you said what they should do, which makes it seem like you think there is definitely a vig. so I wanted to clarify that there might not be one at all. Rather than commenting on what it "seems like I think" why don't you look at what I did in say and respond to it? | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 21 2012 09:42 VisceraEyes wrote: I want to lynch any Vig claims. One less night-kill immune GF if he's fake-claiming, and one less possible townie death due to vig misfire imoimo So you support us not knowing the alignment of the player we lynch. You also support not using KP in town hands. VE as far as i am aware, vigilante shots hit mafia more often than lynches do. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
How should town handle such a beast? lol | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 21 2012 11:33 PaqMan wrote: ^Meaning it's impossible to have more than 3 vigs ![[image loading]](http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/255/716/c98.gif) Isn't it strange that both VE and gonzaw try to argue that we should/shouldn't do something because a town blue might decide to do the most anti-town move possible? On April 21 2012 11:05 gonzaw wrote: + Show Spoiler [snip] + Okay, one more thing and I'll stop posting now (just want to get everything out in the open as soon as possible) On April 21 2012 10:55 johnnywup wrote: it's actually in scums best interest to keep millervigs alive, as they create so much confusion which is usually scums job. All scum would have to do is make sure the vigs are on the wrong track. So because of this VE's plan of killing all vig's isn't a bad idea. But no vig's would ever claim under it. I think the best course of action is lynching any vig claims the day after, if they miss their shot. Scum wouldn't ever claim if we make a rule out of that. Also this isn't continuous speculation, this is discussing the game. Don't like it? Too bad. It's not like we can avoid this topic. It's important to the game so we talk about it. VE's plan is to kill all claimed vigs. This means that no real vig will claim, and no scum will fake-claim either. So what happens if we lynch someone and he flips GF then? What info would you get in that case? He could be either vig or GF and we don't know since no vig or GF would have claimed (since they would have been instantly lynched). Imagine it's LYLO, we are trying to lynch someone, and he claims vig. What do we do? Do we follow the "lynch all vigs" rule too? But if he is indeed vig we would lose, so what to do? + Show Spoiler [snip] + If we follow our plan, we will know beforehand that there are certain players whose flip won't tell us anything (the claimed vigs, assuming no Goons claim). We will know what to do with that, we can prepare. We can also use other claimed vigs to try and shoot him at night instead. The most important thing is that if vigs claim beforehand, there will be less chaos than if they claimed right before getting lynched, or they were lynched and flipped GF And remember, if there's chaos scum can do whatever the hell they want. If someone claims vig right before being lynched the chaos created basically gives scum the reins to do what they want (either lynch that vig, or lynch someone else, or NL, etc) This is gonzaw playing on your fears in the hopes that you lack basic critical thinking skills. iI we decide to lynch all vigilante claims then any vigilante capable of using a keyboard should be smart enough to know that they should not claim because doing so would automatically result in their death and a loss. + Show Spoiler [This bit doesn't read well] + He is also arguing that we would be in trouble if a fairly unlikely hypothetical occurs and then somebody does something extremely unlikely. The result is him arguing that we should act based upon something that should never happen and is highly unlikely to happen anyway. +VE's post was mostly arguing that a town jailkeeper might intentionally act against town's interests. Both of these players should realise that these arguments should have no place here. I don't know if anybody has mentioned it but mafia shots resolve before vig shots so mafia could kill the vig and stop the shot. Vigilante shoots after the Goon I think the best strategy should be that vigilantes only claim if their shot does not go through or if they have just shot a goon. Otherwise no claims. This mean that the only potential confusion arises if they are lynched* but we can deal with that. + Show Spoiler [*] + if they are shot at night and flip they are obviously not bulletproof godfathers | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 21 2012 21:40 Ottoxlol wrote: lay Gonzaw's plan is to out our vigs in exchange for no fakeclaims. We already discussed why scum shouldnt in their right mind fake-claim if we do it his way. I think this trade can be well worth it, what do you think? My way produces nearly the same benefit but without all of the risks. I say nearly because mafia could claim that they were a vig that hit a godfather. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 21 2012 22:01 Ottoxlol wrote: So basically your way doesnt produce the same benefit, without all of the risks :D Yes. Which makes it better. But if we decide if vigilante's should claim and when then we close down options for scum. If we agree that there should be no claims at all then that should also eliminate fake claims but it would also have none of the risks. I am saying that if you shoot a goon then you might as well claim. Claiming would confirm yourself (with no counter claim). With more than 1 claim it would then become more complicated, as we would likely lynch both players. In the unlikely even that there are two vigilantes in the game who both shoot the same target who then flips goon then it would present us with "trouble". I think that we need to agree to no claims or specific situations for claims like if you just shot a goon. Consider also that if 1 or more vigilantes out themselves then we will all know that one of the blues isn't a tracker or a jailkeeper. That information could help scum but it is of no use to vt's. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I know how much we love the 3rd and 4th person to jump on an opinion and now that he knows people will agree with him, he can be firm in his assertion Because people are giving opinions there will inevitably be people who give opinions that other already have. Paqman was the 2nd to say that vigilantes should not claim + Show Spoiler + (after VE, johnny also seems to support the idea but didn't take this stance Sentinel doesn't count because he didn't read the OP and his opinion cannot have had much grounding). + Show Spoiler + Interestingly filmsy opinion again, to me this just feels like he has more information than I do Paqman's comment is reasonable. VE's vote is dependent on a particular interpretation of the use of the word "our". Nobody should be convinced by it!Not being convinced is reasonable. Wanting to see how a player reacts to an accusation before judging them is reasonable I am wondering how mattchew ended up "feeling" like this comment in any way indicated that Paqman had more information than him. + Show Spoiler + just stupid question without content when theres already stuff being discussed, isnt paying attention to where threads going + Show Spoiler + I would argue that not reading a post but responding to it anyway shows that you are not being careful about what you post. It shows a lack of fear from somebody with nothing to hide. Scum are the ones that pay careful attention to the game mechanics. Put simply, not reading the thread but posting whatever the fuck you want is a town trait. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Mattchew often posts with lots of one-line fluff as town Game of thrones mafia ##Vote marvellosity get posting or die check out the + Show Spoiler [case] + | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
I think he is attached to the idea that you are scum and is not looking at your posts objectively. I think his case is poor but there isn't exactly a lot to go on and i think it was genuine. I think he is trying to push his read because he resolved to it previously here: On April 05 2012 12:00 Mattchew wrote: At any rate he appears to be trying to find scum and is a bad lynch target day1.my only 2 reads on day 1 were right. I am just a pussy and didn't push them TT... How the fuck did xatalos survive | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Any thoughts on marvellosity paqman or mattchew? we need Risen to rise and get posting we need ghost 403 to de-cloak we need St.Daniel to grace us with his presence we need Janaan to get out of bed we need slOosh to stop fapping to Beethoven* we need BroodkingEXE to execute som scum for us we need Bill Murray to get his head in the game we need Zephirrd to tell you guys to stop posting shit we need layabout to | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
Sorry it isn't much of a pun. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
I think marvel looks bad because he was around in the first couple of hours of the game, he was willing to make comments in the thread but he was unwilling to share an opinion. Every player should have an opinion about what is best, and the only players who would fear to share them are mafia, since telling and possibly helping town to do what you think is best for town is not in your best interests. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 22 2012 02:33 Risen wrote: What do you mean? The only thing I can think of this meaning is mt assuming we have vigis. Even then, he doesn't explicitly state we have vigis, he just directs them if we do whats with all of the "mt" 's? . By directing jk away from targets and the vigis you give scum a potential three kill night. They can kill the vig, another person, and then if the vigi target is town they get to laugh at us. The OP says that goon shoot's before vig. If the mafia shoot the vig before the vig shoots then the vig will not be able to shoot a townie so only the big would die. If the other hit went through then we would have 2 dead players not 3. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 22 2012 02:58 Risen wrote: Oh, alright. I had read the vigi shot being refunded, but didn't apply that to them not shooting if they were killed. And wtf? Where the fuck do you get me targeting ANYONE right now? Do you see me voting any "lurkers"? Did I point any out? No. I didn't. Why didn't I? Because I know how early it is in the game. Take your useless shit somewhere else layabout. Why are you so aggressive? I died in GoT mafia not only because of you but because players directed people towards the lurkers. That mislynch was the beginning of the end and it was all because people jumped on lurkers early on and got it into their heads that those players were scummy before they were posting. You seemed to understand the dangers of focusing on lurkers then + Show Spoiler + On March 22 2012 04:35 Risen wrote: I'm going to say we need to wait a bit more before calling people lurkers. I woke up, posted a bit and then went to class. Some people have jobs and shiz where they wouldn't be able to respond until later today (like 6-8 hours) But now you are defending marvel on the basis that he posted a bit at the start, he was in the thread actively lurking and he deserves our attention. On April 22 2012 02:28 Risen wrote: I don't get your reasoning mt or anyone else's voting for marvel. He's posting and it's very early day 1. There isn't that much to go off of so I don't think he's scummy. I hate lurkers, they always fuck us and it isn't pro-town at all. I'd rather not lynch someone who's here day 1. Posting is pro-town and I don't think we should be scaring people away from posting day 1 bc it just gives people an excuse to be worthless If we can't kill anybody that posts even a little bit then we are are left to kill lurkers. You are directing us to kill lurkers which at the moment is plain silly because it's a good half of the playerbase. | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
On April 22 2012 02:58 Risen wrote: Oh, alright. I had read the vigi shot being refunded, but didn't apply that to them not shooting if they were killed. And wtf? Where the fuck do you get me targeting ANYONE right now? Do you see me voting any "lurkers"? Did I point any out? No. I didn't. Why didn't I? Because I know how early it is in the game. Take your useless shit somewhere else layabout. In this game "don't kill anyone active" is equivalent to "kill no one or kill someone inactive" So you are directing us to kill inactives. You can take you vote off me now. And apologise for swearing. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ejfdd.png)
