Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Apr 16, 2010 6:35:40 GMT -5
13 players - would indicate we have 3-4 scum. If I calculated correct then the square root of 13 is something like 3,6...
Balance that at 4,5 for scum = 13,5 or 18 Assuming rest is Town (1) = 10 or 9 Cop and doc = 7 Masons are a bit more tricky but 2 masons would balance at... 7 (I think) = 7
So with 4 scum and 2 masons and a Cop OR doc we'd have 18 to 19
Numbers isn't my strongest side. If anyone has something to add I'd be willing to adjust.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 16, 2010 7:20:33 GMT -5
That's the secondary title of this game. The primary title being "Mafia Games Game". What else can we whoosh people with now? It's all fun and games until someone starts voting for people because they got whooshed. Except no one did this. No one voted on the basis of anything that's happened so far. I pointed out what I perceived to be a potential faultline, it was discussed, matters were clarified (as suspected, my role name caused me some confusion as to the theme, because I didn't connect the name "Shaggy" with the poster "Shaggy" until I saw the latter posting in this thread), and on we go. Your post makes me suspicious of you, Cookies. In my experience, this sort of basically content-free caution against potential bad play - especially when the bad play in question has not happened - is a good way for Scum to participate in the early-to-mid game without really taking a stand. It lets you take a position that will be noncontroversial - "hey, everybody, let's not vote on the basis of misunderstanding the game setup" isn't a statement that's going to draw much fire - but still makes you look present and even stand out. In fact, modest as the suspicion is, I'm going to vote for you because of it. vote CookiesOne thing I've noticed about some of our games lately (OK, sach noticed, and pointed it out to me, and now I'm parroting him) is that voting has become sort of nonfluid. Everyone is so cautious with their vote early in the day that they become generally unwilling to change their vote as the Day goes on. The net result is that the number of possible outcomes to a given Day becomes extremely limited about halfway in, giving the Scum much more opportunity to influence the outcome. So I'm changing my own approach - I'm voting my suspicion now, and will change my vote as needed throughout the Day. But I have a thought on general strategy, which I will separate into a different post for ease of reading.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 16, 2010 7:33:02 GMT -5
So: Resolved: The Detective should claim, if we have one.[/u][/b]
We probably do. Idle has made a really aggressive effort to emphasize that not all roles contained in his initial description necessarily appear in the game; my suspicion is that there are no Masons, but there is a Detective and there is a Doctor (seems to balance most efficiently).
If the Detective claims outright, (s)he will be essentially unkillable for a period of time equal to the amount of time it takes for the Scum to hunt down the Doctor in the unclaimed pool and kill him/her. If the Scum get the Doctor the first Night, well, that's a lucky break for them, but we still get one investigation out of it. With no Godfather in the game (and probably no Masons), even one investigation confirms an otherwise unconfirmable Townie (or catches Scum). If the Scum take, say, three Nights to kill the Doctor, we get three investigations, which, combined with halfway decent play during the Day, should be enough to put us close to a win.
Meanwhile, an early Detective claim forces the Scum to either counterclaim Day One (in which case, great!) or forego a Detective false claim for the duration of the game. Either of those things is a beneficial outcome.
PROBLEMS 1. There may be no Detective. If someone claims Detective, we cannot assume they are cleared forever - we will have to be alert and make careful decisions as more information on possible balance comes to light.
2. There may be no Doctor. This is actually the biggest problem, and the one that we need to consider most closely. If a Detective claims, the Scum will have to make a difficult choice. If they target the Detective that Night hoping that there's no Doctor, and they're right, then they kill the Detective and we get nothing out of that role. BUT, if they target the Detective Night One hoping there's no Doctor, and there IS a Doctor?
Scum are kind of hosed. They give us a free investigation, first of all - so we get a bare minimum of two free investigations and probably more. Second, they put themselves a second blocked kill away from giving us an extra mislynch, which would probably hand us the game.
So if a Detective claims toDay, will the Scum take the risk and try to kill him/her, or dive in the unclaimed pool looking for a Doctor that may or may not exist. I don't know. But I'd kind of like to find out.
3. Masons complicate this issue. Based on Idle's postings, I have a feeling that there are either no Masons, no Doctor, or no Detective. If there are Masons, at all, then I think it more likely that we have either no Doc or no Detective. But I'm not sure how to manage this wrinkle.
OK. Please provide feedback.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 16, 2010 8:59:30 GMT -5
Pleonast- To answer your questions, I'd use random.org in the event of a tie. The scums win condition is the same as it usually is...to become the majority (or tied) number of players in the game. Will you call the game if at a Dawn the number of scum equal the number of townies, or will you let us play that last Day?One thing I've noticed about some of our games lately (OK, sach noticed, and pointed it out to me, and now I'm parroting him) is that voting has become sort of nonfluid. Everyone is so cautious with their vote early in the day that they become generally unwilling to change their vote as the Day goes on. The net result is that the number of possible outcomes to a given Day becomes extremely limited about halfway in, giving the Scum much more opportunity to influence the outcome. So I'm changing my own approach - I'm voting my suspicion now, and will change my vote as needed throughout the Day. Yes! I have always been an advocate for "vote early, vote often". OK. Please provide feedback. At the risk of saying too much, the piece missing from your analysis is the fact that we already have one claim. I'm not going to say which non-vanilla role I am, but the other role(s) need to take into consideration that information when deciding what to do.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 16, 2010 9:09:47 GMT -5
Here are number of posts by player in Day One: 01. NAF - 2 02. Cookies - 9 03. Special Ed - 7 04. Luv - 6 05. Total Lost - 11 06. Shaggy - 5 07. Sister Coyote - 1 08. Pleonast - 4 09. Fisheroo - 6 10. ducduc - 2 11. Storyteller - 6 12. Zuma - 0 13. Peekercpa - 0
We have three players with one or fewer posts. vote Zuma unvote Zuma vote peekercpa unvote peekercpa vote Sister Coyote For not participating. I'm settling on Coyote for now since zuma is recently returned and I know peeker had reasons last game. But you all signed up for this game--play or get lynched.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 16, 2010 10:23:10 GMT -5
So: Resolved: The Detective should claim, if we have one.[/u][/b][/quote] However, if the detective claims, then the Scum might assume Pleonast is the doctor. In any case, the soft-claim seems to have ruined what otherwise seems like a valid strategy.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 16, 2010 11:01:13 GMT -5
Sorry but lists seem to help me keep track. Don't be sorry. Lists are good. I love it when other people do that sort of work so I don't have to. Keep making lists and posting them. <font style="font-size: 12px;">I'm "ducduc" and once more I fail to see what we can learn from the names. I think we should play mafia now. Total, Total, Total. This is playing mafia. Maybe I am just happy to have any sort of discussion after the last game, but frankly I think you can learn a lot by talking about almost anything as long as it's game related. For example I think that this is an excellent and interesting observation. I can't imagine that there would be a Godfather in a game this size. In fact I think this game is based on the spine of a basic C-9 setup, which would leave us with a cop a doc 2 scum. I think we are too small to reasonably support a masonry, we might not have either the doc or the cop, and I think more than two scum makes this game really really very hard for town. It's possible we might have three, but I think it's less likely. <font style="font-size: 12px;">So: Resolved: [b]The Detective should claim, if we have one.[/u][/quote]
More or less, I agree. I think a C-9 game can probably be broken open with a full cop claim. Pleo did kinda fuck that up with his soft claim which I don't understand at all.
Still, my guess is that Pleo is likely town. Not definitely town, but likely town.
The Day ends tomorrow I think, so I am going to vote in a little bit. But I want to hear a little more discussion of suspicions before I lay down my vote.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Apr 16, 2010 13:20:46 GMT -5
That's the secondary title of this game. The primary title being "Mafia Games Game". What else can we whoosh people with now? It's all fun and games until someone starts voting for people because they got whooshed. Except no one did this. No one voted on the basis of anything that's happened so far. I pointed out what I perceived to be a potential faultline, it was discussed, matters were clarified (as suspected, my role name caused me some confusion as to the theme, because I didn't connect the name "Shaggy" with the poster "Shaggy" until I saw the latter posting in this thread), and on we go. Your post makes me suspicious of you, Cookies. In my experience, this sort of basically content-free caution against potential bad play - especially when the bad play in question has not happened - is a good way for Scum to participate in the early-to-mid game without really taking a stand. It lets you take a position that will be noncontroversial - "hey, everybody, let's not vote on the basis of misunderstanding the game setup" isn't a statement that's going to draw much fire - but still makes you look present and even stand out. In fact, modest as the suspicion is, I'm going to vote for you because of it. vote CookiesOne thing I've noticed about some of our games lately (OK, sach noticed, and pointed it out to me, and now I'm parroting him) is that voting has become sort of nonfluid. Everyone is so cautious with their vote early in the day that they become generally unwilling to change their vote as the Day goes on. The net result is that the number of possible outcomes to a given Day becomes extremely limited about halfway in, giving the Scum much more opportunity to influence the outcome. So I'm changing my own approach - I'm voting my suspicion now, and will change my vote as needed throughout the Day. But I have a thought on general strategy, which I will separate into a different post for ease of reading. Let me get this straight. You see sinister and evil plans in a general and mildly cautionary post because no one has done the stupid thing that I caution against yet. But you're willing to vote for me using a hypothetical cautionary tale that hasn't happened yet.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 16, 2010 13:47:29 GMT -5
Except no one did this. No one voted on the basis of anything that's happened so far. I pointed out what I perceived to be a potential faultline, it was discussed, matters were clarified (as suspected, my role name caused me some confusion as to the theme, because I didn't connect the name "Shaggy" with the poster "Shaggy" until I saw the latter posting in this thread), and on we go. Your post makes me suspicious of you, Cookies. In my experience, this sort of basically content-free caution against potential bad play - especially when the bad play in question has not happened - is a good way for Scum to participate in the early-to-mid game without really taking a stand. It lets you take a position that will be noncontroversial - "hey, everybody, let's not vote on the basis of misunderstanding the game setup" isn't a statement that's going to draw much fire - but still makes you look present and even stand out. In fact, modest as the suspicion is, I'm going to vote for you because of it. vote CookiesOne thing I've noticed about some of our games lately (OK, sach noticed, and pointed it out to me, and now I'm parroting him) is that voting has become sort of nonfluid. Everyone is so cautious with their vote early in the day that they become generally unwilling to change their vote as the Day goes on. The net result is that the number of possible outcomes to a given Day becomes extremely limited about halfway in, giving the Scum much more opportunity to influence the outcome. So I'm changing my own approach - I'm voting my suspicion now, and will change my vote as needed throughout the Day. But I have a thought on general strategy, which I will separate into a different post for ease of reading. Let me get this straight. You see sinister and evil plans in a general and mildly cautionary post because no one has done the stupid thing that I caution against yet. But you're willing to vote for me using a hypothetical cautionary tale that hasn't happened yet. Wait, what? I'm not really sure what you're asking, so I'm just going to restate my point, in helpful numbered list format: 1. Your post makes me suspicious of you, because in my experience people who make vague rah-rah go team let's avoid Mistake X pronouncements like the one you made are somewhat more often Scum than not. 2. I have noticed people in past games guarding their vote too closely, particularly in the early going. 3. I don't think it's been a good thing for Towns, so I'm not going to do that. And therefore: 4. I'm going to vote my suspicion now, and make a change later as warranted. Clearer?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Apr 16, 2010 14:06:20 GMT -5
We have something like 24 hours left in the Day and there's only 3 votes out there. That is very discouraging, especially to me since I usually do not have time on the weekends to keep. I'd rather not keep my vote on players not participating, but that may be what I do. Cookies, you complain about storyteller's vote based on his weak suspicions. Why don't you tell us (and vote for) who you're suspicious of? NAF, instead waiting for others to discuss their suspicions, why don't you tell us more of your own suspicions? And everyone else who hasn't voted: please, don't wait around for other players, do it yourself now. It's all well and good that we have discussions going on, but now it's time to lynch someone. Do your part. 13 players - would indicate we have 3-4 scum. If I calculated correct then the square root of 13 is something like 3,6... Balance that at 4,5 for scum = 13,5 or 18 Assuming rest is Town (1) = 10 or 9 Cop and doc = 7 Masons are a bit more tricky but 2 masons would balance at... 7 (I think) = 7 So with 4 scum and 2 masons and a Cop OR doc we'd have 18 to 19 Numbers isn't my strongest side. If anyone has something to add I'd be willing to adjust. You lost me after you calculated the square root of 13. What are the other numbers you're throwing around?
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 16, 2010 14:16:34 GMT -5
Cookies often has mildly cautioary comments to make in early game.
So do many players. Calling someone out on them seems weak to me.
it's not much, but it is day 1.
I still don't like the soft claim though.
vote: storyteller
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 16, 2010 14:31:29 GMT -5
NAF, instead waiting for others to discuss their suspicions, why don't you tell us more of your own suspicions? Unfortunately sometimes this stuff is like Quantum Physics (to the best of my understanding). You can't state your suspicions without corrupting the data you are trying to gather to help inform your decisions. It's not always like that, but this time it was. As it is, Cookies and Story have now had a little back and forth that has helped me make some decisions about them for toDay. I was on the fence about voting for Story and I wanted to see what he said after Cookies responded to his vote. I have now come off the fence and I am not voting for either. I hope you found this look into my thought process enlightening. I have been using process of elimination a lot in early Days in my last couple of games to help narrow down my playing field. I now know that I am not voting for you (Pleo) Cookies, Story, or myself today. So now I only have 9 other players to sift through. My next post will contain a vote, I promise.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 16, 2010 14:34:02 GMT -5
NETA: I am also not voting for luvbwfc. I forgot I had already taken him off my list for the Day because of the names thing and how he handled the reaction of people like story and fisheroo.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 16, 2010 14:38:08 GMT -5
[quote author=naf1138 board=ding&qstat=full&group=009900 thread=1335 post=62356 time=1271446289 My next post will contain a vote, I promise. [/quote]
[quote author=naf1138 board=ding&qstat=full&group=009900 thread=1335 post=62357 time=1271446442NETA: I am also not voting for luvbwfc. I forgot I had already taken him off my list for the Day because of the names thing and how he handled the reaction of people like story and fisheroo. [/quote]
Lynch All Liars?
Lynch All Promise Breakers?
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 16, 2010 14:38:29 GMT -5
3. Special Ed 5. Total Lost 6. Shaggy 7. Sister Coyote 9. Fisheroo 10. ducduc 12. Zuma 13. Peekercpa Of the above eight people only two have pinged me. Two haven't really been participating, one I am leaning pro town on but not heavily so the rest I have neutral reads on. So, let's start with the person who pinged me who might actually respond to the vote. Vote: total lost Glad to have you back in the game. I have missed you. Right now you are posting a lot and saying nothing at all, all the while telling us that we should be saying more than we are.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 16, 2010 14:39:21 GMT -5
[quote author=naf1138 board=ding&qstat=full&group=009900 thread=1335 post=62356 time=1271446289 My next post will contain a vote, I promise. [quote author=naf1138 board=ding&qstat=full&group=009900 thread=1335 post=62357 time=1271446442NETA: I am also not voting for luvbwfc. I forgot I had already taken him off my list for the Day because of the names thing and how he handled the reaction of people like story and fisheroo. [/quote] Lynch All Liars? Lynch All Promise Breakers?[/quote] Lynch All People Who Don't Preview?
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 16, 2010 14:39:37 GMT -5
A NETA post doesn't count as a new post.
It would have been part of the original post if it wasn't for the editing restriction!
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 16, 2010 14:41:46 GMT -5
And for the record 3. Special Ed - slight pro town lean 5. Total Lost - ping (obviously) 6. Shaggy -Neutral 7. Sister Coyote - Neutral 9. Fisheroo - ping (I swear is isn't personal, you just post scummy ) 10. ducduc - Neutral 12. Zuma - Non participant 13. Peekercpa - Non participant
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 16, 2010 15:47:41 GMT -5
Cookies often has mildly cautioary comments to make in early game. So do many players. Calling someone out on them seems weak to me. it's not much, but it is day 1. I still don't like the soft claim though. Vote elided. So, you're making a vote based on what you yourself characterize as "not much" because I made a vote on what you characterize as "weak." OK. Turtles all the way down, then?
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Apr 16, 2010 15:48:49 GMT -5
Also: holy crap, the Day ends this Saturday?
That's a really short Day One. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by fisheroo on Apr 16, 2010 16:30:44 GMT -5
1. NAF-some game you'll be right, but not this one. 2. Cookies-she always pings me, but I know it's her posting style, not necessarily her role. 3. Special Ed-neutral 4. Luv-topping my vote list, I don't care what anyone says 5. Total Lost-lots of posts, but it seems like she's excited to be playing again, not scummy 6. Shaggy-pings 7. Sister Coyote-she pings me like cookies does. 8. Pleonast-probably town, but claim is an irritation 9. Fisheroo-not scum, duh 10. ducduc-doesn't feel scummy 11. Storyteller-story is always hard for me to read. Withholding judgement 12. Zuma-AWOL-makes me nervous, he likes to post a lot 13. Peekercpa-AWOL I'm glad there was more posting going on, but it felt like nothing really got accomplished, and beyond the luv possible slip, I got nothin'
My commentary reflects that, and I'll put a preliminary vote on
[blue]luv[/blue]
I know it's thin.
|
|
|
Post by fisheroo on Apr 16, 2010 16:32:45 GMT -5
[blue]VOTE LUV[/blue]
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Apr 16, 2010 16:42:57 GMT -5
Story - 1 (special ed) Cookies - 1 (Story) Sister Coyote - 1 (Pleonast) Pleonast - 1 (luv) luv - 1 (Fisheroo) Total Lost - 1 (NAF)
Pleonast, I'd end the game whenever it would be impossible for Town to win. Since I don't think that could come at Dawn, it wouldn't be a factor....I'd think it could only come at the end of a Day, when a lynch happens.
As for the short length of Day One...it's only that short because I wanted this to be a fairly quick game (since I had to start over)...so I didn't really want to take up as much time as my other game would have if it had played through... but since there are people questioning the length, I will make Day Two longer.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 16, 2010 16:47:59 GMT -5
1. NAF-some game you'll be right, but not this one. 2. Cookies-she always pings me, but I know it's her posting style, not necessarily her role. 3. Special Ed-neutral 4. Luv-topping my vote list, I don't care what anyone says 5. Total Lost-lots of posts, but it seems like she's excited to be playing again, not scummy 6. Shaggy-pings 7. Sister Coyote-she pings me like cookies does. 8. Pleonast-probably town, but claim is an irritation 9. Fisheroo-not scum, duh 10. ducduc-doesn't feel scummy 11. Storyteller-story is always hard for me to read. Withholding judgement 12. Zuma-AWOL-makes me nervous, he likes to post a lot 13. Peekercpa-AWOL I'm glad there was more posting going on, but it felt like nothing really got accomplished, and beyond the luv possible slip, I got nothin' My commentary reflects that, and I'll put a preliminary vote on [blue]luv[/blue] I know it's thin. You know what, you just came off my list. I know, it scares me too. For the record you came of my list for hanging on to luv when that train has clearly left the station. From others I might think that was a calculated scum gambit, it it's one coming from you I will buy you a beer (or other beverage of your choice).
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Apr 16, 2010 16:50:43 GMT -5
As for the short length of Day One...it's only that short because I wanted this to be a fairly quick game (since I had to start over)...so I didn't really want to take up as much time as my other game would have if it had played through... but since there are people questioning the length, I will make Day Two longer. Thanks Idle! Can I make a request? Can we have at least 2.5 real life days fall durring the week for every round of Day? I know I am not the only one who can't play on weekends, but if we could manage to always have 60 hours or so of weekday Daytime that would probably work out and you could still keep the game shorter.
|
|
|
Post by luvbwfc on Apr 16, 2010 18:00:00 GMT -5
can we get your reasons on the record please? The assumption I made has admittedly been made by atleastone more player. Would like to get your thinking on this vote
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Apr 16, 2010 18:19:29 GMT -5
Vote zuma
Because I've missed him and he's MIA.
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 16, 2010 19:21:32 GMT -5
Cookies often has mildly cautioary comments to make in early game. So do many players. Calling someone out on them seems weak to me. it's not much, but it is day 1. I still don't like the soft claim though. Vote elided. So, you're making a vote based on what you yourself characterize as "not much" because I made a vote on what you characterize as "weak." OK. Turtles all the way down, then? Yeah, I guess that's an accurate summary. I'm starting to feel like we're on mafiascum
|
|
|
Post by luvbwfc on Apr 16, 2010 19:26:58 GMT -5
who r u on mafia scum out of interest?
|
|
|
Post by special on Apr 16, 2010 19:27:03 GMT -5
I'll join the list fray as well.
1. NAF-I never can read him. 2. Cookies-I've gotten used to her playstyle. Pod People showed me how her style works well and makes her a great player. That said, she plays the same when Scum, so there's no idea here. 3. Special Ed-I'm Town. 4. Luv-no idea 5. Total Lost-she's playing like she often does, but I am pinged by the lack of content in all those posts. 6. Shaggy-he always pings me. 7. Sister Coyote-I fight really hard to not read her as Scum. Something about how she posts makes me always think Scum. 8. Pleonast-soft claim. argh 9. Fisheroo-pinged a little 10. ducduc-goose. no idea 11. Storyteller-that's where my vote is. I always see Scum motivation when he votes or makes a case. It might be partially fear based. 12. Zuma-no idea 13. Peekercpa-maybe real life issues again?
|
|