|
I disagree. Suppose GM is scum and claims medic. There are two possibilities:
1) There is a real medic, who is not shot night two. We get back our parity result between bugs and super and still lynch bugs. As the real medic is still alive, that allows us to pull of a second parity check, ending the game.
2) There is a real medic, who is shot night two. We get back our parity result between bugs and super and still lynch bugs. The game comes down to a 2v1 and you go from there.
I actually lied about goign to vote for GM as soon as day started, I would have voted WBG off the bat no matter what. Just cause I wanted see you burn/lynched
|
On November 10 2011 10:24 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 18:06 Ace wrote:kudos to Nemesis and chaoser for being clutch and not thinking like idiots. Also for future reference of why I believed Subversion had to be Scum: On January 10 2011 07:34 Ace wrote:
I'll believe Nemesis over an absent player. Why would you side with someone that isn't even defending himself? Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 08:23 Ace wrote:
I told WBG I didn't read the game but skimmed the thread and saw when GM said he fake claimed to protect the medic.
There should have been an instant lynch right there with no hesitation. But the Town is ridiculous. Hypothetical situation #3. An absent player and a fake claimer return different parities. Who gets lynched 
Easy. Fake claimer, assuming they weren't ridiculously pro-town before the fake claim. The absent player is probably a bored townie.
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On November 10 2011 10:29 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 10:24 kitaman27 wrote:On January 11 2011 18:06 Ace wrote:kudos to Nemesis and chaoser for being clutch and not thinking like idiots. Also for future reference of why I believed Subversion had to be Scum: On January 10 2011 07:34 Ace wrote:
I'll believe Nemesis over an absent player. Why would you side with someone that isn't even defending himself? On November 10 2011 08:23 Ace wrote:
I told WBG I didn't read the game but skimmed the thread and saw when GM said he fake claimed to protect the medic.
There should have been an instant lynch right there with no hesitation. But the Town is ridiculous. Hypothetical situation #3. An absent player and a fake claimer return different parities. Who gets lynched Easy. Fake claimer, assuming they weren't ridiculously pro-town before the fake claim. The absent player is probably a bored townie.
But suppose its a blatantly absent player, with zero game related posts at LYLO, who promises analysis on three separate occasions without delivering and is post in other mafia threads.
RoL really should have been the day 2 lynch -_-
|
On November 10 2011 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 09:09 Ace wrote:On November 10 2011 09:05 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:02 Ace wrote: He can play this card from both alignments, hence you can't even take his excuse of doing it to WIFOM the Mafia seriously. The Town would have lost but it was the correct play. If it could have come from both alignments, you discard the information and base the lynch on the other 70 pages. Carrying out a policy lynch just for the sake of policy doesn't make sense. This isn't a policy lynch. It is a LYLO and someone has been found to be lying about a Role claim. You can't tell if he is Town or Scum because his alibi is acceptable for both alignments so you can't take it at face value. What you do know is that he claimed a role, and the actual REAL role died. What happened in the other 70 pages that can overturn this scenario? Regardless, its a good thing we didnt kill him, lol
This statement means you completely missed the point of everything Ace said.
|
On November 10 2011 10:59 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On November 10 2011 09:09 Ace wrote:On November 10 2011 09:05 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:02 Ace wrote: He can play this card from both alignments, hence you can't even take his excuse of doing it to WIFOM the Mafia seriously. The Town would have lost but it was the correct play. If it could have come from both alignments, you discard the information and base the lynch on the other 70 pages. Carrying out a policy lynch just for the sake of policy doesn't make sense. This isn't a policy lynch. It is a LYLO and someone has been found to be lying about a Role claim. You can't tell if he is Town or Scum because his alibi is acceptable for both alignments so you can't take it at face value. What you do know is that he claimed a role, and the actual REAL role died. What happened in the other 70 pages that can overturn this scenario? Regardless, its a good thing we didnt kill him, lol This statement means you completely missed the point of everything Ace said.
No i understand, He is saying that a smart town would have killed GMarshal because his plan was chaotic and very indicative of scum play, and we didnt do it because we were dumb.
I'm saying its a good thing we were dumb, or we would have lost
|
On November 10 2011 11:02 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 10:59 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On November 10 2011 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On November 10 2011 09:09 Ace wrote:On November 10 2011 09:05 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:02 Ace wrote: He can play this card from both alignments, hence you can't even take his excuse of doing it to WIFOM the Mafia seriously. The Town would have lost but it was the correct play. If it could have come from both alignments, you discard the information and base the lynch on the other 70 pages. Carrying out a policy lynch just for the sake of policy doesn't make sense. This isn't a policy lynch. It is a LYLO and someone has been found to be lying about a Role claim. You can't tell if he is Town or Scum because his alibi is acceptable for both alignments so you can't take it at face value. What you do know is that he claimed a role, and the actual REAL role died. What happened in the other 70 pages that can overturn this scenario? Regardless, its a good thing we didnt kill him, lol This statement means you completely missed the point of everything Ace said. No i understand, He is saying that a smart town would have killed GMarshal because his plan was chaotic and very indicative of scum play, and we didnt do it because we were dumb. I'm saying its a good thing we were dumb, or we would have lost
This is gold LOL
It should go in the postgame analysis
|
On November 10 2011 11:03 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 11:02 GreYMisT wrote:On November 10 2011 10:59 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On November 10 2011 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On November 10 2011 09:09 Ace wrote:On November 10 2011 09:05 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:02 Ace wrote: He can play this card from both alignments, hence you can't even take his excuse of doing it to WIFOM the Mafia seriously. The Town would have lost but it was the correct play. If it could have come from both alignments, you discard the information and base the lynch on the other 70 pages. Carrying out a policy lynch just for the sake of policy doesn't make sense. This isn't a policy lynch. It is a LYLO and someone has been found to be lying about a Role claim. You can't tell if he is Town or Scum because his alibi is acceptable for both alignments so you can't take it at face value. What you do know is that he claimed a role, and the actual REAL role died. What happened in the other 70 pages that can overturn this scenario? Regardless, its a good thing we didnt kill him, lol This statement means you completely missed the point of everything Ace said. No i understand, He is saying that a smart town would have killed GMarshal because his plan was chaotic and very indicative of scum play, and we didnt do it because we were dumb. I'm saying its a good thing we were dumb, or we would have lost This is gold LOL It should go in the postgame analysis
eh, play to win. whatever works.
|
That's not a very good example to set for newbies lol.
Next thing you know you'll have 3 new players fake claiming medic before LYLO every game
|
On November 10 2011 09:38 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 09:14 Ace wrote:
You're in LYLO. Someone claims medic. The real medic dies. He has an alibi that can't help you determine his alignment. Why are you taking anything he says as true at this point for sure? We weren't . GM wasn't "confirmed" town or anything. We had a parity check on bugs vs super and chose to lynch bugs. GM's opinion wasn't taken as law. Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 09:14 Ace wrote:
if a Scum GM makes this claim, this is the sticking point. You realize that a Scum GM wins the game for the Scum team if this claim goes through. I disagree. Suppose GM is scum and claims medic. There are two possibilities: 1) There is a real medic, who is not shot night two. We get back our parity result between bugs and super and still lynch bugs. As the real medic is still alive, that allows us to pull of a second parity check, ending the game. 2) There is a real medic, who is shot night two. We get back our parity result between bugs and super and still lynch bugs. The game comes down to a 2v1 and you go from there. Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 09:14 Ace wrote:
This is the kind of shit play that has led people to stop playing here and you can't even recognize it. In a Town favored setup a PC claims Day 1, The Town mislynches twice, A town player lies about his role and yet you still think that was a good play going into LYLO.
You're right, you know better than me. I'm not even going to discuss this anymore No need to become upset. I'm the first to admit that we played poorly on day one forcing a claim. I'm not trying to spin two mislynches as great town play. I agree this was certainly a town favorable setup. I think not lynching GM was a good play going into LYLO because he wasn't scum. That's all.
This is so backwards and once again, you guys miss the point. Just because the outcome worked doesn't mean your logic or reasoning was right.
To put this in perspective, if I proceeded to lie through the ENTIRE game, blatantly push miss lynches and shout scum at every turn, use a fakeclaim, but somehow ended up being a townie. That doesn't mean it was a good decision not to lynch me just because it turned out being right.
A conclusion can't retroactively justify your premise. If I walk out into the middle of a street and start shooting off with a gun because I am bored as fuck one Saturday night and one of my bullets strikes a guy who was in the middle of raping the shit out of a prostitute does that somehow justify me shooting a gun in the middle of a street just because it somehow ended up working out? No, it doesn't and if you guys continue construing dumb luck with good play just because the outcome somehow ended up favorable with a dumb shit decision you aren't going to learn anything.
|
On November 10 2011 11:05 wherebugsgo wrote:
That's not a very good example to set for newbies lol.
Next thing you know you'll have 3 new players fake claiming medic before LYLO every game
you know what I mean. this situation is comprable to starcraft or any game really. you could say "well i lost because any good player would have expanded to the 12:00, but you expanded to the 6 like a noob" Hope that metaphor makes sense, it does in my head.
Do i agree that if this situation was played 100 times, and in each of those 100 times someone fakeclaimed medic right before LYLO, that person probally shoudl be lynched? Yea, that would probally be optimal. However each game is a different situation, thats what makes the game playable. Some situations you can't approach like a computer, because humanity and emotion is invovled. Thats why this situation worked out for us, we took a calculated risk, at least i did, and it payed off.
|
On November 10 2011 11:02 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 10:59 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On November 10 2011 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On November 10 2011 09:09 Ace wrote:On November 10 2011 09:05 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:02 Ace wrote: He can play this card from both alignments, hence you can't even take his excuse of doing it to WIFOM the Mafia seriously. The Town would have lost but it was the correct play. If it could have come from both alignments, you discard the information and base the lynch on the other 70 pages. Carrying out a policy lynch just for the sake of policy doesn't make sense. This isn't a policy lynch. It is a LYLO and someone has been found to be lying about a Role claim. You can't tell if he is Town or Scum because his alibi is acceptable for both alignments so you can't take it at face value. What you do know is that he claimed a role, and the actual REAL role died. What happened in the other 70 pages that can overturn this scenario? Regardless, its a good thing we didnt kill him, lol This statement means you completely missed the point of everything Ace said. No i understand, He is saying that a smart town would have killed GMarshal because his plan was chaotic and very indicative of scum play, and we didnt do it because we were dumb. I'm saying its a good thing we were dumb, or we would have lost
It's lucky, not good. That's the mistake you are making. It's like saying if Option A is correct 90% of the time, but you guys chose option B, which is only right 10% of the time and somehow B ends up being right it doesn't mean that B is a good decision just because is somehow worked out.
That's basically the idea behind LAL and why dumb luck =/= goo
|
On November 10 2011 11:02 GreYMisT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 10:59 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On November 10 2011 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On November 10 2011 09:09 Ace wrote:On November 10 2011 09:05 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:02 Ace wrote: He can play this card from both alignments, hence you can't even take his excuse of doing it to WIFOM the Mafia seriously. The Town would have lost but it was the correct play. If it could have come from both alignments, you discard the information and base the lynch on the other 70 pages. Carrying out a policy lynch just for the sake of policy doesn't make sense. This isn't a policy lynch. It is a LYLO and someone has been found to be lying about a Role claim. You can't tell if he is Town or Scum because his alibi is acceptable for both alignments so you can't take it at face value. What you do know is that he claimed a role, and the actual REAL role died. What happened in the other 70 pages that can overturn this scenario? Regardless, its a good thing we didnt kill him, lol This statement means you completely missed the point of everything Ace said. No i understand, He is saying that a smart town would have killed GMarshal because his plan was chaotic and very indicative of scum play, and we didnt do it because we were dumb. I'm saying its a good thing we were dumb, or we would have lost
It's lucky, not good. That's the mistake you are making. It's like saying if Option A is correct 90% of the time, but you guys chose option B, which is only right 10% of the time and somehow B ends up being right it doesn't mean that B is a good decision just because is somehow worked out.
That's basically the idea behind LAL and why dumb luck =/= good play.
|
Wait. I just realized. WBG and Ace are pulling an Idra. "F91 played dumb! That's why he won!"
|
On November 10 2011 11:14 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2011 11:02 GreYMisT wrote:On November 10 2011 10:59 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On November 10 2011 09:10 GreYMisT wrote:On November 10 2011 09:09 Ace wrote:On November 10 2011 09:05 kitaman27 wrote:On November 10 2011 09:02 Ace wrote: He can play this card from both alignments, hence you can't even take his excuse of doing it to WIFOM the Mafia seriously. The Town would have lost but it was the correct play. If it could have come from both alignments, you discard the information and base the lynch on the other 70 pages. Carrying out a policy lynch just for the sake of policy doesn't make sense. This isn't a policy lynch. It is a LYLO and someone has been found to be lying about a Role claim. You can't tell if he is Town or Scum because his alibi is acceptable for both alignments so you can't take it at face value. What you do know is that he claimed a role, and the actual REAL role died. What happened in the other 70 pages that can overturn this scenario? Regardless, its a good thing we didnt kill him, lol This statement means you completely missed the point of everything Ace said. No i understand, He is saying that a smart town would have killed GMarshal because his plan was chaotic and very indicative of scum play, and we didnt do it because we were dumb. I'm saying its a good thing we were dumb, or we would have lost It's lucky, not good. That's the mistake you are making. It's like saying if Option A is correct 90% of the time, but you guys chose option B, which is only right 10% of the time and somehow B ends up being right it doesn't mean that B is a good decision just because is somehow worked out. That's basically the idea behind LAL and why dumb luck =/= good play.
But does good play matter if everytime you have a choice between A and B and B is right, you lose? and then in the post game here we are going "well shucks, I guess i hope next time A is right"
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On November 10 2011 11:10 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
This is so backwards and once again, you guys miss the point. Just because the outcome worked doesn't mean your logic or reasoning was right.
Do you know our logic or reasoning RoL?
On November 10 2011 11:10 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
To put this in perspective, if I proceeded to lie through the ENTIRE game, blatantly push miss lynches and shout scum at every turn, use a fakeclaim, but somehow ended up being a townie. That doesn't mean it was a good decision not to lynch me just because it turned out being right.
That's another hypothetical situation. That's not what occurred this game.
On November 10 2011 11:14 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
It's lucky, not good. That's the mistake you are making. It's like saying if Option A is correct 90% of the time, but you guys chose option B, which is only right 10% of the time and somehow B ends up being right it doesn't mean that B is a good decision just because is somehow worked out.
But that's not how a game of mafia works. Option A has to be correct either 100% of the time or 0% of the time. The alignment's of players has already been determined. A fake claim could have been scum 9 out of the previous 10 games, but those past events don't influence the current event. You could develop a crude heuristic to influence your decisions, but then you have to consider the previous 144 hours of events in addition to your 90% fake claimers are scum theory.
|
On November 10 2011 11:16 chaoser wrote:
Wait. I just realized. WBG and Ace are pulling an Idra. "F91 played dumb! That's why he won!"
Idra sucks and F91 sounds like it should be the name of this mafia setup when it gets rebalanced
|
|
|
When analysing claims I like to think of what that claim would have gained for each perspective and what motivations each team has for claiming at that spot. Just like redFF's claim in ressurection mafia: He claimed a weird role that wasn't in the OP, when he had 0 votes on him on the beggining of day2. What does scum has to gain in that scenario? Nothing. The claim only draws more suspicion onto scum and puts them in a worse position then before. Scum usually plays with inherent fear and tries to do shit the safest way possible. They don't like to give out info for free about their aligment or others'. redFF's claim in that game gave town info about the dead oracle's aligment based on his own. It's free info for town even if redFF is lying. Yes, scum could have made that claim, but the real question is why would they?
GM in this game claims doctor at night. At that point no one was set on lynching anyone and scum was in a good position. Scum had information about roles of 3 townies dead 1 (potential) check and 1 claim. They didn't even need to kill the doctor to win since the cop is parity and town couldn't no lynch day 3. So what benefit claiming in that spot generates for scum?
In the scenario there is a jailer or doctor you can't even guarantee they will cc you on the spot since the best play is to remain hidden and cc during the day (worst case scenario you get shot as blue either way and your flip is a cc). So in the best case scenario someone cc's you and you kill them if you already didn't know their role. That puts you in the position gm was in day3: A lot of suspicion onto you and as scum you almost feel like you will get lynched after this no matter what. All this for a possible piece of info you didn't need to win the game. This goes extremelly against the mentality of scum and is not good play for them.
In the scenario there is no other blue you won't know it even if there is no cc until the begining of day3. Even then you are forever forbidden of shooting the parity cop until you die or you trade yourself for him. So you are in the same spot as before. The only difference is that if town lynches correctly day3 you auto day 4 lose instead of 50% lose.
Both scenarios put you in a worst position than you were before you claimed and both it draws a fuckton of suspicion onto you for no reason because of the timing of the claim. There is very little chance scum would do that. Scum may pass up on a opportunity to make a balsy and lucrative claim because of fear, but they very rarely make a terrible unproffitable claim despite fear.
That's my take on it.
Regarding the game wbg played well, you unfortunatelly had xlv as alibi, so I couldn't trust you to be reasonable =P. Rad being afk help you too because I couldn't be sure that he was reading closely or accepting w/e you were saying by default.
My mini case on kurumi unfortunately got ignored but that proved he was scum day2 =/
|
That is wrong on many accounts. Scum can claim a role and gain Town cred at any time. That's the basis of false claiming from Scum. Only scrubs care about "pressure" and "drawing attention". Who the fuck cares if Townies argue with you - is there a DT check you need to worry about? No? Then there isn't shit the Town can do to you. End of argument.
I swear you guys play Scum with the mindset "I'm Scum so whatever I say will be looked at as Scummy" and play Town the opposite way. There is no fucking functional difference between the 2 alignments. Damn when will you guys learn this shit and stop playing like fucking scrubs. I was arguing with a friend a while back who said mafiascum.net's newbie games are better than Teamliquid and now I'm thinking he might be right. You guys are fucking dumb.
There's a reason L and myself easily out play most people on this forum as Scum. People just don't get it.
|
Yes they may claim when that gains them town cred but how was that the case in the 2 scenarios I listed? That did exactly the oposite in both cases. My point both those claims would have gained them no cred in the best possible scenario, so it's a bad claim for scum and unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
