|
On November 21 2012 23:56 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 23:54 goodkarma wrote:On November 21 2012 23:29 Oatsmaster wrote:
LOL why would you say that the case is good?
Marv, goodkarma, other people who were in this thread a moment ago.
I would like your opinons on this case? Clarity has not been very helpful to town thus far, if that's what you were getting at in your case. In a standard game, it would certainly be a bit disconcerting that he has picked easy targets and "safe" conversation points for discussion, but at present I would say this covers the majority of people. In fact, your case ironically is only the third scum case of the game... In this particular game it would seem that people are putting more time presently into determining who their leader should be than determining who's scum. Whether this is right or wrong is a fair point of debate, but as it currently stands Clarity does not stand out to me as scum. I definitely don't like his play to date, but I consider him presently a null read. i disagree We act like a normal game hunt the scum that way easier to pick up who is town. Nominate those people for the team.
To date there hasn't been that much scumhunting. I've already argued to death with Toad about the approach that should be taken in this game. Let's just agree we should both town and scumhunt and leave it at that...
For me, I am going to take a process of elimination type approach for this particular game. That will help me to focus on who is town and why for party selection. Then, by extension, those I can't confirm as town will be my prime scum suspects.
|
On November 21 2012 11:17 sandroba wrote:
I hereby declare I want to lead you simpletons to victory. My party selection will be as following: I will choose 3 of the less known players who I read as town at the end of the day to compose the party. The reasoning is that this mechanic will greatly favor town in attempting to confirm players. This is better done for players less likely to get shot for 2 reasons: 1) They have less meta information available on them therefore harder to read. 2) Vets/Well known players are likely to get killed n1 if they are town, even more so given a successful mission, mitigating some of the advantage town might get. This serves to both preserve the good/known players and to keep the confirmed/likely town around longer.
I'd like everyone to chime in on this subject of party selection and help come to the optimum way of doing things.
tone: lol
content: I worry that this might be overestimating the importance of figuring out which players are town, and underestimating the importance of actually winning the minigames. Remember, this was the game where the hosts warned that it might be impossible to balance, that implies to me that things other than just finding scum to kill might be important.
|
On November 22 2012 00:11 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:17 sandroba wrote:
I hereby declare I want to lead you simpletons to victory. My party selection will be as following: I will choose 3 of the less known players who I read as town at the end of the day to compose the party. The reasoning is that this mechanic will greatly favor town in attempting to confirm players. This is better done for players less likely to get shot for 2 reasons: 1) They have less meta information available on them therefore harder to read. 2) Vets/Well known players are likely to get killed n1 if they are town, even more so given a successful mission, mitigating some of the advantage town might get. This serves to both preserve the good/known players and to keep the confirmed/likely town around longer.
I'd like everyone to chime in on this subject of party selection and help come to the optimum way of doing things. tone: lol content: I worry that this might be overestimating the importance of figuring out which players are town, and underestimating the importance of actually winning the minigames. Remember, this was the game where the hosts warned that it might be impossible to balance, that implies to me that things other than just finding scum to kill might be important.
Woah woah woah, that sounds like setup speculation. Better stop that asap
|
On November 21 2012 11:30 kushm4sta wrote:
IMO:
Put the scummiest people on the team.
The event will probably involve losing hp. We want scum to lose hp. Also it will give us more play to analyze.
this is a terrible idea, see above
|
On November 22 2012 00:07 Clarity_nl wrote:
Goodkarma do you still believe we should be focusing on townhunting until there is a possibility to lynch?
-snip-
At the very least, I believe we should townhunt until we have chosen a party leader. If we argue who is scum, while working towards choosing who is town for our party, I fear we'll get a bit overwhelmed. Scumhunting very well might derail conversations for party selection, and townhunting might derail scumhunting discussions...
I am a strong supporter of establishing scum by process of elimination this game for that reason, and this is the approach I plan on taking as I just discussed in my last post.
|
On November 22 2012 00:12 Hopeless1der wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 00:11 strongandbig wrote:On November 21 2012 11:17 sandroba wrote:
I hereby declare I want to lead you simpletons to victory. My party selection will be as following: I will choose 3 of the less known players who I read as town at the end of the day to compose the party. The reasoning is that this mechanic will greatly favor town in attempting to confirm players. This is better done for players less likely to get shot for 2 reasons: 1) They have less meta information available on them therefore harder to read. 2) Vets/Well known players are likely to get killed n1 if they are town, even more so given a successful mission, mitigating some of the advantage town might get. This serves to both preserve the good/known players and to keep the confirmed/likely town around longer.
I'd like everyone to chime in on this subject of party selection and help come to the optimum way of doing things. tone: lol content: I worry that this might be overestimating the importance of figuring out which players are town, and underestimating the importance of actually winning the minigames. Remember, this was the game where the hosts warned that it might be impossible to balance, that implies to me that things other than just finding scum to kill might be important. Woah woah woah, that sounds like setup speculation. Better stop that asap
lol
don't sail the tides of time without a tiller
(also don't mix your metaphors without good ice and a shaker)
|
My vote is probably going to sandroba. Second hand knowledge from Looney mafia suggests that he'll have everyone in the game crapping their pants by this time tomorrow.
If I by some miracle were voted leader, I'd pick my party members based on apparent knowledge of chrono trigger garnered from the pregame. My ability to make confident day 1 reads is abysmal. I'll still do it, just don't expect me to be right...like ever.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
I can assure you I will perform no pants-crapping.
|
On November 22 2012 00:15 goodkarma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 00:07 Clarity_nl wrote:
Goodkarma do you still believe we should be focusing on townhunting until there is a possibility to lynch?
-snip-
At the very least, I believe we should townhunt until we have chosen a party leader. If we argue who is scum, while working towards choosing who is town for our party, I fear we'll get a bit overwhelmed. Scumhunting very well might derail conversations for party selection, and townhunting might derail scumhunting discussions... I am a strong supporter of establishing scum by process of elimination this game for that reason, and this is the approach I plan on taking as I just discussed in my last post.
What do you think about this: We want to consolidate on who to elect rather quickly, or at least narrow the field significantly.
Once we've done that everyone but the elected person can go scumhunting, people end up finding town when they scumhunt anyway. As long as the elected person is transparent about his reads and choices, we can simply read his analysis rather than have 20 people make their own.
|
Holy fuck this thread is so long and 99% of it is about who are we voting leader, which I really don't care about.
Not much thought put into this decision but
##vote sandroba
Good town, easy to distinguish town from scum.
|
On November 22 2012 00:18 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 00:15 goodkarma wrote:On November 22 2012 00:07 Clarity_nl wrote:
Goodkarma do you still believe we should be focusing on townhunting until there is a possibility to lynch?
-snip-
At the very least, I believe we should townhunt until we have chosen a party leader. If we argue who is scum, while working towards choosing who is town for our party, I fear we'll get a bit overwhelmed. Scumhunting very well might derail conversations for party selection, and townhunting might derail scumhunting discussions... I am a strong supporter of establishing scum by process of elimination this game for that reason, and this is the approach I plan on taking as I just discussed in my last post. What do you think about this: We want to consolidate on who to elect rather quickly, or at least narrow the field significantly. Once we've done that everyone but the elected person can go scumhunting, people end up finding town when they scumhunt anyway. As long as the elected person is transparent about his reads and choices, we can simply read his analysis rather than have 20 people make their own.
I'd like people to start using the votethread in that case so we can get some consensus. Also:
On November 21 2012 23:38 Mementoss wrote:
I don't know if it was clear in the OP but the voting system is plurality not majority, aka the person with the most votes wins, in event of a tie, the person who got to that number first wins.
Town will make it happen one way or another, it always happens. Scum hunt as you normally would and let the theme take care of itself.
##Vote: sandroba
|
Can you guys explain why you have such strong town reads on sand? I really don't see it.
|
Can someone link me a game where kush is mafia, thanks
|
On November 22 2012 00:22 Clarity_nl wrote:
Can you guys explain why you have such strong town reads on sand? I really don't see it.
Oh, I don't have a strong townread on him, but I believe him to be a strong town player that most people believe is easy to distinguish his town play from his scum play.
|
On November 22 2012 00:20 kushm4sta wrote:
Holy fuck this thread is so long and 99% of it is about who are we voting leader, which I really don't care about.
Not much thought put into this decision but
##vote sandroba
Good town, easy to distinguish town from scum.
trying to act like shit on purpose kush to match your meta?
|
On November 22 2012 00:20 kushm4sta wrote:
Holy fuck this thread is so long and 99% of it is about who are we voting leader, which I really don't care about.
Not much thought put into this decision but
##vote sandroba
Good town, easy to distinguish town from scum.
Do you care about who goes on missions? Earlier you said you wanted to send scummy people on missions. Do you still want to do that? Additionally, what did you mean with sending scummy people would give us more to analyse?
|
On November 22 2012 00:27 syllogism wrote:
Can someone link me a game where kush is mafia, thanks
GSL Open II - Scum Kushm4sta
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
|
|
|
And speaking of old opinions. Acrofales, do you still advocate sending a team containing mostly vets. If not explain which reasons made you change your mind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
