Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[faust]

Vote Count 1.1

Witherweaver (1): Hydrad
silverspawn (1): Awaclus
Rubby (1): Joseph2302
Awaclus (1): silverspawn

Not Voting (5): chairs, EgorK, Witherweaver, XerxesPraelor, Rubby

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch. Day 1 ends March 9 at 7 am forum time.

[silverspawn]

oh, you're right of course.

so, yeah ,that's a scenario where claiming benefits scum. But obviously it's marginal. I still think we should claim every day.

But we can discuss that tomorrow. Let's start scumhunting for now. vote: Awaclus

I haven't been scummy this game. Unlike a certain someone who was scum in Futuramafia.

maybe not, but you're annoying.

and how have I been scummy this game?

[Awaclus]

oh, you're right of course.

so, yeah ,that's a scenario where claiming benefits scum. But obviously it's marginal. I still think we should claim every day.

But we can discuss that tomorrow. Let's start scumhunting for now. vote: Awaclus

I haven't been scummy this game. Unlike a certain someone who was scum in Futuramafia.

maybe not, but you're annoying.

and how have I been scummy this game?

Like I said, because of Futuramafia. 

In all seriousness though, I think you're suspiciously active and overly towny compared to how you have been in previous games. It's not a strong scum tell, but it's something.

[silverspawn]

oh, you're right of course.

so, yeah ,that's a scenario where claiming benefits scum. But obviously it's marginal. I still think we should claim every day.

But we can discuss that tomorrow. Let's start scumhunting for now. vote: Awaclus

I haven't been scummy this game. Unlike a certain someone who was scum in Futuramafia.

maybe not, but you're annoying.

and how have I been scummy this game?

Like I said, because of Futuramafia. 

In all seriousness though, I think you're suspiciously active and overly towny compared to how you have been in previous games. It's not a strong scum tell, but it's something.

yeah, because I had my exams & applications about a week ago, and now they're finished, so life is better now and I'm not depressed and have more time.

[chairs]

Personally, I say we vote: silverspawn for stealing faust's role as planmaker.

[Witherweaver]

Only one "look at" is needed to prevent the double kill, right?

Oh, I see.. if there is a double kill, yes, you know the person you looked at is town.   If there is a single kill, then no.

But, uh.. I think it's better to share that information with everyone. 

[Hydrad]

If a double kill happens I think we want to claim even more.

There will be 2 situations.

Scum don't fake target each other.

We just lynch people that havn't been targetted and find scum Hurrah!

1 scum lies and targets his partner and other targets random towny.

Lynch people still out of pool find the scum realize he could of lied about his parter and can lynch him too! Hurrah.

oh and third situation. Scum say they target each other.

Lynch people that target each other! Hurrah.



If a double kill happens I think we will be in good shape.

[Rubby]

Yeah, I'm actually not sure I see why scum would ever go for a double kill. It's easy for it to get blocked, and even if it goes through it creates an IC for every townie.

[silverspawn]

I think double kill gets much more useful if only one scum is alive

[Hydrad]

I think double kill gets much more useful if only one scum is alive

I didn't even think if that would work. Thats really scary!

[Rubby]

I didn't even think if that would work. Thats really scary!

Well, it would still only take one person targeting him to stop it. And it would still create IC's for remaining townies if it succeeded.

[chairs]

You could prevent the double kill by doing a circle, but it guarantees you don't roleblock anyone.

That is to say, player 1 on player list targets 2, 2 targets 3, 3 targets 4, etc, wrapping around.

[EgorK]

You could prevent the double kill by doing a circle, but it guarantees you don't roleblock anyone.

That is to say, player 1 on player list targets 2, 2 targets 3, 3 targets 4, etc, wrapping around.

But then you can allow players to deviate to their top scum read at will. Scum is still unlikely to risk double kill while roleblock may occur

[silverspawn]

yeah, I thought of that too, and it's unnecessary and not a good idea.

[Rubby]

We really want our targets to be clustered. As I see it (assuming scum doesn't try a double kill, which it doesn't seem like they should), any night in which no one is looked at more than once is a night in which we get zero value from our power. Even multi-targetting on a townie has way more potential value than guaranteed full single coverage.

[Witherweaver]

Well, hey, we can try:

Pair off into groups of two, A, B, C, D

A -> B -> C -> D -> A,

where arrow implies look at one of the people in the group (decide individually based on your own criteria).  Does that provide us any benefit? 

Eh, my instinct is that it's better to not have an organized plan.. the more scum knows about who will look where the better they can decide their night actions. 

[Rubby]

Yeah, coordinating doesn't seem good. But even if we all go full random, the odds are strongly in favor of some clustering occurring.

[Awaclus]

I think rather than full random, we should just target whoever is the scummiest.

[Joseph2302]

I think rather than full random, we should just target whoever is the scummiest.

I agree. All the co-ordinated plans could get screwed up by scum.

[Witherweaver]

I think no random; I prefer to use reads.  My plan is reads-based, but each player has a restriction.  In the case when {Town,Town}->{Scum, Town} -> {Scum, Town}->{Town, Town}, which would not be that uncommon, scum can guarantee their kill by having the second scum do the kill, since only one town could look at him.

So, yeah, probably bad.

[Witherweaver]

Could try extending it to groups of three, but then what do you do with the 1 and 2 mod 3 cases? 

[Rubby]

I think rather than full random, we should just target whoever is the scummiest.

Maybe - and I wasn't saying that full random is the optimal strategy - but the "scummiest read" strategy could get dangerously close to giving our actions away, depending on how forthright we are in sharing our reads (and we don't want to discourage sharing our reads, do we?). Maybe some kind of hybrid.

[Witherweaver]

I think rather than full random, we should just target whoever is the scummiest.

Maybe - and I wasn't saying that full random is the optimal strategy - but the "scummiest read" strategy could get dangerously close to giving our actions away, depending on how forthright we are in sharing our reads (and we don't want to discourage sharing our reads, do we?). Maybe some kind of hybrid.

I mean that's not so different than regular Mafia... normally there is some kind of Doctor, Cop, whatever, and their actions will be influenced by their reads, and those reads may or may not be public information, and people may be aware of how public they're making them.

[Rubby]

Maybe - and I wasn't saying that full random is the optimal strategy - but the "scummiest read" strategy could get dangerously close to giving our actions away, depending on how forthright we are in sharing our reads (and we don't want to discourage sharing our reads, do we?). Maybe some kind of hybrid.

I mean that's not so different than regular Mafia... normally there is some kind of Doctor, Cop, whatever, and their actions will be influenced by their reads, and those reads may or may not be public information, and people may be aware of how public they're making them.

That's true. Though I wonder if the fact that in this case every single one of us is sort of the PR should change the approach. I mean, maybe we just each make our own decision - no coordinating on the identity of our targets, no coordinating on the method of choosing our targets.

[Joseph2302]

Maybe - and I wasn't saying that full random is the optimal strategy - but the "scummiest read" strategy could get dangerously close to giving our actions away, depending on how forthright we are in sharing our reads (and we don't want to discourage sharing our reads, do we?). Maybe some kind of hybrid.

I mean that's not so different than regular Mafia... normally there is some kind of Doctor, Cop, whatever, and their actions will be influenced by their reads, and those reads may or may not be public information, and people may be aware of how public they're making them.

That's true. Though I wonder if the fact that in this case every single one of us is sort of the PR should change the approach. I mean, maybe we just each make our own decision - no coordinating on the identity of our targets, no coordinating on the method of choosing our targets.

I agree.