EPTLiar Game Mini Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Obviously, an optimal strategy for lynch choice would be for every person to vote the same way. Then, everyone makes it into Phase B, and no one is safe from being able to be lynched. This makes Phase B more complicated, but I think it's worth it for the choice. What do people think? Results are revealed afterwards, so we should know if someone's lying and made it into the minority. Anyone who does, we can lynch. I don't see a reason townies need to worry about being immune to lynch this early in the game. Perhaps in the later stages, where it's feasible scum rig the votes to kill them, but not now. If someone tries that now, we'll know about the ninja bandwagon, because again, the results are revealed. We should try to force scum to play by our rules. They'll be a lot more careful, because there's two scum teams, so I don't see them trying anything too ballsy. Any disadvantage going into the late-game will translate into the other scum-team having more influence than them. Also, because I can, and the name of the game, what do people think of LaL? :p | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On April 30 2012 13:13 wherebugsgo wrote: how do you lynch someone who lies and then ends up in the minority pool, when being in the minority pool exempts them from lynch??!?! The next day? Or if there's vigs, we can shoot them. On April 30 2012 13:21 Cephiro wrote: Scum can do whatever they want, as far as I know. Of course it may be possible that there is some sort of vote-controlling/eliminating power-role, but we should not speculate about the setup and concentrate on working what we have. We will not be able to direct scum onto a certain vote unless we manage to fool them of town's intentions, which won't be easy. The thing is, most likely the scum will be splitting their vote to some extent to lessen their lynch candidates. Also, are you joking about the optimal strategy? I don't really hope you are even imagining that to happen. Let's assume some fairy-tale scenarios about your "optimal strategy". 1) Everyone votes for the same option -> Everyone is able to be lynched (What are you trying to gain by this? The town can also benefit from not being lynched.) 2) The majority votes for the same option -> Well, what are you going to do about those who didn't? They are safe from lynch, and unless you possess a KP role you won't be able to do anything about it, but have to wait for the next day and try to manipulate votes in such a way that the person will end up in a majority. 3) Clusterfuck of votes on both options -> Most likely to happen Considering 2), it is highly unlikely that only scum would try to achieve the minority. I do not see it beneficial at start, even for a townie, to try and gain trust by "voting with the majority". I just don't see it happening, and in the case all townies happened to vote for the majority, then there's just a huge bunch of townies (And maybe a scum or two), in line for getting lynched. Everyone able to be lynched means we are not limited in any possible way in who we want to kill. If everyone just votes for whoever, then we're only ever really going to have half of the scum team able to lynch in round B, and there's no guarantee any primary scum targets will make it that far. It means that someone who is incredibly likely to be scum can continue to be in the minority day after day without being able to be lynched. That's incredibly sub-optimal. Additionally, there's no particular reason townies need to be in the minority this early in the game. What's the benefit? I'm not here to hold people's hands. If they're that townie they need lynch protection on day 1 or 2, then they should prove it, and thus get enough votes to live through round B. I think of this voting system as a reverse lynch. We vote for who we want to keep alive. That means you should be putting effort into this game. Lurkers and inactives aren't going to be able to coast along, because I for one, am not going to throw any votes at them. I don't mean even bad townies need to become scumhunter extraordinaires, but they should be putting some kind of effort into the game, so that we can know they're actually trying, and hopefully, that they're town. For point two, it gives us targets to kill or lynch the next day. Like I said, there's not much reason to want to be in the minority as town, unless your game-plan is to just not play and coast along on a bare minimum of effort. To address point three, this would be a policy vote. Everyone would agree to it, and those who stray off the path will be put under intense scrutiny. If only a couple people try to get in the minority, we just kill them. If it's large number, then it just means the plan failed, but that doesn't really hurt us, as we should still hopefully have scum in the majority. I don't think they'd risk throwing every member into the minority on day 1, and then they risk the other scum team doing the same thing and actually becoming a majority, depending how many townies also followed suit. On April 30 2012 13:23 gonzaw wrote: If EVERYBODY arrives at Round B, it's very likely A LOT of townies will be killed. Think about it. All townies will vote for their 5 top town reads (or stack votes on someone). What happens to the "bad" townies that nobody will vote for? They will all die. Scum won't vote for them since they know no other townie will vote for them either. We could end up with various town lynches on D1. That's why I wanted to come up with something that will make only the scummy people on the mayority, or at least, have the players most likely to be town in the minority If everybody follows the plan, then those that vote different than they told are scum. After that, you can either get a vig to shoot them (if there is any), maybe luckily have the other scum team shoot them, or change the voting system on later days to ensure that player becomes mayority. The point is that either you have a claimed scum, or the plan goes through The first hours of Day 1 are there to come up with an epic strategy and have people to comment on them and take stances. You can't tell me "concentrate on scumhunting" 1 hour after the Day started. Trust me, I am trying to scumhunt by generating discussion and forcing people to take stances on it. Well, we could come up with a vote strategy for phase B as well, if we have to. Looking at the player-list, we hopefully shouldn't have too many weak or bad townies, so that no one will vote for them. Also, the chances of all of them dying are actually very low, so long as we're sure to throw some votes on some of them. Remember we have 5 votes, that can be split, so we can spread them around a bit if we have to. If you don't like my plan, what would you suggest in alternative? My plan is very easy to implement, since all everyone has to do is vote the same way. There's no ways to cheat the system besides doing so blatantly. There's no way to manipulate the result into one's favour. There's no way for it to mess up due to complexity. It's simple, forceful, and effective. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On April 30 2012 15:19 EchelonTee wrote: So upon reviewing the thread I have concluded that Mr. Wiggles' plan for "put everyone in the majority" is either gross negligence or a malicious scum plan. Why? If everyone is in the majority (assuming everyone followed the plan, which they wouldn't), that means there are 18 people up for lynch. Normally this would be no problem at all, as everyone is always up for lynch, but due to the rules of this game anyone with 0 votes, or tied for lowest is lynched. If this plan were to be followed, I can all but guarantee that we will have 3+ townies dying simply because no one thought they were important enough to be voted, while scum players can obviously get votes on them. This plan allows for suboptimal townies to be culled at no cost to the scum teams. Mr. Wiggles arguement is that if you're bad then it's fine if you die. I heavily heavily disagree with this. Honestly, I just want to randomly put my vote down and focus on scum hunting because whether I'm in the majority or minority, I don't plan on being mislynched. However, since it's starting to seem like scum may try to abuse the system, I'll follow any plan that has decent logic behind it. Meapak, do you not care about any of the plans that have been put forth so far? The thing about this, is I don't think there can be any other plan that will actually work, and doesn't have the possibility to be heavily abused. I agree that this could end up being somewhat swingy, but based on what you said, what's the difference between my plan and a plan that splits the vote another way? If no one's going to vote for those townies, and I think we could get a way to vote and save them, what makes you think people will vote for them otherwise? If they die in my plan, there's no reason they won't die in someone else's plan, so I don't really get your point at all, since it doesn't say anything. The only difference is I'll have a few deaths on day 1 as the worst case scenario, whereas other plans will simply have them die out over time whenever they hit the majority. Also, since we're only talking about hypothetical players so far, who are these people who nobody is going to vote to save at all? The only person I think you could make a case for would be Katina, but even then, that's only one person. So, please point out all these useless players who are going to be left by the wayside because not a single person will vote for them and thus we'll have multiple people at zero votes. The player-list is very strong in this game. I don't think there's any player who everyone will think isn't worthy of their vote. Every player on that list is capable of playing a strong game, and showing themselves to be town if they put in the effort. I don't see anyone there who'd be left without votes if they put in even a modicum of effort this game. So, it seems that so far people don't really agree with my plan, so here's my counterpoint: What's your idea? It's fine to disagree, but if you have nothing of your own to put up against it, we aren't really accomplishing anything. If no one puts up some other plan to go against mine, then if people don't agree we're going to just fall into random voting, which will be even swingier and unpredictable than any plan someone could come up with. It will wreak havoc with reads and scumhunting, since anyone in the minority is sure to have suspicion on them dissipate, and public analysis and discussion on these players will be squashed as we can't lynch them. All focus will go to players in the majority, making the minority a safe haven for scum, and a place where they can hide until any pressure on them goes away by itself. If you can think of a way to stop this, then I'm all ears, but as of right now, I only really see a mass majority as the way to be able to keep pressure on people and make sure we can lynch who we want. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:02 prplhz wrote: I hope this doesn't end in Ace being shot again. We don't know how many (or even if) we have a vigilante, scum who want to avoid lynch will have like a ~40% chance each day of avoiding the lynch, and they don't even need their scumbuddies' help for this! If we go through with the pardon plan for days then they will even get 100% chance of avoiding lynch and we will need vigilantes to take care of them so potential vigilantes should not use their shot to enforce plans. I imagine that there are roles more related to the central game mechanic, maybe M/M inverters or people who can throw other people from one pool to the other, maybe some hidden votes for round B. I thought about how the vote trading panned out in Hammer Mini Mafia (for those who haven't read, everybody had 5 votes and we had to give some away to other people every night). In that game people might not give votes to the most townie player just because "he would already get a bunch" and then he would end up with none. Also, I think charismatic people might get relatively many votes compared to how "townie" they really appear but we still don't want people like me to die just because no one thought to trade me (goes for other people too). I'm unsure about what to think about big round B plans, I'm always worried about what powers scum may have and I think that just relying on people to do their best should suffice (at least in this game with this infinitely stacked player list). What I'm going to do is that I'm going to split my votes up and throw a bunch of them into people I think other people are likely to vote for, and throw some of them into people I think other people are more unlikely to vote for. If everybody else does this then we're not going to have any problems (and we're going to have a lot of information this way) but if only I do it then there's not really much harm in that anyway. I think it was gonzaw/syllogism who proposed that round B should be an unofficial vote and then we try to kill the "winner" of that vote, but I don't know about that. This is a game about finding townies and if we all agree that someone is scum then we're not going to need a huge plan for getting him lynched, people are just not going to vote for him or they're going to get into trouble. I have never seen an unofficial voting system in action either, at least not one that worked. It seems that there is already a big plan in place for round A and it's kinda alright with me, syllogism and Palmar have good reads on each other so I'm going to go along with whatever they feel like for now. Don't you think that if you just vote who you want and split all your votes up there's a good chance scum will be able to get just enough votes to not be lynched and we'll just end up having a townie die? I think the problem you're trying to address shouldn't come up if we hold everyone to placing their votes in public and not lying about them. Then, there shouldn't be a townie player who gets no votes like you're scared of. Just throwing votes around like that seems like we'll end up with no control over the lynch. So, I'm going to ask you, and also Chaoser since he suggested it as well, why do you support people just voting for whoever? Why do you think it will automagically sort itself out? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
All votes are final and cannot be changed once submitted. So, no, people shouldn't be voting right away. Not if we want to do anything similar to the Palmar plan, that is. Also, if Palmar really wants to do his plan, he should be coming out with his list of reads pretty soon, or there will be no time for people to get on and vote. In the final vote counts, do we see who voted who, or just the final tallies? | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On May 01 2012 04:00 Foolishness wrote: Plans should not be very relevant for the time being. Find a person who you think is mafia and make a case. This discussion will win us the game, not debating what plans we should enact to try to win. If the majority of the town agrees on a person to be killed we should kill that person. As I said it's really easy to get someone killed with the voting system. It's really hard to ensure that all the "townies" survive. No, I'm trying to get something concrete out of Chaoser instead of just "I think Palmar needs to be lynched". That post was directed towards Chaoser. Chaoser, explain why you want to lynch Palmar, and why you think he's scum. You're not going to convince anyone by just saying you want to lynch him. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
Also, why did this thread go to Hell in the last two pages? Palmar posted his list of reads after extensive discussion about his plan, and suddenly a whole bunch of people come running out of the woodwork to oppose it, and not in a calm and logical way, but instead in a sort of raving and foaming at the mouth way. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On May 01 2012 09:41 Cephiro wrote: ... Really, I'll make sure the next game I join has a reading and english comprehension test before entering. As for trying to answer more seriously, you are right, I am probably not the most useful townie right now. Does that make me scum? No, it doesn't. There are many others that are not being useful in the way you want them to. Are they also all scum as well? I say tunneling because he admit he would be happy to tunnel if so needed, and tunneling is something you shouldn't do in any circumstances. Although, I guess each and every one of us have our own opinions and limits about what is pressuring and what is tunnelling. You can make cases on me every single minute for all I care, I'll respond each of them if that's what is required to get the fact I am a townie into those thick heads of yours. Why I don't want to be accused with bad cases one after another that are further continued with confirmation bias and exaggeration? Because it's a waste of good town (or scum) effort that could be directed to something useful. As for having secret reasons, sure, I'll come out of the closet since you all keep asking for my secret reasons. I am a vigilante, I breadcrumbed it when I was talking to Ace about how guns still work. Satisfied? You don't think I'm being serious about claiming vig? Why not? Standard D1 play no? + Show Spoiler + If you take the claim seriously, do me a favour and get yourself lynched. So instead of having a tantrum and screaming that you're a townie, why don't you show that you're a townie by doing something useful? Your response to Gonzaw's case so far is to yell over and over that you're town. That's not going to convince anyone more than someone yelling that someone's scum over and over as a case. Gonzaw said that you haven't done anything contributory. So, instead of doing something contributory, you waste a bunch of time having a back and forth with him. If his case is so horrible, and you're town, then why are you so worried about it? You say it won't stick, but instead of ignoring it, it looks like you're putting all your effort into fighting it. That doesn't seem like it fits to me. Instead, it looks like you feel inherently guilty and so you feel the need to address it. Also, you say you're going to keep responding to cases to convince people you're town, but doing so does nothing to convince anyone of anything. You can refute what Gonzaw says, or show his case is bad, but that in no way shows that you're actually town, just that Gonzaw's case is weak. So, if you want people to think you're town, give them a reason to think so! It's pretty simple, but you don't seem to get it. Crying that you're town doesn't make it so, playing for the town does. Your reactions to Gonzaw are just making you look scummy to me. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On May 01 2012 10:10 Cephiro wrote: Well, since you clearly know how to prove oneself as townie, as I believe at this point of the game you are confirmed town to everyone, would you please tell me how I should respond to that case? I've done more than yell over and over that I'm town, but if his case consists of yelling me scum over and over, why should I put any more effort in countering his case? If he is a townie, he should understand by now that repeating the same points over and over is not a proper case. Who says I'm worried? For all I care you can start making scum cases on me too. I just have a habit of answering accusations instead of running away or trying to sidestep them. I have nothing to be afraid of, why should I not defend myself? Do you think it would look better if I just ignored all your cases on me? Now that would make me look really towny wouldn't it? By refuting Gonzaw's case I am trying to get him to understand that he needs to step up his play as town if he wants to catch scum. Although if he's the scum, I guess that effort is all in vain. If you think I'm scummy, well, that's your problem for being on the wrong track. Maybe you'll see the light at some point. I'd respond to the case either by: A) Ignoring it if it's really that "horrible" B) Pointing out where I've actually been doing useful things or scumhunting C) Showing that I'm capable of scumhunting by actually joining relevant discussion in the thread As I just finished saying, if you think his case is so bad, why are you putting so much effort into arguing with him? It's not serving any useful purpose as compared to say, spending your time looking for scum or doing pretty much anything else. Instead, it's an excuse to shit up the thread and look like you're doing something when you're not. Also, you look pretty worried to me. For someone who's saying they're not worried, you seem to care a lot about one person's weak pressure on you. Is the whole town going after you? Are you even in danger of being lynched? It doesn't seem that way, so your posting looks like a gross over-reaction. There's nothing wrong with defending yourself from a valid case, but that's not what you're doing, or at least not what you claim you're doing. In your own words, Gonzaw's case is horrible, but you're putting in tons of effort to defend against it. If it's so terrible, you shouldn't worry at all because you shouldn't get lynched off it unless the town is very, very, bad. Also, the way you're defending against it makes you look irrationally defensive, given the way you've completely blown up over it. So, there's even more to it than the fact that you're making big defense posts in the first place; there's the fact that you've become incredibly emotional and defensive very quickly, and for almost no reason. If every person reacted the same way you did to slight pressure, the game would be completely unplayable. But, normally people don't react that way, and that's why it's a scum-tell. Finally, you don't seem to get that you have done nothing to refute Gonzaw's case. If you want to refute it, start scumhunting or commenting on the scumhunting going on in the thread. Stop being useless. p.s. Your sarcasm is cute. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
"Votes will be made public after each phase. Thus at the start of round B the results of the Minority voting phase will be published, and after the lynch the " Where it just cuts off. Are the voting results of Round B revealed in public? I'd guess so after the initial wording, but if you can fix the sentence to make it explicit if that's the case, that would be nice. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
If we had to choose one person to kill, I think VE would be it. All it seems like he's doing is running through the thread aggravating people and opposing any sort of organization and causing dissent on principle. He hasn't even said who he thinks scum is now that he's chimed in on Round B. His case on WBG was laughable, and besides that, I don't see any reads from him. Even when he talks about the Sandroba lynch, he doesn't say that he thinks Sandroba is scum, just that he's fine with his lynch. Also, just looking at what was posted recently, it looks like VE has given up. The lynch seemed like it would be between him and Sandroba, but instead of fighting it, he's just kicking dirt around. This is pretty uncharacteristic, and doesn't sit well with me. @VE: So if you have super good reads and have been scumhunting, and that's why scum want to kill you, what are they? Also, I see no scumhunting in the thread, so it must have happened in PM land. Obviously if you're telling the truth then, scum have them, but town doesn't. Withholding them does nothing for town, and is in fact an anti-town behaviour. Also, I thought you said you weren't playing the game in PMs, so why are you scumhunting there supposedly, and not in the thread? Or, you're just scum and I'm wasting my time. =/ | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
If we're only going after one person, I'd say VE. If we're going after two, then VE and probably Sandro, since he still hasn't shown up in thread with anything, and if Syllo is to be believed, hasn't started doing anything in PM land either. I haven't used my votes yet, and when I do I'll announce them in the thread. I urge everyone else to publicly announce who they intend to vote for, hopefully before they do it. There's not really a reason not to (A pro-town one at least), and this will let us keep a tally and hopefully kill who we want to kill. Just splitting randomly on who we think is townie seems pretty dangerous. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
| ||
| ||
