Print

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

[liopoil]

this thread is similar to the theoretic post-mortem thread, which you can find here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9074.0

however, that thread seems to mainly be about theory stuff we did in completed games, and what we could have done better in them. This thread is an attempt to discuss theory for future games, so that we don't have to spend so much time at the beginning of games discussing theory. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on a few of the controversial issues.

we are all town-aligned in this thread!

as always, avoid making references to on-going games. you may of course use finished games as examples.

I'd like to eventually make a list in this OP of strategies that we generally agree are correct, barring edge-cases of course. Then maybe we can send new players to this thread to get a hang of the basic principles. simple example: As a Vanilla Townie, don't claim to have a night action.

[liopoil]

topics to get this started:

- No lynch. when should it be done?
- vigilantes. when should they shoot?
- who do you lynch, the player who claims first or second?

[theorel]

I'll take the easy one:
*No Lynch:
You should do this when ALL of the following 3 conditions are met:
1. There are an even number of players in the game.
2. The number of night-kills is EXACTLY 1 (i.e. there are no town-controlled powers which will change the number of night-kills in the game, such as doctor or vigilante)
3. There are no confirmed town players.

-vigilantes shooting is complex.  (I'll give it its own post)

-First or second claimant is irrelevant.  What's relevant is who you trust more.  Scum fake-claims often try to over-explain things in one go, which means that polished claims with no loose ends are slightly more likely to be scum.  Sloppy claims are more likely to be from town.  "convenient" claims are more likely to come from scum (i.e. a cop that has only investigated dead players).  All of these things vastly outweigh the order of the claimants.  Claims with obvious contradictions are more likely from scum.

[liopoil]

agree with no lynch. in general though, I trust people who claim second more because scum generally don't want to be in a 1-for-1 trade scenario, and they could just avoid it altogether. however, if they were at L-1, they might as well out a PR on their way down. So generally I lean towards lynching the first claimant, if they claimed at L-1. but if that can be outweighed by other suspicious things of course.

[theorel]

Vigilante shooting:
Vigilante shooting should be discussed in 2 forms, limited and unlimited shots.

I'm going to consider positive impact on town based on how it improves win-chance in a random lynch game with random shots.  There are no real random-lynch games.  A vig-shot is only slightly more likely to hit scum than a lynch is, and if you never lynch a claimed vigilante then they're equal.  There are 2 things that work against vigilantes usefulness, neither is considered in a random game, so I'll discuss at the end.

limited shots:
You really need to pay attention to parity.  Especially if no other parity-changing rolls exist (i.e. outside of you there will be 1 death every night).  A 1-shot vigilante is essentially a 1-shot lynch which only you control.  This is a wash for town (as long as they no lynch, and never lynch a vig).  But it puts a lot of power into a single players hands.
If you have 2-shots, then you can actually increase the number of town-controlled kills going on, as long as you use both shots.  If you can only use one shot, it's a wash.  If you use both shots, you increase the number of town-controlled kills by 1.  3-shots is like 2-shots, with the 1-shot vig-lynch.  4-shots or more is basically unlimited.

unlimited shots:
Again parity is key.  Half of your shots are just stealing a lynch.  The other half are actual bonus kills.  Thus you should shoot every night to maximize the bonus kills.  If there are other parity-influencing roles then all the more so, since your lynch-steals could actually end up being kills.

Now let's talk about the two things that work against vigilantes.
1. Lynch-stealing.  A vigilante is stealing lynches from the town.  Some people REALLY REALLY don't like that.  If you never lynch a vig it's a wash.  If you lynch vigs then it's better for the vigilante to shoot.  However, there is at least 1 major concern here: the player isn't warned ahead of time.  This can lead to the vig killing your cop, which is terribad.  This is ultimately the biggest argument I am willing to concede against the vigilante.  Killing power-roles = negative utility.  IMO no one should ever try to look scummy, but even more so in a game with a vigilante.

2. Game Acceleration.  A vigilante accelerates the game.  With extra kills flying around, the game will end sooner.  If you think that late game reads are better than early game reads, then this is a BAD THING.  Arguably, as the game goes on reads get better and you're more likely to kill scum not just because of having a smaller pool to choose from, but because scum has had more chances to slip up.  I'm not sure if this is the case, and would be some good stats to have.  Are scum-lynches more likely than average later in the game?  (anyone know?)  If the delta from average increases (fairly substantially) as the game goes on, then in fact vigs might should hold their shots.  It would have to be greater than an extra town-directed kill though.

Alternative Vig Uses:
A vigilante in an open game is a 100% Innocent Child.  When he claims, if someone counter-claims, then town can no lynch (or lynch elsewhere), and he can kill the counter-claimer.  He probably dies himself which is just what an IC would do.

Note that if there is a doctor or the like, the vig can do this, and still do vigilante-type things too.  He's an IC that can kill scum in certain situations.

[theorel]

bah I wrote "rolls" instead of roles, and can't edit it

[liopoil]

One thing I'd add is that in an open setup with a vig in it, town can say, "the vig should kill this player tonight" and then that player claims.

[theorel]

-Either the vig-kill would be based on old knowledge, or you're trying to get the town to agree to at LEAST 2 additional quasi-lynches (if town and if scum).

If the first, then you should certainly NOT do it day1.  After that it's stil arguable.

If the second, these extra lynches should really be based on HOW the end of the day played out as well.  Only in a long twilight game could you maybe manage it.

[Voltgloss]

I posit that vigilantes are better than the town lynch for killing anti-town players and/or policy lynches.  The usual problem with lynching such players is that scum have an automatic justification for voting those wagons, so if/when those lynchees flip town, you get precious little useful information from their flip.  But on the other hand, letting them stay alive can be actively detrimental to town.  Having a vig kill them resolves both of those issues.

[theorel]

I think it would be interesting to have a pro-town anti-town discussion.  My thought is to figure out what activities are actually pro-town/anti-town given town's objectives.  So, I'm going to try to derive some abstract pro-town thoughts, and then see if we can cite certain actions as pro-town or anti-town from the abstract.
Okay, to start with, town's objective is to eliminate scum players before sufficient town players have been eliminated.  From that objective, we can see 2 essential goals: 1. kill scum, 2. save town.
Both of these goals are assisted by identifying scum/town.  Thus the secondary goal of the game is to identify scum/town (which is really the "point" of the game in some sense).
So, how do we identify scum/town?
-special powers (cop, watcher, innocent child, etc.)
-Conversation
-Process of Elimination (open set-ups only, arguably a result of the special power of being a "named townie")
-Is there anything else?

So, just as a quick few examples:
-Declaring your role hinders special powers, because it makes them more likely to die, it is thus "anti-town".
-Scum-hunting further conversation which helps us find scum, hence is "pro-town".
-Mass-claiming helps with process of elimination, but hinders special powers...depending on the situation, this could be pro or anti-town.
-quick-hammering hinders both special powers (i.e. they can't claim which works against saving town), and conversation...that's what makes it so anti-town.

----
Some of these things change depending on if the player is scum or town.  For example: if a scum player claims Vanilla Town it isn't actually anti-town.  It isn't singling out power roles (excepting multiple teams).  So, it does not benefit scum to claim Vanilla Town, and doing so is pure WIFOM.

[sudgy]

While I agree with most of the things you said, claiming VT helps scum POE the power roles.

[theorel]

Right, that's what I meant in the "Declaring your role" thing.

The later example was saying that if you're SCUM, claiming VT (i.e. lying) doesn't actually help POE power roles.
i.e. it's only anti-town for TOWN to claim VT.  (given that town should never lie).
It is actually anti-scum for SCUM to claim VT.  (as they can't later claim something better, they bring unnecessary attention, etc).

Thus...no one should ever claim VT (outside of a mass claim), because it is actively harmful to your team regardless of which team you're on.

This is in contrast to, say, quick-hammering.  Which is ONLY anti-town.  Thus when scum does it it is still anti-town.

[liopoil]

This is in contrast to, say, quick-hammering.  Which is ONLY anti-town.  Thus when scum does it it is still anti-town.

and thus, with good play, we should be able to conclude that all quick-hammerers are scum. So when it happens, if the game doesn't end, it is usually good for town because town has a caught scum.

[chairs]

This is in contrast to, say, quick-hammering.  Which is ONLY anti-town.  Thus when scum does it it is still anti-town.

and thus, with good play, we should be able to conclude that all quick-hammerers are scum. So when it happens, if the game doesn't end, it is usually good for town because town has a caught scum.

By that logic...

hmm.

[theorel]

This is in contrast to, say, quick-hammering.  Which is ONLY anti-town.  Thus when scum does it it is still anti-town.

and thus, with good play, we should be able to conclude that all quick-hammerers are scum. So when it happens, if the game doesn't end, it is usually good for town because town has a caught scum.

If only we could count on players using good play...

[Galzria]

If I'm a Doctor and we run scum up to L-1 without me on wagon, and he claims Doctor, you damn well better believe that I'll quick hammer his ass before unvotes if I possibly can.

[Voltgloss]

If I'm a Doctor and we run scum up to L-1 without me on wagon, and he claims Doctor, you damn well better believe that I'll quick hammer his ass before unvotes if I possibly can.

Hi Munch!

[Galzria]

If I'm a Doctor and we run scum up to L-1 without me on wagon, and he claims Doctor, you damn well better believe that I'll quick hammer his ass before unvotes if I possibly can.

Hi Munch!

Did Munch do that? Good for him!

[Voltgloss]

If I'm a Doctor and we run scum up to L-1 without me on wagon, and he claims Doctor, you damn well better believe that I'll quick hammer his ass before unvotes if I possibly can.

Hi Munch!

Did Munch do that? Good for him!

Switch mafia.  You were a seeting dead SK at the time, so your memory may be clouded. 

[Voltgloss]

seeting = seething

[theorel]

If I'm a Doctor and we run scum up to L-1 without me on wagon, and he claims Doctor, you damn well better believe that I'll quick hammer his ass before unvotes if I possibly can.

That's reasonable.  Quick-hammering in that instance is just a means of counter-claiming that doesn't need to be believed.  You've essentially outed your role to kill confirmed scum.

So, I'll ammend:
Quick-hammering players of unknown alignment is always anti-town.  (corner cases here?)

[theorel]

Oh, that doesn't really account for scum because they always know alignment.

Also, I'll note that part of quickhammering included leaving time for the player to claim.  If they've claimed doctor you've already done that.

[Galzria]

If I'm a Doctor and we run scum up to L-1 without me on wagon, and he claims Doctor, you damn well better believe that I'll quick hammer his ass before unvotes if I possibly can.

Hi Munch!

Did Munch do that? Good for him!

Switch mafia.  You were a seeting dead SK at the time, so your memory may be clouded. 

Oh the nightmares.

Pretty sure I stopped watching after I died in that one.

[Galzria]

Just remember folks, in the words of the immOrtal:

I stand by quickhammers as a fine and useful tool for town.

[theorel]

Just remember folks, in the words of the immOrtal:

I stand by quickhammers as a fine and useful tool for town.

I stand by we should have lynched him day2 even though he was town