|
On November 21 2012 11:29 sandroba wrote:
Well I can tell people are town pretty consistently (even more so than finding who is scum), so I will select less likely to get shot players who I have a town read on to take on the mission .I don't see what's confusing about that.
I think scum will shoot certain players, regardless if they are considered town or not by the majority, if they are town quite early. That makes them not so good targets to be "confirmed" early on because it's a waste. If scum chooses to shoot the "likely town" group assuming I succeed in the mission, it preserves the town vets. If they choose to shoot the town vets it preserves the "likely town" group.
I hope this helps clear it up.
Well, that all depends on how similar to resistance mafia this really is. Given the fact that the wincon is completely different, I am leaning more to useful tools, and other such stuff for a successful party: things like the aperture black market, ability to PM or useable items. Alternatively, it could be help fighting Lavos. In the former case scum clearly wants the perks just as badly as town does. In the latter, they clearly don't (but if it's a "choose to use"-thing, then they want it so they can choose not to use it).
However, you are making sense that giving such perks (or whatever successfully completing a mission does) to already powerful players is maybe not the best way to go about it. Funnily enough, this is exactly the opposite argument you made in Holy Roman, where you were very active about becoming emperor, despite already being a target for mafia. What changed your mind?
|
On November 21 2012 11:35 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:32 Promethelax wrote:
I also forgot that Kier was in this game, he would probably be on my team because <3, first guy to ever catch me as scum. Teehee <3 Also, remember, we aren't necessarily voting for the TEAM, just the leader. Then the leader chooses the team to go with him. Of course, whoever we elect for party leader has to be accountable for his choices, but just throwing out 3-4 names for a team isn't really a "read".
But should the party leader change their mind on who they pick they will need to provide real reasons which should come from real reads. Just as if I were to fos someone and later call them town, you would want to know why. This game does not have a lynch mechanic, it has a leader mechanic and therefore we should use that mechanic to force people into giving reads.
|
On November 21 2012 11:35 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:32 Promethelax wrote:
I also forgot that Kier was in this game, he would probably be on my team because <3, first guy to ever catch me as scum. Teehee <3 Also, remember, we aren't necessarily voting for the TEAM, just the leader. Then the leader chooses the team to go with him. Of course, whoever we elect for party leader has to be accountable for his choices, but just throwing out 3-4 names for a team isn't really a "read".
I'm pretty sure we should choose party leaders based on the team they propose. It's up to the party members to "campaign around", if you will. Otherwise we would just be putting all our trust into one player and hoping for the best. Transparency is Kei. (lolol)
|
On November 21 2012 11:32 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:18 Oatsmaster wrote:Yes since this is my first game, you guys cant use leet haxzor skillz metareading on me  Also Prome, your meta doesnt seem to have changed a lot, still walls of text. I really dont want to do Acro suggestion right now cause most people havent even started to post yet so Im pretty sure that our supposed 'teams', if we suggest them now, will change by the end of the day. This here is why i want your team stated. that allows us, as a town, to view the evolution of your reads and gives us something to pressure you on and understand. Give us your team. I know you know some of the players in this game and, though you haven't played you have been present in some /obs qts. Would you be kind enough to share which games you have obs'd/ thanks As to my meta my goal is to move towards the walls of text full of content and away from the hanging out, fun atmosphere of my previous game. I'm a heavy poster but I want to start to tone down the amount of time I spend on mafia, my fiance hates me fore the amount of time I put into games and my goal is to be more exact with my posts, wasting them less. Kita: thanks for the links. Sandro; if this party will consist of three people you deem as clearly town why not let one of them be leader? Or the same party but with someone else leading them. What is it that makes you the best leader? All you have stated is why your party would be what it is. I also forgot that Kier was in this game, he would probably be on my team because <3, first guy to ever catch me as scum.
I have obs Mario Mini Mafia and Newbie XXX only I think
Ok prome you make sense.
My proposed team with me as the party leader is
Marv: He is experienced and the games I have seen him play, mario, he is a good choice.
Prome: His long walls of text are better than 1 line posts.. also I like the way he plays a lot
Acro: I saw him playing Acme and he was leading the town and trying his best to find scum so :D.
Yay for really weird reasoning..
|
On November 21 2012 11:36 sandroba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:34 Hapahauli wrote:On November 21 2012 11:29 sandroba wrote:
Well I can tell people are town pretty consistently (even more so than finding who is scum), so I will select less likely to get shot players who I have a town read on to take on the mission .I don't see what's confusing about that. Well the problem is that it requires the town to place a great deal of trust in you. I'm not sure of how distinguishable your meta is, but I'm very hesitant of placing so much trust//power in a person so early in the game. I think scum will shoot certain players, regardless if they are considered town or not by the majority, if they are town quite early. That makes them not so good targets to be "confirmed" early on because it's a waste. If scum chooses to shoot the "likely town" group assuming I succeed in the mission, it preserves the town vets. If they choose to shoot the town vets it preserves the "likely town" group.
I hope this helps clear it up. I really don't understand this at all. Do the mini-games "confirm" people as town or something? Otherwise, I really don't get this at all. The OP says the sucess of the misson depends on a weighted sum of town/mafia players assigned to it. That means that if a mission was successful most likely at least 3 out of 4 players in were town.
Ahhhhhh that makes sense. I thought the missions involved actions from the parties themselves, but it looks like they're just a different voting method of sorts. Gotcha.
So yes, it probably does make sense to put in townie people in the missions at all costs. Though I'm still very-weary about letting you make those decisions alone.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
hmm, just read the events bit in the OP and it doesn't seem like the party does much, it's just the hidden assigned values. i hadn't really grasped that.
So I guess voting for a town-read who you have confidence in making other town reads is the best bet after all. Kinda what sandroba is sort of saying I guess, in a really convoluted way.
|
On November 21 2012 11:38 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:35 Keirathi wrote:On November 21 2012 11:32 Promethelax wrote:
I also forgot that Kier was in this game, he would probably be on my team because <3, first guy to ever catch me as scum. Teehee <3 Also, remember, we aren't necessarily voting for the TEAM, just the leader. Then the leader chooses the team to go with him. Of course, whoever we elect for party leader has to be accountable for his choices, but just throwing out 3-4 names for a team isn't really a "read". But should the party leader change their mind on who they pick they will need to provide real reasons which should come from real reads. Just as if I were to fos someone and later call them town, you would want to know why. This game does not have a lynch mechanic, it has a leader mechanic and therefore we should use that mechanic to force people into giving reads.
Prom, what do you mean by this?
|
Okay, I missed that the OP says the scum automatically sabotage the mission, so the scum don't have a choice between helping and sabotaging, meaning whatever results from a successful mission is probably good for town and bad for scum.
|
I propose that we limit the leader voting to a small pool of players (~3-5) that way they can run true campaigns for the position and all others run campaigns to be chosen as a member of their party. That is if the vote were between Me, Marv and Clarity each of us would say why you should vote us and everyone else would try to show what it is they bring to the team.
If we could limit the leader voting after 24 hours to a small pool we will be able to have a more productive d1, think of this as similar to a lynch consolidation but doing it early enough that everyone still has a chance to make a difference and no votes are left on players who have no chance of becoming leader.
|
On November 21 2012 11:33 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:29 sandroba wrote:
Well I can tell people are town pretty consistently (even more so than finding who is scum), so I will select less likely to get shot players who I have a town read on to take on the mission .I don't see what's confusing about that.
I think scum will shoot certain players, regardless if they are considered town or not by the majority, if they are town quite early. That makes them not so good targets to be "confirmed" early on because it's a waste. If scum chooses to shoot the "likely town" group assuming I succeed in the mission, it preserves the town vets. If they choose to shoot the town vets it preserves the "likely town" group.
I hope this helps clear it up. Unless I missed something setup-wise, I'm not getting your linking who gets shot and who is in the party together. If for instance syllogism is town, what difference does it make whether he is in a party or not? Doesn't he just get shot anyway? How does people being in a party, mission successful or otherwise, 'confirm' anything?
From what I've read in the OP (events part), you can assume that being in a successful mission makes you more likely to be town. What I'm saying is that if syllo for example is town he will be prob shot regardless of how likely town he is in the eyes of others, so it makes to take him on early missions. Likewise if player X that no one knows is almost confirmed town he prob wont get shot early by scum regardless. And if they shoot him to deal with confirmed people, that preserves the good/known players.
|
The more I think about this, the more I like Sandro's line of thinking. Our ideal party leader in this scenario is a skilled player with a very distinguishable town/scum meta. From what I've heard about Sandro's play in the thread so far, it fits the bill rather well.
|
@Prom:
1. Never gonna happen: it's like a mayor campaign. Everybody who wants to be mayor will campaign regardless of what you say.
2. Gonna happen automatically: just as any votes, they will eventually gravitate to one or two players: in this case town reads instead of scumreads.
3. It's a terrible idea as it gives people an excuse to lurk (hey, they don't have to have opinions because you have excluded them from being party leaders anyway)
|
On November 21 2012 11:43 Z-BosoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:38 Promethelax wrote:On November 21 2012 11:35 Keirathi wrote:On November 21 2012 11:32 Promethelax wrote:
I also forgot that Kier was in this game, he would probably be on my team because <3, first guy to ever catch me as scum. Teehee <3 Also, remember, we aren't necessarily voting for the TEAM, just the leader. Then the leader chooses the team to go with him. Of course, whoever we elect for party leader has to be accountable for his choices, but just throwing out 3-4 names for a team isn't really a "read". But should the party leader change their mind on who they pick they will need to provide real reasons which should come from real reads. Just as if I were to fos someone and later call them town, you would want to know why. This game does not have a lynch mechanic, it has a leader mechanic and therefore we should use that mechanic to force people into giving reads. Prom, what do you mean by this?
I mean that our leader vote mechanic is how everyone not running for leader gives reads (if I vote Z-bo as leader for instance that says "I trust Z-bo and agree with his plans for the way the party should be constructed). Party leaders need to have something for which they are accountable, it isn't their vote, instead it is the team they propose. That team is much better if it is town (the success of the mission depends on them being town) and therefore we use the mechanic to make people give town reads instead of scum reads.
Is that clearer? It makes sense in my head but I'm not sure that it translates well onto paper.
Oats: thanks for picking me n stuff.
|
On November 21 2012 11:49 Hapahauli wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I like Sandro's line of thinking. Our ideal party leader in this scenario is a skilled player with a very distinguishable town/scum meta. From what I've heard about Sandro's play in the thread so far, it fits the bill rather well.
That was a quick flip-flop read....
|
Is town informed about the success or failure of a mission?
|
On November 21 2012 11:49 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:49 Hapahauli wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I like Sandro's line of thinking. Our ideal party leader in this scenario is a skilled player with a very distinguishable town/scum meta. From what I've heard about Sandro's play in the thread so far, it fits the bill rather well. That was a quick flip-flop read....
Your point is?
It's not like I'm making a read - we're still almost entirely in setup speculation no?
|
|
|
On November 21 2012 11:03 Acrofales wrote:It's no more silly than a pressure vote off the bat in a normal setup How do you know you don't gain anything from bringing vets. It's greymist and I am expecting minigames, unconfirmed masons and other shenanigans. Having a player like kush or adam there is NOT a good idea, even if they are town.
You would paint me as useless before I even arrive to the thread? I'd like to hear your reasons, if you have them, or are you just discrediting people at random?
|
On November 21 2012 11:50 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:49 Keirathi wrote:On November 21 2012 11:49 Hapahauli wrote:
The more I think about this, the more I like Sandro's line of thinking. Our ideal party leader in this scenario is a skilled player with a very distinguishable town/scum meta. From what I've heard about Sandro's play in the thread so far, it fits the bill rather well. That was a quick flip-flop read.... Your point is? It's not like I'm making a read - we're still almost entirely in setup speculation no?
It's just a super weird change of opinion from "You're suspicious for even suggesting that." to "Okay, I actually like that idea, let's do it"
|
On November 21 2012 11:49 Acrofales wrote:
@Prom:
1. Never gonna happen: it's like a mayor campaign. Everybody who wants to be mayor will campaign regardless of what you say.
2. Gonna happen automatically: just as any votes, they will eventually gravitate to one or two players: in this case town reads instead of scumreads.
3. It's a terrible idea as it gives people an excuse to lurk (hey, they don't have to have opinions because you have excluded them from being party leaders anyway)
I dissagree with you on the first point but on the third I think you are actually right. (The second is null, I'd like an early consolidation instead of a late one but that feels more stylistic than anything). I'll drop it for now but I would still like early consolidation. Even if I can't enforce it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
