/Invitational 11: Pick your Poison 5 (Game Over)
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Howdy, all.
I'll start by stating that I totally disagree with Hoopla on Vigilante strategy. The number of days we have isn't as important as the number of kills the town controls, and the Vigilante role is our best chance at increasing that number. It's exactly the reason we don't want to give the scum the Assassin - it potentially increases their number of kills.
(On a related note: Troll, mith can't say with any certainty what mith would have argued for as scum, since mith no scum. But mith do find the Hider and especially the Weak Doc to be double-edged, since they have the potential to provide extra town deaths, and since their ability to confirm innocents is limited/risky. So, mith think it possible scum included either or both and in multiples. That said, mith thinking the Jailkeeper is the weakest, the Tracker is a long-shot, and there are many reasons scum might have given us a Vigilante - such as scumHoopla thinking she can talk the Vig out of using the ability. So mith unsure what good speculation on the roles will do, aside from giving scum hints at what fake claims might be more viable.)
The Janitor is more annoying than harmful, and the Rolecop is strictly stronger than the Roleblocker. I think Janitor/Roleblocker is probably best, though my second choice would be Rolecop/Roleblocker (not a lot of synergy between those roles).-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Plum: In most cases, I would think the scum would just kill any power role the Rolecop found. Leaving power roles alive and blocking them seems an entirely pointless exercise, except for the Hider.
Hoopla: To say we would be "basically signing away any chance at effective bandwagon analysis" is absurd. That said, I'm still mulling it over, and am starting to lean toward the "Rolecop isn't that strong, and while no reveal wouldn't be devestating the annoyance would probably push us toward poorer decisions" line of thinking.
Couldn't care less on the deadlines.
Vote: Roleblocker-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
While it's encouraging to keep seeing this sentiment of "screw the power roles, we don't need them!", a 4:16 vanilla game would be *tough* on the town. Let's not be too hasty to throw the power roles under the bus - we want the scum to choke on the poison they've empowered us with.
Will think more about the Janitor vs. Rolecop decision tomorrow... I won't be voting for the Assassin, though. The "benefit" of the no-power-claim idea (making it unlikely, but not impossible, that the scum will get an extra kill) doesn't outweigh the cost (willfully ignoring a potential source of information).-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
I really should be in bed. I'm too tired to process all of that.
Initial thoughts: It's a good plan if we think there's a significant chance the scum gave us 2 hiders. As I said before, I think it's possible, but I don't know about "likely" - particularly given some of the other comments on likely scum choices. But until I'm more awake:
Unvote: Roleblocker-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Hoopla: My main concern isn't cutting off night-generated information; it's cutting off information from the claim itself, and the reaction to it. (And I say this having last played regularly in a meta where there was an overreliance on claims and I was perpetually arguing in favor of not claiming and/or lynching claimed power roles, so it's a bit weird to say. But those arguments were situation-specific, whereas your argument is policy lynching power role claims.)
The problem with your plan is that if we have a power role claim that we *don't* want to lynch (because it's believable for whatever set of circumstances, if not completely confirmed - like a Vigilante claiming a nightkill on scum and not being countered), we are forced to either lynch that player anyway (dumb) or gift wrap an extra nightkill to the scum.
Anyway. I am less against this plan than I was last night, even given the potential problems I see. It's basically a choice of giving them a Rolecop and having our power roles die faster, or giving them an Assassin and risking an extra kill or two (but one which can potentially be blocked by three of the roles we might have in the game - the Jailkeeper becomes more useful in an Assassin/Roleblocker game, because a confirmed innocent power role claim can be protected from the Assassin while the downside of the role being blocked is mitigated somewhat by the presence of a Roleblocker who would probably already be blocking that role).
I'm more firmly against the Janitor this morning for the following reason: Without the Janitor in play, we are at the very least able to keep power role claims accountable by the knowledge that there are exactly four of them.
Troll: I don't think a 2-Hider setup is likely enough to make your plan worthwile. (And I'm especially concerned that there might be no Hider, but one of the scum might claim Hider - I'm not sure how we could deal with that effectively.)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Good point, we probably do have a way to test a single Hider claim.
I feel better about the idea now than I did earlier, but I'm still not convinced. I'll keep thinking about it. (I wish I had a bit more time to just sit and think about this game; it's a very interesting set of options Patrick has given us.)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Hoopla, the wording you are using on occasion when discussing your plan is really bugging me - I know what you're trying to say, but its making me feel like you are more concerned with lynching power roles than with preventing successful fake claims or extra scum kills.
I can think of several reasons why we might have a confirmed power role, or at least a power role claim we would prefer to not lynch immediately. Vigilante kills scum and isn't countered; someone is run up close to lynch and a Hider/Weak Doc comes out to save them; Tracker catches someone visiting the scene of a murder; there's probably something involving the Jailkeeper's blocking ability, as well.
Herodotus, I'm pretty curious about point 1. Why were you asking the mod whether Hiders can be Roleblocked?-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Ok, there are 19 other players in this game. And only one of them has posted since my last post nearly 24 hours ago. Unacceptable.
I'm a little uneasy about zoraster's reasoning... scum would be stupid not to have thought about the Hider enough to not give us two, but we should do it anyway because the only way two Hiders is good is if we know?
(The variation in power-role evaluation for different players is pretty interesting. Though unfortunately unlikely to be useful for scumhunting at this stage in the game.)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Hoopla, I cited reasonsfourof our five possible power roles might out themselves and yet us have very strong reasons not to kill them immediately. To mention two of them and then call them the "only facet we sacrifice" makes me feel like being bullying and condescending.
Further, with all but the Tracker, I'm not suggesting these power roles are just coming out unprompted because of information - I'm suggesting that there's a reasonable chance we will run someone up close to lynch that will cause legit power role with information to come out, in such a way that lynching them would be very poor play (yet having an Assassin in the game forces us into a tricky situation).
But with the Tracker... are you seriously suggesting that a Tracker with a damning investigation should just sit on it (risking, oh, I dunno, getting killed before revealing that information?), or that to do so would qualify as a worthwhile sacrifice for the cause of not giving the Assassin a kill? That's ridiculous.
Herodotus: I don't want to say too much about the numbers I have on this, in case the Mafia don't know what the optimal play is, but I don't think massclaim is likely to benefit us as much as having the power roles functioning normally would.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Sorry for the double post, not awake enough yet and I forgot a couple things.
Herodotus: Given that you are tossing around the idea of a massclaim, I find it odd that you ignored the whole Hider-claim discussion and jumped right into a L-2 Roleblocker vote. I'd like some thoughts on Troll's idea, please.
In case it wasn't obvious to everyone else: My previous question to Herodotus was more of a "So you're scum who was trying to figure out whether to give us a Hider or two?" thing. Other things that bug me about posts 90 and 96...
1. Given that the discussion was about whether we should do a Hider-claim so as to possibly avoid giving scum a Roleblocker, I'm not sure how he could miss that no one was assuming the Hider was unblockable (possible I missed something from someone assuming just that, or that he only skimmed enough to see the latter part of the Hider-claim discussion and missed the Roleblocker stuff).
2. In point 2. he said he has no synergy-related ideas... yet point 3. is a synergy idea (that is, Janitor and Assassin don't have synergy).
3. And, of course, what I mentioned earlier in this post regarding post 96 (if he's aware enough of the Hider claim discussion to feel the need to mention post 90 point 1., and if he's going to suggest a massclaim, why is he sidestepping the Hider discussion and voting Roleblocker?).
(Admittedly, those are all pretty weak points. But hey, it's not even day 1 yet and I've got two suspects whose names start with H.)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
"Being not awake enough yet seems to have made you not notice that it was Amished, not I, who made the L-2 RB vote." - Bleh, I see something bolded and my mind immediately equates it with a vote. My mistake, and you gave a further reason for not discussing Troll's idea, so we're cool there.
However: Isn't that ("discussion from too many people about hider claiming will reveal to the scum who their best NK targets are") potentially a problem with your massclaim suggestion (if it were discussed further), or Hoopla's "lynch claimed power roles" idea, or pretty much any discussion we could have day 0 about power roles? I agree we should be careful, but given the wide range of ideas and opinions on optimal strategy I don't think we're going to give anything away to the scum.
Regarding the Hider/Roleblocker question, it felt to me that you were trying to present yourself as helpful, but without really adding anything to the discussion (and so you weren't necessarily thinking about it from a "scum probably want to know this and would need to ask if they were unsure, town are less likely to think to ask it until day 0 is underway" perspective, but rather a "this is something rather innocuous that I asked/could have asked that could make me look helpful" thing). As I said, it's a pretty weak point.
Wondering: Can you reference any games where you've seen an unblockable Hider?-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Herodotus, it can'tmakeyou scum if you'realreadyscum... (Partly just curious, partly think it's odd to use the phrase "I've never seen blockable hiders before" if you've never seen unblockable ones either.)
I think it would be pretty stupid on the part of a Hider to claim before we have consensus that a mass-Hider-claim is a good idea; I'm not seeing how someone expressing a pro-mass-Hider-claim (or con-) leaning without claiming Hider gives the scum any information at all (nor how discussing a Hider-claim in the abstract is any different from discussing a PR-claim in the abstract).
Elmo: Not ignoring your question, but want to see answers from a few of the less talkative people before I give an answer. (Likewise, I have some more to say on the Hider-claim issue, but I'd like to see something from Herodotus and from the pro-Assassin camp on that first.)
SpyreX: Can you rewrite that first sentence? I've read it three times and still don't know what you're trying to say.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
SpyreX: The Janitor potentially alters the power role count if the Janitor uses that ability on a day we lynch a claimed power role (whether the lynchee is actually a power role, or scum). Say we later massclaim, and end up with four power role claims (or four claims + already dead power roles) - because of the Janitor, we don't know whether all four all telling the truth (because we lynched scum earlier in the game and don't know it), or whether we already lynched a power role and have a lying scum among the claims. We might only get three claims (plus the original one), and we're good - but I think it most cases it would benefit the scum to take advantage of the missing reveal (if we lynched a power role earlier).
Without the Janitor in the mix, we would of course already know whether that power-role-claim lynch was a good one or not, and thus know whether we still have a fake claim in the midst of the real ones.
(I still kinda feel like I'm reading gibberish from both you and DrippingGoofball, probably because I've been wiring today and my brain is fried. I hope what I think your saying and have responded to is what you are actually saying - that if we only get 4 total power role claims, the Janitor ability is irrelevant because they're all confirmed. It's true, but it's problematic because scum can screw with us with a single fake claim.)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
"Scum, to utilize this, has to have at least one member claim a PR." - Yes, and my point was thatscum almost certainly will utilize this. You haven't answered this, you've just hidden it in a flow chart.
(Note that if we were certain the Janitor was going to Janitize day 1, we could avoid the power-role-counting part of the problem by not lynching power role claims - but unfortunately, we don't know that for certain.)
[Don't understand the "clearing swaths of vanillas" line, either.]-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
SpyreX: You do understand that with a Janitor in play, we wouldn't know how many scum are left (and thus the split)... right?
(I agree that the Janitor power loses its effectiveness as we kill and reveal more scum; and if I've gotten you from a stance of "Janitor? No biggie." - which is where I started out as well - to "Janitor is potentially real bad, but probably weak", then that's all I'm looking for out of this argument. While I do think an accurate count of power roles is important, on top of the other information we might potentially lose to a no-reveal, I'm not completely set against giving them the Janitor; the only thing I am confident of at the moment is that the Roleblocker is the weakest of the four.)
DrippingGoofball: I think we're already attempting to answer that question (I am, at least). Arguing about the strengths of individual roles is both providing me with ideas for countering those roles that I might not have thought of yet, and challenging me to defend my current leanings (both to persuade others and to persuade myself). The "whys" of various players' leanings are also important (for example, I might be able to convince myself that the Assassin is less bad than the Rolecop, but if a choice of Assassin is necessarily coupled with the "lynch all power role claims" plan, I won't be voting for it because I think that plan is flawed).
As to your question: I would say that an extra scum kill (on a power role) is worse than a single no reveal; but also that we are nearly guaranteed some shenanigans with a Janitor, while the Assassin's ability to kill anyone is uncertain. At the moment, I think the Janitor is probably the lesser of those two evils.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Heh... not that I think the question any less valid (if you were making things up, you might not have had that game in mind, nor remembered that I did the resolution that way), but I really should have remembered you played that game (since you were a Magic Traaaaain with Shabba) and wouldn't have bothered to ask if I had.
(FWIW, while I don't recall ever having the potential for a Hider and a Blocker in any other game, I wouldn't rule out deciding to resolve things differently - the intuition that inspires Natural Action Resolution breaks down a bit when it comes to Xyl's list, and it would be pretty easy to argue for any ordering of the first five.)
I've read Troll's posts as an argument for a town strategy, not as a recommendation to individual players. It's not a strategy that makes any sense if not everyone follows it. I suppose I can see where you're coming from, but do you have any objection to discussing it on the basis of "this is something under consideration only as a whole-town strategy, and would only be implemented with a consensus"?-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
I'm starting to come around on the massclaim idea a little... ooba makes a good point that Rolecop/Janitor is a better combination for massclaim. I think it's better than a Hider-only claim, at least.
My main concern is that I can think of too many power role combinations that don't give us much benefit beyond the "Named Townie" effect (either we have confirmed innocents, or scum have to fake claim, and either provides an EV boost). While there are some combinations that would be really good (the 2 Hider or 2 Weak Doctor possibilities that Troll brought to our attention, among others), it's the same problem as the Hider-claim strategy - I don't know that the likelihood of those "really good" combinations is high enough to warrant outing power roles and shortening the time they have to use their abilities.
VasudeVa: That argument is more an argument for the weakness of the Roleblocker than any synergy issue - the scum always have a kill, whether we give them the Assassin or not, and if there's a power role out they are usually going to prefer to kill it rather than block it.
The question, then, is whether they areableto kill it, and that's where my earlier synergy comment about the Rolecop/Roleblocker breaks down a bit... but even moreso with your argument. There are reasons the scum might want to block a power role found secretly with the Rolecop, but with an outed power role it's much more likely that the kill attempt from an Assassin might be prevented, and the Roleblocker also helps the scum there by making sure the power role can't do anything until eliminated.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
ATTN: Slicey, and anyone else bored by the strategy talk.
Please read posts 92 and 99. To make clear my current stance (which I didn't word correctly in post 73): I am very much against the plan proposed by Hoopla/Rhinox of "Let's give them an Assassin, and then discourage power role claims/lynch them so the Assassin can't kill anyone". I am not so much against the idea of giving scum Assassin/Roleblocker - since it may be the weakest combination - but if it's getting votes because you think the "lynch all power role claims" plan is a good idea, I think you're being led astray.
Also, what Herodotus said: we're not done discussing possible alternative plans, don't hammer Roleblocker. Basically, I think we're all in agreement that we're giving them the Roleblockerifwe don't come up with some big clever potentially game-breaking plan, but if we do come up with such a plan the Roleblocker would screw it up.
Herodotus: Yeah, the Named Townie/Census thing isn't good enough on its own (thus my initial stance of "massclaim is a bad idea"). I think the fake claim issue is less an issue with actual power roles in play, though... the scum are left with an interesting dilemma:
a. No fake claims, and give us four confirmed innocent power roles. They'll kill these off as fast as their able, but we'd getsomeuse out of them, plus the Named Townie effect of reducing our suspect list during the day and increasing our chances of a successful lynch.
b. One fake claim. Here, a lot depends on the lineup of power roles, but there is potential for catching the scum out via a Jailkeeper or Tracker (and maybe some other ways). The important thing here is that with only one fake claim, we probably wouldn't lynch a claimed power role until we were sure who the fake was, the Janitor spent that ability, the Janitor died, or etc. etc. So, I don't think the "power role count" downside of giving them a Janitor is in play as much with a massclaim.
c. Two fake claims. Now the scum can make it very difficult as far as figuring out who the fakes are, but they've put two eggs in the proverbial basket to do it.
d. Four fake claims. Obviously a winning strategy for the scum. Do this one.
Which of those options is actually best depends somewhat on the power role distribution. Anyway I won't be advocating massclaim unless I can convince myself that our potential gains outweigh the downside even in the "scum are smart about it" case (and even if I do that I'm not sure how well I would be able to persuade anyone else without giving more info to the scum than I want about how to play it, bleh).-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
The idea isn't "let's massclaim so we can stick the scum with a completely useless Daycop, hurrah!"; that's as silly as "let's lynch power roles so we can stick the scum with a completely useless Assassin!".
The idea is "massclaim could potentially be game-breaking, or at least give us a definite advantage over playing this out in a more normal fashion;if we decide that's the case, Daycop/Janitor is the best combination of abilities to give the scum, because one is useless and we can work around the other to some degree and the other two options are worse".-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
VasudeVa: The "if" part doesn't make the argument more convincing; it's important only in that you were clearly misunderstanding that the argument for massclaim is entirely separate from the Rolecop/Janitor pair. If the only reason for massclaim was that we would be able to stick the scum with useless roles, it would be a terrible idea; but that's not the only reason for massclaim. The question is whether the reasons for (potential for gamebreaking, forcing the scum into a choice between giving us a bunch of confirmed innocents or taking on a messy fake claim situation, increasing the utility of the power roles while they're alive) outweigh the reasons against (scum know who the power roles are, and will be able to kill them more quickly or leave them alive to mess with us in a messy fake claim situation).
[Insert slight annoyance at Hoopla here, for discussing the scum's best plan; though I suppose it may have been obvious anyway, so my attempt at keeping them in the dark may have been pointless.]
I think the big downside with massclaim is the possibility that we have something like 2 Jailkeepers and 2 Trackers (which probably has an above average likelihood, based on the "If I Did It" comments) and thus are unlikely to get a good return on the massclaim; I think the Hider and Weak Doctor roles have a good chance of benefiting from a massclaim, and at least the Vigilante would be more informed in exchange for a lower EK (expected kills).-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
(Hoopla, I understood what you were trying to say if you're town. Mostly, I just like messing with people on wording things, see how they react.)
To be a bit more accurate, my holding back information only helps the town if I'm town, if I've figured out the correct play for the scum, if they haven't, and if we choose massclaim. However, it only hurts the town if I've figured out a non-obvious correct play for scum which makes massclaim a poor choice for town; and since I'm town, I would obviously reveal such a strategy immediately so we can rule out massclaim and move on. As you say, other town need to be figuring this stuff out for themselves because they don't know I'm innocent, and because we're more likely to catch such a bad strategy (or good strategy) if more people are thinking about it from different angles (and, of course, wouldn't want scum-mith having some secret massclaim killing plan up his sleeve - but, [obvwifom]I would be acting quite a bit differently if I were scum... for one thing, I wouldn't be drawing attention to the fact that I am holding back information, and there would be a stronger push for massclaim coming from somewhere if scum had a good anti-massclaim strategy[/obvwifom]).
Anyway, I remain unconvinced that massclaim is a good idea for the reason given in post 153; will be voting for Roleblocker and... something else (still unsure, there) tomorrow if we haven't come up with a great pro-massclaim idea by then.
Rhinox: At worst, we can only lose 1 lynch to the assassin; and whether we lose a lynch at all with only 1 Assassin kill depends on the parity (which is hard to know, with potential for extra kills and blocked/protected kills). Losing a lynch to an Assassin kill is pretty bad though, because we're trading a lynch on the town's top suspect for a kill on a power role we presumably didn't want to lynch (compare to Vigilante kills, which also cost us lynches, but in return for extra town-controlled kills; 2 Vigilante kills + 1 lost lynch + 1 lost Mafia kill = pro-town). Overall... I think I'm leaning Assassin, but it's close with the Janitor; those two abilities are really difficult to compare balance-wise. (And it's encouraging that you aren't on auto-power-role-lynch if we pick Assassin.)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
That's part of the advantage, yes (see post 153). The problem is that the use we get from the power roles needs to be significant enough that we're making it a dilemma for them.
To be more clear than I really wanted to be: With something like 2 Jailkeepers and 2 Trackers, scum are quite safe not fake claiming power role. At best, we get a bit of WIFOM action from the Jailkeepers (will the protect/block the Trackers/each other or not) and a small number of weak investigations (which are slightly improved by the three other claimed roles, but day 1 we're talking 1/19 vs. 1/16), but it's not much of an improvement over having 4 Named Townies outed and lined up for slaughter, which in turn is hardly an improvement over not having power roles at all (19% vs. 17% or something like that).
With other combinations of power roles, there's more synergy. For example, Hider/Tracker/Weak Doctor = Weak Doctor keeps Tracker alive, Tracker tracks Hider, and now we have a more effective investigation (either Hider hides with an innocent and we have someone else confirmed, or Hider hits scum and Tracker outs the scum the next day). And that's where we force the scumbags into doing something they don't like - either let that engine run, or fake claim and try to muck it up (which we would deal with on a case-by-case).
To summarize: The point of massclaim is totryto be proactive, but while we have the advantage of knowing the number of power roles, scum have the advantage of knowing what the power roles are, and depending on the power roles a massclaim may not be proactive at all, it may just out the power roles for little reason.
One of the things that occurred to me a couple days ago regarding the outed Hider part of the Troll plan: Roleblocker is bad (though apparently Troll is ok with risking a power role to that, now?), but so is Assassin - because while the Hider can hide from the Assassin... read the last part of the Assassin PM: "If a kill fails for some other reason, you do get to try it again." That means the Assassin can just keep targetting the Hider, until the scum get a double kill (either through the Assassin, or through killing the Hider's target, or through the Hider picking scum).
It may not be the most devestating plan ever, but it does counter the "at least if we out a Hider, the Hider can hide from the scumkill if we don't give them a Roleblocker" argument to some degree. So, my current thinking is that it would be a bad idea to give the scum an Assassin if we out any power roles, even a Hider. Which leaves Rolecop/Janitor... and Rolecop is still quite strong with three hidden power roles.
So, my next thought was: We combine the two claim plans. We mass-Hider-claim. If we have 2 Hider claims, we're golden. If we have 0 Hider claims, we stop (or perhaps move to a Weak Doctor claim, but probably not). If we have 1 Hider claim, we continue to a full massclaim - Rolecop/Janitor in play, and I think an outed Hider likes the massclaim anyway in some ways (though I need to think about that more; Hider/Vigilante = Vigilante reveals kill target, Hider avoids that target; Hider/Tracker/(Tracker or Weak Doctor) = see above, which doesn't work so well if we aren't sure on the kill count/if the Hider can be blocked).
Anyway, that's way longer than I expected it to be and more time than I intended to spend on it... I don't know that massclaim even makes the 1 Hider-claim case better, much less bumps the overall plan up enough to make a day 0 claim strategy reasonable, but I do think it's worth considering as a possible improvement to "give the scum a Roleblocker or Assassin and screw the claimed Hider over" or "give the scum Daycop/Janitor so as not to screw the claimed Hider over, even though it's a bad idea".-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
"If there no be any hiders (which certainly be a possibility) then that lets scum decide if them want us to have a mass claim" - This is a good point... though it's not all that different a choice than we would be giving them with a full massclaim from the start (better, in some sense, because they can't just sit back and pick off confirmed power roles in the 2 Jailkeeper/2 Tracker type setup - if they want to force the power roles out, they have to put one of their own at risk).
Anyway, this morning I can't see much good coming from an attempt to mix strategies like that. That's what I get for trying to think about strategy while overheating, I guess.
I'm still not convinced by a full massclaim, so I'm moving on from that. I'm still hung up on "Roleblocker bad if we out a Hider", but I'm more set against any of the other scum role combinations if we do a Hider claim. So, I think I'm pretty set on voting Roleblocker regardless, and I'll give Troll's posts another close look and try to give Hider-claim a fresh look. Leaning Assassin for the other role if we don't Hider-claim, probably Janitor if we don't (though I haven't considered Rolecop/Roleblocker with Hider-claim yet, will think on that too).
Vote: Roleblocker-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
In Denton, not much time (we're babysitting for friends for a bit soon, heh), real quick:
My Milked Eek: Massclaim sucks if we discount the power roles entirely and just treat them as "pool dividers". I have a spreadsheet which exactly calculates the EV for such games (Census, see Open Discussion thread), and unless the scum fail hard at the claiming part (and 3 or 4 of them claim power roles) it's not worth doing. EVs go from 17% (Vanilla) to 19% (4 claimed "power roles", ignoring abilities) to 23% (1 scum fake claim) to... I don't remember off the top of my head, not much higher.
In such a game, the clear scum strategy is to not fake claim. It's different here because the power roles do have abilities, but I don't think it's enough gained to counteract the "power roles outed and dead soon" aspect (or the risk of a scum fake claim, depending on the setup they've chosen), unless we think there's a good enough chance we have 2 Hiders or 2 Weak Doctors (and for the former, Hider-claim is better, obviously).-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Rhinox, having 2 claimed Hiders and no scum Roleblocker is a super-strong position. Having 2 unclaimed Hiders and a scum Roleblocker is slightly better than having no Hiders.
Unrevealed Hiders can possibly confirm an innocent or two, but at the risk of dying... and not only does that risk of an extra scum kill cancel the benefit of scum possibly missing a kill trying to hit the Hider, the latter is actually not that much of a benefit (because if scum miss a kill in a game which they know contains 2 Hiders, they are probably going to be able to assume that they've tried to kill a Hider, and can then Roleblock and kill the Hider).
I'm going to vote yes on Hider-claim. I may well change my mind when I'm back in Tyler tomorrow and have a chance to sit and think about the game for a bit, but that's where I am at the moment.
Hider claim?
Yes - 2 (Plumegranate, mith)
No - 5 (ekiM, Amished, PZ, Rhinox, Vas)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Rhinox: It's not that the "prevent kill" and "extra kill" possibilities negate; the chances of the latter are significantly higher (though I think you get that).
As you correctly point out, the benefit of the Hider is the potential for confirmed innocents. But how good is that, really? If the Hider survives N1, revealing the confirmed innocent immediately isn't any good (especially with Assassin/Roleblocker), so either he can chill there in the safe hiding place (and still risk dying to scum targetting someone who probably isn't getting a lot of heat, without revealing any information to the town) or go elsewhere. If he risks hiding with a different player the next night, we're now at >40% chances for the Hider dying before D3, with the potential benefit of two confirmed innocents early in the game - which isn't that useful.
The suggestion that a Hider might confirm up tofiveinnocents is ridiculous. The chances are far too high that they will die.
The Hider isn't a net negative, but it's not much of a positive.
In the 2 Hider case, the scum can act on a missed kill based on their knowledge of the setup - but even if they gave us a Jailkeeper or a Weak Doctor, of course they would try to block/kill their missed target. Letting 2 Hiders live another night to potentially break the game the next day is suicide.
Papa Zito: I'll stop when we hit a majority against, and not before; I've only just convinced myself, so I'm not going to rule out the possibility that some others might read the arguments and be swayed, even if you are ignoring everything I say.-
-
mith Godfather
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Post 207, the sentence just before "Papa Zito:", I should rephrase: Letting 2 Hiders live to potentially break the game in the future (if the Roleblocker dies) is extremely risky for the scum.
Rhinox: Some numbers for you to think about.
EV in a 4:16 Vanilla game is ~18%.
Consider a hypothetical game which is 4:16, has 2 Hiders, a scum Roleblocker, and other power roles play no part). Consider an ideal start for such a game - the 2 Hiders hide successfully with different innocents the first two nights, scum are lynched the first two days, and the scum even miss a kill the second night before the Hiders come out day 3 and reveal their confirmed innocents. Scum can now take out all six confirmed innocents, but they're in a tough spot, right? Well, yes, compared to the Vanilla EV, but it's not as overwhleming a town advantage as you might guess. EV: 55%.
It's pretty good, and certainly good compared to the Vanilla EV. We would expect to do a bit better still in an actual game that played out that way, because of the information gained from the lynches... Of course, that's not the actual EV of a 2 unclaimed Hider game - it's absurdly optimistic. In reality, the chances of us lynching two scum to start the game are quite low (we'll be beating the odds just to lynch one), the Hiders probably wouldn't both do so well (and odds are in favor of one getting killed if they both try to confirm innocents the first two nights)... really, the only thing that isn't "best case" about that scenario is the pesky Roleblocker.
Now consider a game where the 2 Hiders are known from the start, and the scum don't have a Roleblocker. EV: 66%. No assumptions or optimism necessary here; and in this game, the EV would be a bit higher still, because we would have two more power roles. Such a situation isn't "won" for the town by any means, but this is the sort of EV that leads to setups being declared "broken" (see: Original Newbie).
Have I at least gotten the point across that we're not just talking about "2 different approaches to a strategy"? Having two unkillable roles is better for our win probability than even an "ideal" scenario involving two unclaimed Hiders.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Elmo: If we can get a 1:1 trade out of any of our power roles, we should happily take it. [morenumbers]The EV for a game this size goes from 18% to 28% if we remove the Hider and a scum. To get the same EV bump from confirmed innocents at the start of the game, we'd need 8.[/morenumbers] Confirmed innocents aren't that valuable until late in the game (and dead scum are almost always more valuable, unless it's the confirmed innocent that takes us to the "auto-win" threshold).
With a single claimed Hider and no Roleblocker, we could get "full investigations" two ways: if we think we have a Jailkeeper, the Hider can announce the hiding target, and the Jailkeeper can block/protect that target (if they're scum, the Hider dies, but we know that's why, and if they're town the scum can't get the double kill); if we think we have a Tracker, the Hider doesn't announce a target and the Tracker tracks the Hider (the Hider can provide a "safe target" for a potential Vigilante - someone high on the Hider/Town's suspect list), and if the Hider dies the Tracker can deduce the alignment of the target from the nightkills.
With the Roleblocker, it's more about protection initially. I'm still not entirely sure what the best plan is here, but I think if there's a Weak Doctor they should protect the claimed Hider (if a Weak Doctor dies night 1, we lynch the Hider; if we have a Weak Doctor and no Hider, that should be enough to keep scum from claiming Hider, and if they do it anyway we get the 1:1 trade - there's some fiddly things involved to cover the "legit Hider, Weak Doctor gets killed by normal scum nightkill or Vigilante kill" possibility, but that's workable), and if there's a Jailkeeper they should block/protect the Hider with some probability (not sure what's ideal).
Troll is pretty firmly on the "so we give them a Roleblocker, so what?" side of this, while I am a little less decided (I don't like any of the non-Roleblocker combinations we could give the scum, but there are some definite benefits to having a claimed Hider and no Roleblocker). The thrust of the "Hider-claim" argument, though, is that a single Hider unclaimed isn't all that strong, while a claimed Hider gives us some options for getting our power roles to work together; that may not be enough to make the EVs line up completely, but I think it is enough to make Hider-claim better overall (taking into account the likelihood of 0 claims, 2 claims, or a scum fake claim).-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Of course, neither of those work Night 1 if we give scum a Roleblocker. I think that's got me leaning toward Janitor/Assassin if we do a Hider-claim.
We're running out of time for this, though. Given how many players haven't been posting lately, I'm not all that confident we would get claims from everyone in time to vote on scum roles even if we agree on a Hider-claim immediately.
Mod:Can we get some prods? DrippingGoofball hasn't posted in over a week, and there are others over the 72 hour mark.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
If you think a Hider-claim is a wash for 1 Hider, why are you voting no?
As for the "just do it" part, I suppose if we have a Hider who wants to claim without waiting for consensus, there is nothing stopping them. I don't think a partial claim is a good idea, though, and that's what we would risk if we start claiming without consensus.
DrippingGoofball: We're still discussing whether a Hider-claim is a good idea. And we need to decide soon and do it before we run out of time.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Right, I'm going to kick off Hider-claim. We don't have a majority, but with Ellibereth apparently abstaining (meh), along with SpyreX and DrippingGoofball's comments plus Slicey's posts before disappearing, I think we're close enough.
I am not a Hider.
I will be voting Roleblocker/Assassin if we have 0 claims, Janitor/Assassin if we have 1 claim, and probably Janitor/Assassin if we have 2 claims (though I'm considering Rolecop/Janitor instead).
Unvote: Roleblocker-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
In the case of a second claim, Rolecop gets weaker, but so does Assassin, so I think Janitor/Assassin is the play in both cases. I'll go ahead and vote (and will be on frequently enough to change my vote if I have some flash of insight or if the vote is going another way and it's necessary to reach 11).
Vote: Janitor
Vote: Assassin-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
One problem with giving the Rolecop is in the case where DGB is the only Hider claim and is lying. The claim is still testable by Vigilante, but not by Tracker because the scum can just give the Rolecop power to DGB. They could do that with the Assassin too, but the Assassin only has two shots.
If DGB is telling the truth and is countered by a Tracker, worst case is we lynch them both - and scum can already force a 1:1 trade by fake claiming now. Don't want to spell out why it's a bad idea for scum in the not-worst-case (in case they are considering doing it), but they are certainly better making the trade now if DGB is legit and they want to get rid of her.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Bleh, of course... I keep forgetting the "Day" part of the Rolecop.
In that case: Giving Rolecop/Janitor means a single Hider claim is fully testable by both Vigilantes and Trackers. However, the power role kills due to a Day Rolecop come a night earlier than they would for a Night Rolecop, and I was already leaning toward the Assassin being the weaker of the two. Will unvote so Assassin doesn't get hammered while I'm thinking about it, but I'm still leaning that way.
Unvote: Assassin-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
(Discussion on both of these can wait until day 1 is underway, but: Hoopla has been consistently anti-Janitor, yet while she claims to have thought DGB was obviously fake-claiming she remained silent while the Janitor was locked in. DrippingGoofball seems awfully certain that we have no actual Hiders, given that four players haven't claimed.)
Hopefully, some/all of the unclaimed will show up. I suggest we go ahead and get Roleblocker close to hammer, decide on a cutoff time for waiting on that based on how many players can definitely be online [some amount of time before deadline], and hammer at the cutoff time if nothing has changed. It should go without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that if there's a Hider among the unclaimed who doesn't claim in time, keep that to yourself.
Rhinox: While I am annoyed about DGB's play (and really, we all should've known what we were getting into when we made our preference lists) sulking about it and giving up out of frustration is just as bad; at least she'stryingto catch scum if she's innocent.
I'll be setting my alarm for whatever cutoff time is decided on, so I'll be around to switch if needed.
Vote: Roleblocker-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Troll: That's what I was going for, yes, but after further consideration, I would rephrase...
I think it is correct play to give a Roleblocker if we have no Hider claims, regardless of how many unclaimed players we have.
If there are "several" unclaimed players (all three of those currently unclaimed, maybe two?), I think it's probably worthwhile for a Hider in that group to stay hidden for a night (but such a Hider should make their own decision on that). However, if we get down to one unclaimed (maybe two?), and there is an unclaimed Hider, they should definitely claim day 1 - scum know if there is a Hider, so staying hidden would allow for the scum to block/kill without giving us the chance to bring any protective roles we might have into play.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Troll: With three unclaimed, I just don't see it as all that likely that scum will use a block and a kill on a player that only as a 1/3 chance of being a Hider. But you may be right.
Amished: What happened to "Yeah, no rolecop; that's the most dangerous one for scum in my eyes."? I'll be the first to defend someone's right to change their mind after further thought, but I'm not seeing a progression from that statement to this stance in your posts.
I'm not really seeing the synergy between Roleblocker and Janitor; explain? The possibility of leaving a power role alive and blocking (or scum fake-claiming and then having an excuse for no results) has been discussed before (and in fact, you dismissed it earlier with "and if they think that they have one they'll just try to kill it anyways.") and it's not apparent why you think that has anything to do with the Janitor.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Amished: The Rolecop is powerful on its own - it allows scum to find power roles more quickly and kill them. The fake-claim argument is pretty much a red herring here - odds are we will have a power role claim (real or fake) long before scum eliminate all the power roles, with or without the Rolecop, and so eliminating power roles isn't really hurting them (because the Janitor potentially provides uncertainty on the power role count regardless).
Ways to deal with a first power-role claim might include:
1. Lynch them anyway, and live with the Janitor annoyance.
2. Wait for the Janitor ability to be used and/or the Roleblocker to use up blocks.
3. Vigilante kill, if we strongly suspect them but don't want to mess with 1.
4. Weak Doctor protection, if we believe them (extra Weak Doctor death = caught power role).
5. Trackers have an increased chance of success if the Roleblocker is active (though 3. and 4. interfere somewhat).
6. Jailkeeper may hit the Roleblocker, and in that case a legit claimed power role may know they weren't blocked while a fake claim may not know what happened and get caught.
VasudeVa: Unless I missed a claim somewhere, we don't have any Hider claims at the moment.-
-
mith Godfather
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Hoopla: 299, go.
My Milked Eek: I'd like an answer to Troll's question in 247.
Re: Quicklynching... if someone is obvscum, it doesn't matter what the Janitor does, and unless we catch the Janitor V/LA or something we're not going to get from 0 to 11 without the Janitor noticing. If we're talking more "someone is a few votes from lynch, we should just hammer them quickly rather than discussing further/waiting for claims", there's more of a chance at getting a lynch in that the Janitor might want to clean up but can't, but I don't think that makes up for the loss of information (in discussion near hammer, claim, etc.) - it's similar to my issues with Hoopla's "lynch all power role claims" plan. It also hands the scum a defense they wouldn't normally have if they want to quickhammer someone ("I thought they were obvscum and wanted to avoid the Janitor!").-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Hoopla: DGB gambits as scum and town. This is true. DGB does not, however, gambit arbitrarily - she has reasons for her actions (more than just "teehee, if I do inane things all the time, no one will be able to read me!", though that likely plays some not insignificant part in her meta-building). As town, DGB does try to do unexpected things to cause the scum to slip up (even when those unexpected things have negative consequences for the town, as was the case here). As scum, DGB likes WIFOM, getting the town to focus on the wrong things, and setting up mislynches - often in ways which in retrospect are blatantly scummy, but which are written off as DGB-being-DGB.
Look past the word "gambit", at the details of her action. What was her motivation? Was it, as she claims, to get reactions and scumhunt? Were her expectations for those reactions reasonable? More importantly, do you thinksheexpected those things? Was it reasonable for her to assume there would be no further Hider claim? Do you think the timing (deadline) or situation (partial-massclaim) would make town-DGB hesitate?
"I am still learning how to read DGB" is a cop out. We're all "learning" to read DGB, and everyone else in the game - it may have been a while since I last played, but I'm pretty sure no one has demonstrated the ability to read other players perfectly. If you're town, take a stab at it. If you're scum, make something up, and then we'll lynch you for it. No pressure.
(Current Top 4, in no particular order: DrippingGoofball, Hoopla, My Milked Eek, zoraster)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Hoopla: I am currently listing DGB in my top 4; I am not voting for her, I am not assuming that her fake claim was a scum plot. If I felt I had a strong case for her being scum, I would make it. Getting you to take a stand on her is more about you than her; your initial response was incongruous with your expressed thoughts on the game, and then you went with "temporary insanity", "dazzled", and "DGB does bizarre things".
On to the meat. I very much disagree that DGB was "squarely at the forefront" of a let's-get-on-with-it movement. ISO her; posts 3 and 8 show an interest in scum role discussion, post 11 addresses the Hider-claim idea, and while it's noncommittal it's certainly not Papa Zito-speak either. She didn't post much (V/LA), but when she did it wasn't unaware of what was going on.
Any heat DGB is getting for the "result" is not coming from me. My suspicions of her are based on two things:
1. Her certainty that there would be no Hider claims coming from the remaining four players.
2. A sincerity-based read of her retraction and subsequent posts. I've experienced DGB-town (and managed a fairly consistent town-read on her: e.g., "I still think she's likely innocent, though. Sincerity is something I look for as well, and as much as I disagree with most of what she says, she looks like she really believes it when she says it."), and I've watched DGB-scum's thought processes (see CT3 QT, though it's a long and sometimes painful read).
Papa Zito, Troll: You two have hydra'd together several times. I'd be interested in your current reads on each other.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
"SCUM: expected to be overly skeptical because theyknowI'm making it up." - emphasis mine. I was aware of your response to Troll re: diminishing probability, but it doesn't ring true. (297 sticks out in the stream of posts, actually... Asking if we are assuming no Hiders after assuming no Hiders for your scumhunting leads me to think 286 was a slip, rather than something representing your actual mindset at the time.)-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
populartajo: RVS is an illusion, RVS-in-a-game-with-two-weeks-of-day-0-discussion doubly so. (Also, given that oobajust saidhe wasn't mechanically following a list, I don't think he is giving a locked-into-those-positions vibe. In other words... what Elmo said. Don't find ooba scummy at the moment, but don't find your reasoning valid either.)
Mod:Could we get some prods? (My Milked Eek is the one I'm specifically waiting on at the moment, but I think there are others not posting.)
Vote: Hoopla-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
My Milked Eek: What Troll said. (Wow.)
Hoopla: I'm reasonably confident you can work out why the Janitor got hammered by looking through the posts between DGB's claim and retraction (Hint: What do Janitor/Assassin and Janitor/Rolecop have in common?). I also find it very hard to believe that you saw DGB's claim and thought it was clearly fake, but didn't notice that Janitor was climbing in the vote count. I think you're lying scum and I want to lynch you. How does that make you feel?-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Still happy with my vote, still want a coherent post from My Milked Eek, a little annoyed that DGB is V/LA because I would like to see how she reacts to the growing Hoopla wagon.
Hoopla: Why do you find Kmd suspicious? Who else do you find suspicious, and why? You've made two votes with negligible reasoning to back them (and the reasoning you gave when unvoting ooba doesn't really explain why you found him vote-worthy in the first place). I'd like to figure out which scumbuddy you're distancing from before we lynch you.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
I hesitate to say this, because I don't want to encourage his inattentive playstyle, but townish. (I'll withhold my reasons for now, because his play in the immediate future could completely negate the read. On that note...)
Kmd4390: Who are you suspicious of, and why? What are your thoughts on the current wagons?
Hoopla: Would you answer the second question asked in my previous post? (And the first, if I am to ignore the answer you gave.) Also, girl or boy?-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
Hoopla: I meant the baby, silly. I think mith is a good name for a boy.
Any reasons for any of those suspicions?
I think Papa Zito is badly wrong with his Hider-claim stance (and that should be no surprise to anyone), but I don't find him particularly suspect at the moment. Troll and Papa Zito sound like an old married couple.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
(FWIW, from the point of view of a pro-town player, each other player has a ~21% chance of being scum at the start of this game. If the given pro-town player were given absolute certainty that among 6 of the other players there is at least one scum, the chances of each of those players being scum increases to ~26%. It's not a large gain, but it's not negligible, either.
There are other problems with this method: tajo could be scum, it's a pretty arbitrary snapshot of "lurkers", and when he says "there has to be at least one lurking" it's really just a rhetorical exaggeration of "there is a good chance at least one is lurking".)
populartajo: Re: 514, read the thread you lazy bum.
For those who actually have been following my back-and-forth with Hoopla, am I correct in feeling that Hoopla is dodging my "why?" question (which I've asked three times now)? Is this normal for her, playstyle-wise?-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
DGB: "Was that a leading question, or are you actually interested in the answer?" - Was that a leading question, or are you actually interested in the answer? Because if you're interested in the answer, you've already given it for him...
532/533 seem interesting, but I'm too tired to put my finger on why. Between her vote, 527, and 534, DGB is all over the map. At least she took a definitive stance on Hoopla.-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX
-
-
mith Godfather
- Godfather
- Godfather
- Posts: 9267
- Joined: March 27, 2002
- Location: McKinney, TX