Print

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

[Voltaire]

I think it is (practically, not truly) impossible for me to win at this point. So I am going to claim, and if your faction thinks you can use my death/recruitment to help you, I promise to help you in any way that I can.

I am currently Green. I started out as Blue. I have the Blue and Yellow win-cons right now.

Also the rules say we can't No-Lynch.

[Voltaire]

As a practical matter, my current incentives are to lynch anyone who isn't Blue or Yellow.

[chairs]

As a practical matter, what is red's wincon?  If it's compatible, I may have just come up with a solution.

[sudgy]

As a practical matter, what is red's wincon?  If it's compatible, I may have just come up with a solution.

At least four red players need to be alive.  Red-Yellow wincon is hard...

[chairs]

As a practical matter, what is red's wincon?  If it's compatible, I may have just come up with a solution.

At least four red players need to be alive.  Red-Yellow wincon is hard...

Okay, then I think, possibly, if there are enough (5) yellows left, we could all win this together.

Are you guys willing to consider full-claiming if this is possible?

[chairs]

Note also that my theory here relies on the fact that a "Green" player, despite having blue + yellow wincon, is no longer blue nor yellow.

Here's my thought:  We leave alive 5 yellow, 4 red.  we kill everyone else, this should fulfill the blue wincon that X non-blue players must die.  This satisfies the yellow wincon, that the majority alive must be yellow.  This also satisfies the red wincon that 4 reds must remain alive.

[Witherweaver]

What green guy could have been killed?

I think I'm done playing closed Bastard setups (so all Bastard games?) because it's really disappointing where you have a game (like this one!) that seems fun and maybe even balanced but isn't really mafia, so you spend the first half of the game playing shittily while you try to figure out the rules, then you figure them out and they're fun, but the game is almost already over. It was the same reason I was so disappointed about ash's bastard game (meta mafia) because that one was actually balanced and COOL but because 75% of the game was "figure out how to play" it wasn't very fun for me.

I'm not /outing, I'm just going to semi-lurk my way through this one.

Nothing against your game, Arch. Really, this should be taken as a compliment.

I guess I see what you're saying, but I find it interesting.  I like the "figuring out how to play" part.. I guess it's not regular Mafia but it's fun for me.  I think I was able to figure out what's going on in this game, but there are still some unknowns.  Three colors = black is just a hypothesis.  It's possible that it isn't until you blend blend's together (so 4+ colors) that you go black, or something. 

And there's the issue of figuring out how to win once your win cons get more challenging to satisfy. 

[Witherweaver]

Note also that my theory here relies on the fact that a "Green" player, despite having blue + yellow wincon, is no longer blue nor yellow.

Here's my thought:  We leave alive 5 yellow, 4 red.  we kill everyone else, this should fulfill the blue wincon that X non-blue players must die.  This satisfies the yellow wincon, that the majority alive must be yellow.  This also satisfies the red wincon that 4 reds must remain alive.

I would bet that the Blue win-con is worded in terms of players "That have the Blue win con" and not "that are blue".

[mail-mi]

Note also that my theory here relies on the fact that a "Green" player, despite having blue + yellow wincon, is no longer blue nor yellow.

Here's my thought:  We leave alive 5 yellow, 4 red.  we kill everyone else, this should fulfill the blue wincon that X non-blue players must die.  This satisfies the yellow wincon, that the majority alive must be yellow.  This also satisfies the red wincon that 4 reds must remain alive.

i like this plan.

[Witherweaver]

We need the precise wording on the Blue win-con in order to make any decisions.

[Voltaire]

Note also that my theory here relies on the fact that a "Green" player, despite having blue + yellow wincon, is no longer blue nor yellow.

Here's my thought:  We leave alive 5 yellow, 4 red.  we kill everyone else, this should fulfill the blue wincon that X non-blue players must die.  This satisfies the yellow wincon, that the majority alive must be yellow.  This also satisfies the red wincon that 4 reds must remain alive.

I would bet that the Blue win-con is worded in terms of players "That have the Blue win con" and not "that are blue".

It's worded in terms if players without the Blue Win-Con. Is that what you need to know?

(I'm trying not to quote my original PM and get modkilled)

[Voltaire]

*of

[Jorbles]

So the idea is that we all claim colours and then do the math to try and work out a win for the greatest number? I'm in. I've already claimed though.

[Witherweaver]

Note also that my theory here relies on the fact that a "Green" player, despite having blue + yellow wincon, is no longer blue nor yellow.

Here's my thought:  We leave alive 5 yellow, 4 red.  we kill everyone else, this should fulfill the blue wincon that X non-blue players must die.  This satisfies the yellow wincon, that the majority alive must be yellow.  This also satisfies the red wincon that 4 reds must remain alive.

I would bet that the Blue win-con is worded in terms of players "That have the Blue win con" and not "that are blue".

It's worded in terms if players without the Blue Win-Con. Is that what you need to know?

(I'm trying not to quote my original PM and get modkilled)

Then killing a Green does not satisfy, because Green has the Blue win-con.  So Chairs' idea doesn't work.

[Witherweaver]

Hm.. This looks tough.  Blue needs X people without the blue win-con to die.

At a minimum, we need 5 Yellow win-cons and 4 Red win-cons alive, with the constraint that #Red < #Yellow.  Blue also needs to be less than  Yellow, but that may end up being satisfied just because we lynched a pure Blue yesterday.

Blue needs to kill X pure Yellow or pure Red, or Red/Yellow (Orange) hybrids.  But Orange hybrids help satisfy both Red and Yellow win-cons, so we don't want to kill them. 

Best chance is to kill all the pure Reds and let the Red/Blue or Red/Yellow satisfy Red's win-con.  There needs to be an extra pure Yellow or Yellow/Blue (while still having less Blues) to satisfy Yellow.  There probably isn't a lot of pure Reds though. 

Also keep in mind we can only kill one player a day.  There is only 3 left.  Hmm.. that seems to make it not possible if X > 3 (which I think it is).  So for this to work there has to be a night-kill mechanism.  If it works the way I think where R+Y+B = Black = die, and Black retains all three win-cons, it's not possible as Black deaths won't count towards Blue win-con.

Any thoughts on different Black mechanics?  Does anyone have the ability to STRIP colors from people?

Mod: If I'm dead at the end of the game but my win-cons are still satisfied, do I still "win"?

[Witherweaver]

Another thought:

Maybe only Yellow and Red can "recruit" players and Blue has a night kill ability.  That would possibly let everyone win because then we can kill up to 6 players.  It would also make sense because each team would have a power that helps their win-con.

Then I'd be wrong about the triple color = Black, though, if Blue cannot recruit.

Does anyone know if Blue can recruit?

[Jorbles]

I think they might have been able to through shraeye who was a color sharer. Not sure if they'd have redundancy beyond that.

[Archetype]

Mod: If I'm dead at the end of the game but my win-cons are still satisfied, do I still "win"?

Yes

[Witherweaver]

I think they might have been able to through shraeye who was a color sharer. Not sure if they'd have redundancy beyond that.

Oh okay, I misread his role.

Anyone have thoughts on night kill ability?  Killing Shraeye may have screwed Blue over. But I could also be wrong on my 3-colors-turns-black theory.

It may be impossible for all teams to win

[chairs]

Note also that my theory here relies on the fact that a "Green" player, despite having blue + yellow wincon, is no longer blue nor yellow.

Here's my thought:  We leave alive 5 yellow, 4 red.  we kill everyone else, this should fulfill the blue wincon that X non-blue players must die.  This satisfies the yellow wincon, that the majority alive must be yellow.  This also satisfies the red wincon that 4 reds must remain alive.

I would bet that the Blue win-con is worded in terms of players "That have the Blue win con" and not "that are blue".

Damn, you're correct.

[chairs]

Well, I, uh..

I think I'll volunteer to be today's lynch, if we're lynching anybody, because it'll be a dick and a half to satisfy blue + yellow.

[Voltaire]

Yeah, if Blue had the ability to kill, I was Blue at the start of the game and not aware of it. Unlikely, I would say.

Also willing to be the lynch if it allows the greatest number of people to win.

FWIW, my ability is to either create QTs (like the rest of us) or to give people a hidden vote that's permanent for each day. N0 I put a vote on SP and last night I didn't put a vote on anyone. I started out as 2-shot, gained a shot somehow, and used one shot N0 (on Scott), so I'm still 2-shot.

[sudgy]

I think we're all 2-shot QT makers/something else.

[Voltaire]

Yup yup. Just claiming my something else/shots left/that S_P had an extra vote from me D1.

[chairs]

I can give people the blue wincon, and if they already have it I open a QT with them.

I don't see a way for blue to win reasonably out of this, so as noted I will take the lynch.