|
@Sandroba, I misread your post, I thought you were saying every player has nukes, so I was dispelling that notion, as I'm a proof that some players have no nukes.
@MiG, I don't think I personally would be more likely to hit scum, but I know a little secret I'll share with you:
The best convincing people/town leaders != the best scumhunters
I consider myself in the former category, I can get people lynched, but I'm not great at hunting scum. If a great scumhunter has a good case that's being ignored in a shitstorm of town discussion, then I want that player to be able to shoot his nuke without fearing to be owned.
However if a terrible nuke is launched, I completely agree with shooting it down and lynching the launcher.
|
Morning everyone, I can already tell this is going to be an awesome game.
At the moment, I think GMarshal's plan is quite a bit better than sandroba. We should only be launching nukes at people we are VERY sure are scum. Committing to one nuke a day is inviting the conspirator to win.
There's nothing to stop mafia/disgruntled townies/3rd party from launching nukes back once its decided that they are to be nuked. This will rapidly increase the radiation level if you are guaranteed to be nuking once a day.
|
@deconduo Except that there is. People not voting for the person are the ones that are going to launch the nukes. We can shoot down any retaliation rogue nukes. Again read the whole discussion before commenting. If some random player nukes the person who already did not follow the plan what stops him from nuking again in retaliation? How do you deal with players that are imune to nukes?
|
United States4714 Posts
Palmar yes it would be unfortunate if there were some great scum hunter who was shitty at arguing and couldn't get his point across but at the same time we are preventing all the people who are shitty scum hunters from firing randomly into the town.
You are basically arguing it is better for everyone to work alone instead of as a team, which cannot possibly be correct.
|
On July 05 2011 20:33 sandroba wrote:
@deconduo Except that there is. People not voting for the person are the ones that are going to launch the nukes. We can shoot down any retaliation rogue nukes. Again read the whole discussion before commenting. If some random player nukes the person who already did not follow the plan what stops him from nuking again in retaliation? How do you deal with players that are imune to nukes?
How do we shoot down rogue nukes?
|
Anti-nukes? Last game we had them. Something tells me we might have them this game too.
|
United States22154 Posts
I'm going to throw this out there.
Don't fire counternukes unless nukes are aimed at obviously pro-town players.
Why? Because counter-nukes are all that is stopping an axis victory near the endgame, as if we use up all our counternukes and the axis hold on to some, then as soon as the numbers are close to even, (say 8 vs 4) and the daily lynches have exhausted our nuclear arsenal, they will just win by nuking 4 people and shooting down counternukes, so, if you have the ability to shoot down nukes and a nuke is shot at a somewhat scummy player, even thought the shooter will have to die for his crimes, consider letting his nuke land.
Obviously if its aimed at a pro-town player then shoot the nuke down, but otherwise it might not be a terrible idea to let it land.
|
United States720 Posts
Tell me if there's something wrong.
If there are no renegade nukers, we vote to kill someone. But we use enough nukes to kill them with max of 2. So nuke is launched and 12 hour window has begun
We then nominate someone else to lynch.
The first nominated is free to do whatever even launch his own nukes.
The second nominated, if he feels himself largely leading the second vote poll, is also free to launch his nuke.
Both players die at end of day, one from nuke, one from lynching. Nuke and lynch take effect at end of 12 hours from start of launch.
What exactly are the limitations of these abilities that stop nukes from detonating?
|
On July 05 2011 20:39 sandroba wrote:
Anti-nukes? Last game we had them. Something tells me we might have them this game too.
Didn't see anything about them in the OP. They were explained in the OP in the last game. I would assume nothing unless we have confirmation.
|
On July 05 2011 20:35 Mig wrote:
Palmar yes it would be unfortunate if there were some great scum hunter who was shitty at arguing and couldn't get his point across but at the same time we are preventing all the people who are shitty scum hunters from firing randomly into the town.
You are basically arguing it is better for everyone to work alone instead of as a team, which cannot possibly be correct.
I want the option to be there.
As I've said, if it's a terrible shot, we'll stop it. And for the most part, the discussion will be focused on the lynch. I don't agree, can we now drop it, as it certainly looks like no one is going to be firing their missiles like retards and we're shitting up the thread?
In general terms, working as a team is the better options, but we don't know who's leading that team, there needs to be induvidual thought. But as I said, I have much less problems with the plan you've proposed than GM's original one which was basically:
"Let's nuke the fuck out of everyone who lurks, and everyone who nukes too"
That really bothered me.
But I'll agree to disagree if you will.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 20:44 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 20:35 Mig wrote:
Palmar yes it would be unfortunate if there were some great scum hunter who was shitty at arguing and couldn't get his point across but at the same time we are preventing all the people who are shitty scum hunters from firing randomly into the town.
You are basically arguing it is better for everyone to work alone instead of as a team, which cannot possibly be correct. I want the option to be there. As I've said, if it's a terrible shot, we'll stop it. And for the most part, the discussion will be focused on the lynch. I don't agree, can we now drop it, as it certainly looks like no one is going to be firing their missiles like retards and we're shitting up the thread? In general terms, working as a team is the better options, but we don't know who's leading that team, there needs to be induvidual thought. But as I said, I have much less problems with the plan you've proposed than GM's original one which was basically: "Let's nuke the fuck out of everyone who lurks, and everyone who nukes too" That really bothered me. But I'll agree to disagree if you will.
Fun fact, my plan was based on mutually assured destruction, which historically works 
Also, nuking lurkers is just like lynching lurkers, it obviously requires town agreement, you don't just nuke random people.
I don't see what bothers you about my plan, its a way to control nuclear weaponry, and ensure scum are dissuaded from ever firing.
|
Final words on the whole discussion.
I'll pretend to go with your plan at the moment, as I'm a non-factor in it anyway.
I sure as hell hope that people have the balls to nuke later in the game before a mafia infested town council leads us to hell.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 20:49 Palmar wrote:
Final words on the whole discussion.
I'll pretend to go with your plan at the moment, as I'm a non-factor in it anyway.
I sure as hell hope that people have the balls to nuke later in the game before a mafia infested town council leads us to hell.
/sigh
much like the "mafia infested" town controls the lynches too, right? Thats the beauty of the thing, we are all voting for who to nuke.
I propose one amendment though sand, lets not force ourselves to shoot, make it a majority vote. 50% of the town has to agree or its a no nuke, to avoid the "everyone votes for someone different" syndrome. It also means people have to be persuasive and someone can't get stupidly killed just because 4 people are derping.
|
On July 05 2011 20:01 sandroba wrote:
@curu We can confortably say that most players have nukes, otherwise there would be no conspirator and the threshold on radiation wouldn't be "fairly high". It doesnt matter if mafia holds nukes because as soon as they use them they get lynched and get their nukes shot down. You are assuming powerroles do not have nukes, which is based on nothing at all (last game some most people had nukes, regardless of role. People that didn't have them were vanilla/mafia/blue so nothing can be said about that). Having someone randomize is exactly the same or pehaps worse than following the list, since said person can choose the order and has no way to prove that said list was actually randomize. Again this does not matter at all, I don't know why you keep bringing this up.
Quote directly taken from last game:
USA (5 nukes,2 anti-nukes)
Russia ( 6 nukes)
UK (1 anti-missile defense nuke, 0 nukes, masoned to Canada)
France (watcher, 0 nukes)
China (3 nukes,PGO)
India (1 anti-nuke missile defense system, 1 nuke)
Pakistan ( 1 nuke)
NK ( 2 nukes,sneak attacks)
Italy (2 nukes)
Germany (3 nukes)
Japan (6 nukes,1 anti Mafia GF)
Colombia (SK/immune to nk and RC/steal 1 nuke/anti-nuke per night or nk)
Sweden (1 nuke shield,can block 1 hit at night, mafia)
Egypt (medic [Jailkeeper], 0 nukes)
Israel (2 nukes, mafia)
Canada (masoned to UK, 1 nuke)
Brazil (mafia role blocker, 0 nukes)
Antarctica (Veteran that can take 1 nuke, 0 nukes)
UN Security Council (Sane|Insane|Paranoid Cop(Ambiguous Cop), 0 nukes)
Australian Survivor (upside down world, anyone who nukes you has nukes sent back to them, has 0 nukes but can NK once, immune to one NK and can be lynched,show up as Innocent to alignment checks)
Iraq - Vigilante (0 nukes)
Mexico - Vengeful Townie (1 nuke)
Looks to me like no power role had nukes. I don't know if that's the case this game but last one pretty much only the Vanilla Townies and Mafia had Nukes.
You're right about the list thing that there's no way to know who truly randomized it. Maybe Caller can do that (just asking for him to randomize a list, shouldn't be a big deal)? Still it's not a huge deal, just chipping away at anything Mafia can use that we can't.
|
United States720 Posts
@GMarshall
We can only fire one nuke at a time unless in retaliation. So if a renegade nuker nukes someone with no nukes, someone else will have to nuke him allowing him to launch a second retaliation nuke if he has more than 1. At least this is my understanding of the nuclear phase. It's just a lot cleaner to lynch them rather than nuke them as a policy
|
It also appears that there aren't going to be many (if any) anti nuke systems (only 4 last game)
|
One issue I see with the Sandroba plan is that if the target is really mafia, he can claim nuclear resistance and then potentially launch 3 nukes in retaliation (one normal, 2 retaliation nukes). Even if he doesn't have 3 nukes, he can launch dud missiles and we will have to waste anti-nukes on them. As such, perhaps it's better to always launch only one missile, at least initially?
|
@GM I don't agree with majority. It requires people to be very active and with the 24hr deadline I think we will end up no lynches most of that time and that fails to abuse the mechanics of this game. We can derive usefull information from a non majority lynch regardless, so I don't think it matters. Majority lynch benefits mafia more than town imo.
@curu since who will be nuking does not matter we can change it to have people volunteering, but that also has its problems. Also observe that many scum players as well as blue roles have 0 nukes, so mafia killing the players that declare no nukes, while having a better chance to hit blues, also throws more suspicion the mafia among them. Works kinda like the zodiac list.
|
United States22154 Posts
On July 05 2011 21:18 sandroba wrote:
@GM I don't agree with majority. It requires people to be very active and with the 24hr deadline I think we will end up no lynches most of that time and that fails to abuse the mechanics of this game. We can derive usefull information from a non majority lynch regardless, so I don't think it matters. Majority lynch benefits mafia more than town imo.
@curu since who will be nuking does not matter we can change it to have people volunteering, but that also has its problems. Also observe that many scum players as well as blue roles have 0 nukes, so mafia killing the players that declare no nukes, while having a better chance to hit blues, also throws more suspicion the mafia among them. Works kinda like the zodiac list.
Forcing ourselves to nuke is only going to end up with more dead townies, and it forces activity. We should 100% not be forcing ourselves to use nukes, that only helps the conspirator. I'd rather no nuke than have us do a really tentative lynch with like 3 people voting for the person, as that will probably not provide any useful information and likely end up with a dead townie.
I really think majority lynch is the way to go with this one.
|
@syllo you can't launch duds if you have real nukes. Ya maybe you are right and we should only launch one regardless. Town will never counter the nuke that we agree on so if it gets shot down it's mafia wasting anti-nukes (which is excelent for us) and we can use another nuke if that's the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
