EPT[M][N] Default Suspicions Mafia
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Roleblock chains resolve from the last roleblock in the chain. For example: A->B->C->D->Medic, A will roleblock B, so B doesn't block C, so C blocks D, which means the Medic power resolves. That shouldn't be that way. Night actions should all happen at the same time in 2 stages. First everything that is a RB happens, all RB's happen at the same time. Then everything that is not an RB happens, all at the same time. At least that's how it got explained to me, because it's the same with other nightactions as well: If vig A shoots Vig B who shoots C, C should not be saved because both shots happen at the same time. Same with RB's. If RB A roleblocks B, who roleblocks C, C should not be saved. So basicly if A roleblocks B who roleblocks C, who roleblocks D, who roleblocks A all 4 of them should end up being roleblocked. Just saying in case this isn't on purpose for some reason. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 18 2014 00:01 HiroPro wrote: There is nothing wrong with resolving roleblocks (unlike other night actions) as least conflict. There are plenty of setups that work like this (c9++ is a good example). There's nothing illegitimate about it: a site like mafiascum even has it as their preferred way of dealing with resolution (Roleblocker). And in a mini setup like this that has town roleblockers, I'd actually argue that it's better to have it as least conflict over simultaneous. It's not a very strong role as it is. it's a weak role but neither way of resolving actually buffs it. You could argue that not simultaneous makes it even worse, as a Town-RB is an incredibly hard role to play as. Probably one of the hardest powerroles there is to play and mafia has an information advantage over the Town-RB, so the benefits are more likely to help mafia than town simply because Mafia won't RB themselves while the mafia-RB will at least always hit into town. So if you want a somewhat more useful Town-RB I'd actually make it simultaneous to make sure that on the rare occastions when he actually does something that isn't anti-town it'll go through. But I didn't know there's both options to resolve this. Whatever host wants is fine as long as it's clear  | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
It's only been last week and the answers in question clear it up quite nicely, which is the reason the Model-OP was changed so that it can only be interpreted in one way. Like Marv said, it's normal "this" way but could have been interpreted both ways before | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 08:48 raynpelikoneet wrote: The quoted below is in addition to votes cast on D1 correct? ##vote: raynpelikoneet I have a plan and i am not sure if this is the best plan because i have not thought it through from every angle yet but does anyone know what i am doing? sounds good to me, I like this ##vote: raynpelikoneet | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 08:58 CuteFluffyPuppy wrote: Why do you think Rayn voted for himself? no idea | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 09:03 raynpelikoneet wrote: Okay so apparently the starting votes for the day don't mean shit if i read this correctly? Then it's... meaningless? What's the point? the point is that you're not allowed to unvote at any point during the game, thus you can not start "unvoted" because you'd stay "unvoted" until you vote someone. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 09:09 Toadesstern wrote: Why are you actively looking for a way to pseudo-unvote? I don't even see a reason why someone should care about that. that was @rayn | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 09:13 VIVAX420 wrote: wait so you are implying that scum is going to be afraid of the default votes enough to come up with a plan like that? somewhat. Not really the votes themselves but rather some reaction caused by those votes. It's not going to be just about the innitial votes, it's going to be for the entire game that you can't unvote. Noone is taking these votes serious and I see no reason why he should be thinking about this if not for some weird paranoid reasons. And I'm doing vocabs right now... I'm only going to f5 every 15 minutes or so... | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 09:37 raynpelikoneet wrote: Do you agree with prplhz's vote on me? Actually this goes to everyone. If you read my posts, you'll find that I actually said the exact same thing and that I as well have my vote on you. So yes. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 08:57 Toadesstern wrote: sounds good to me, I like this ##vote: raynpelikoneet I didn't feel the need to vote myself and revote you for a more dramatic expression of my desire to get you lynched. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 10:20 marvellosity wrote: Let's go with this: ##unvote ##Vote: Toadesstern His +1 on prplhz's vote is super-weak. Why is Toad agreeing with prplhz that rayn is looking for a way not to take stands? Toad is passingly familiar enough with rayn to know that's not how rayn operates. Naughty toad. I voted him because I like voting rayn after the last game we had together, just look at the post I quoted while voting him. I think that was the first game we had together so no I don't really know how he plays considering that I ragequited because of him on d2. At least I don't recall any other game. Do you honestly think I'm going after him in all seriousness right now instead of just taking sidestabs at him for last game? After posts like these: On February 20 2014 09:43 Toadesstern wrote: I didn't feel the need to vote myself and revote you for a more dramatic expression of my desire to get you lynched. ? I had the same idea as prplhz had and said I can't think of a reason why a town would want to proppose this and I'd still like to see his reasoning for all this. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 10:32 marvellosity wrote: you can't say 1) "I'm not going after him seriously" and 2) "but I need to hear from him about this" 1) is backing out of it and yet you're pushing it with 2) my vote stands while I go to bed you don't seem to have gotten the timeline of events correct. First I voted him, then I asked him about this and why he's doing that. So yeah I actually can say that because that's how it went down | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 10:36 VIVAX420 wrote: toad you are backtracking so hard. it's not serious, yet you gave shitty but serious reasons for it. well sorry, but that's usually how it ends up looking if I vote someone for fun and end up having issues with him that I want cleared afterwards. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 20 2014 10:44 raynpelikoneet wrote: Palmar the problem is not that if you make it clear or not. It's if other people think you are being clear or not which is not always so easily said. You know how this shit works, scum misrepresent everything people do because that's how you lynch townies. Why not reduce the possible amount of misrepresentations by an easy policy that does no harm in any case? there's plenty of people throwing around votes in every single game, for fun, for policy, for random reasons or whatever else. So if it's not a problem in any other game, why do you think it's going to be a problem in this one to the point that you think we should make a "no voting someone else unless you're super certain" policy? Do you actually think it's something that should be policy in every game? | ||
| ||
