This. Also, the let's waste our CP until only one is left theory is shot by the fact that we don't actually know exactly how much CP we have.Cobalt wrote:if fifi is scum, he's wasting scum points. Let him. Scum need points to function. Town just needs to find and lynch scum. Let's not let the setup obscure the fact that the best way to find scum is dayplay.
LOLAlmasterGM wrote:Fixed
Thus satisfying your win condition. Cool. Carry on.Seacore wrote:In Day 3, people were going back to my thoughts and using them to try and win.
By that reasoning, it also means that commanders will be less reluctant to conserve CP.bv310 wrote:It's not just the scum that are going to be stingy. Any power roles that exist are going to try to conserve for themselves.
Yeah, the problem with VI's are that we tend to discard them and everything they do/say is seen as a null-tell. It basically makes it impossible to pin them when they are scum.Cruciare wrote:Siii~gh, it's a VI who can't speak English properly. Traditionally I've been against the lynch of VIs (because VI wagons are too easy for scum to hop on), but the last two times I campaigned against their lynches they turned out to be scum - maybe I should take the hint XD.
This is a valid point.McGriddle wrote:fifi knows the votes will be put elsewhere when he can pull himself out of this.
NO! U!Cobalt wrote:Um, that's stupid.
But see, now it's getting all hazy. 'far more careful with their votes' is going to create much WIFOM when someone seems conservative with their votes.Seacore wrote:Well, he can spend no more than 10
Any less than that won't have an effect. So we're stuck at ten
If there are 4 scum, it is dramatically less successful, as if we get scum to burn 10, they've still probably got around 10 more. Still, it does mean they'll have to be far more careful with their votes.
That's a misrep. Sure, I'm not for dragging on the day, but going 'we've found teh scumz! Kill 'em NAO!' isn't productive either.Seacore wrote:But if it's just a long day... which is what happens when you've found your scum on page 1 but then run it to page 16 for no reason... well that's pointless and not filled with useful posts.
Elaborate.AlmasterGM wrote:That way, we know exactly how many CP they have remaining, and can thus deduce all of their actions.
Or maybe you're scum trying to dissuade town of a working strategy.Seacore wrote:I think it's a little too hard to orchestrate though. But maybe I'm just work-distracted and can't think straight.
Wouldn't we just KNOW all three is town if no commander claims? This sounds like a ploy to out the commander(s).AlmasterGM wrote:AFA Number 7 goes, I think it depends on how good our commander feels they are at breadcrumbing. If they feel skilled, then they should remain silent and leave us a clue so they can bag another three "investigations" the next night whilst still retaining the knowledge from the first night. If they think they are going to fuck it up, then they should just claim it right away.
As far as my understanding goes, I'm with pops on this one.popsofctown wrote:Were you planning on guessing at how much CP we have? It's impossible, commanders give us pretty much random amounts of cp, and we have a random amount of power roles.
So lets say there are 2 commanders with, as you postulated, 6 CP's each extra. There's your 12 and we might think we've got a confirmed townie when its not true at all. This could cost us the game.Iecerint wrote:Basically, if we end up with 0-10 CP, the burner was town. If we end up with 12-22 CP, the burner was scum. Granted, there's a hazy space in the middle, but I'd rather potentially clear someone or find scum than just sit on my CP pile.
*facepalm*McGriddle wrote:nope. i have too much of a life to understand everyones logic, and I could care less about seacore except that he was active and cool lol,.
Agreed.popsofctown wrote:I'm serious about the one vote each clause. Can we have everyone read that, understand it, and ratify it? Then we need to just select certain players to actually execute the lynch, and have everyone burn one first.
I agree. The closest thing we have to a confirmed town atm is AlmasterGM.bv310 wrote:The odds of this game having a daykilling scum or SK is extremely unlikely.
So we judge him on your meta?Cobalt wrote:I was daykilling scum in super upick and played just like almaster is doing now.
Sure, but because we're one person less, it also takes one less to hammer.Fate wrote:Seacore was voting F1f1, so uh, no he's not at L-1.
Just a reminder, shouldn't EVERYONE use a vote before we hammer?Fate wrote:I'm also for lynching Almaster straight up instead of having him burn, just because we'll likely have another dead townie on his hands tomorrow.
+1popsofctown wrote:Bad plan is bad. Almaster shouldn't be the one to burn.
Fate wrote:Also I think we should get off the f1f1 wagon.
Fate wrote:ecause I know McGriddle is useless. Useless players should be lynched by town regardless of alignment...
What. The. F.?thefifi wrote:there goes ur burning strategy.
Nice.thefifi wrote:Sorry almaster and cruciare
I disagree. Finding confirmed town is also in our interest. Plus we get the use of the commander for another night.AlmasterGM wrote:Anyway, I'm not scum, so fifi clearly isn't completely mentally incapacitated. AFA burning Cruciare goes, I think it's a bad play. As evidenced by fifi's self-vote, the scum clearly want this round's burn plan to fail, so letting them manipulate the targets seems like a Very Bad Idea.
That was me, and my words was 'as close as we get to a confirmed town'. Obviously, I'm not advocating this stance anymore.Iecerint wrote:Who was it that said that Alma was confirmed town after he shot SC earlier? I forgot.
Woah. Almost missed this.popsofctown wrote:fhq, you're helping hammer, so don't burn.
This. The whole idea of unique setups is to change games from being played by normal scumhunting techniques. If we don't try to game the system, it will impair scumhunting.Fate wrote:I think this plan is very creative. I think the whole point of "unique setups" is to find a different way to play an otherwise vanilla game of mafia.
So don't complain if you don't like the theme. I know you think you're not, but you are. We're not breaking the game, we're playing the game.McGriddle wrote:I signed up for a themed game...
Burn + 1Elscouta wrote:I'll burn tomorrow evening if the town (and not you, who i believe to be scum pushing for a buggy plan) wishes me to do so.
Fixed that for you.Elscouta wrote:I mean, especially as Iclaimed that CP manipulation actually existsfearmongered because you're going to out me as scum?
At least that was useful...AlmasterGM wrote: Actually, I was a one-shot vigilante. I have no further shots. I am now effectively VT.
Especially if we consider daykilling using CP.bv310 wrote:I've seen daykilling Mafia before, when town had a lot of strong PRs, so that can't be off the table either.
But scum shots will most definitely hit town. This is null.Fate wrote:Because he used his shot near randomly D1, and near random shots almost always hit town?
Might, might not. But we should not exclude that the mechanism isn't foolproof.Cobalt wrote:Wonder if scum has a mechanism to manipulate the town's CP pool.
Well, thats obv then. Elscouta is the lynch, and we proceed according to the flip.pops wrote:Now that everyone's posted, it's claimtime. I'm town commander, and I saw way too much CP in the pool last night.
Care to elaborate on this?popsofctown wrote:RTT, the possibility isn't even really worth playing with.
McGriddle wrote:I took your "It's claim time" as everyone claims.
Yeah, regardless of setup, I think fifi broke this game more than any setup could save.popsofctown wrote:Setups aren't broken beyond repair because you throw an extra cop on one side, and I definitely agree with Fate that crappy players had an equal part in ruining this game.