890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!

[Faraday]

Random votes are a bad idea. And people should stop them. The fact that you can't "Unincant" means that it's dangerous to get a large amount of ingenuine votes going.

Not really. With the number of unincant's @ anywhere above 7 there's no real problem with it. And when it goes below this number like 21 days have passed so we should be deciding on a lynch by that time anyway.

My next thought is that we should all be careful to avoid interpreting "pro-town" behaviour as actually town, since all the scum are scum hunting genuinely as well.

No. Scum even in multi scum set-ups are still scum. having played multi-scum it's slightly easier to scum-hunt alright but you're still trying to push a scum agenda wherever possible so tells are still dropped. It does mean that pushing a lynch on scum doesn't mean town, but town tells shouldn't be dismissed.

I'm not FoSing Faraday or Dis because I believe that they were just trying the usual RVS.

My vote really wasn't random at all. I thought Snow_Bunny's fos was a load of BS.

So Datadanne, are you just somebody who reads everything or was that link in your inbox? Tempted to incant you right now...

What is this. Reading the first post isn't scummy.

[Faraday]

it might eventually create a double or even triple lynch.

Say what? My reading of the rules are that the point at which someone is lynched decreases every 3 days. So you need 12 incants for the first 3 days, 11 for the next 3 etc etc. So I don't know how you can get multiple lynches out of it?

If there was 2 people on 5 votes each at the end of that period where 6 incants are needed they'd both be lynched come the next period as far as I understand it.

If that makes sense.

[SerialClergyman]

Ah, true.

That's a little open to abuse, isn't it?

Couldn't we wait till a guardian finds an innocent then have him unvoted and have everyone else with 1 vote on them?

[Faraday]

That seems possible, actually. Though I can see a problem or 2 in practise, I think.

[Percy]

Percy: Can you confirm that there are four cultists in each cult? That's what your example cult text suggests

I cannot confirm the distribution of roles/skills in this game.

The number of cultists suggested in the example PMs may be deliberately misleading.

[Faraday]

Oh and yeah, 4/4 scum groups are stupidly unbalanced.

3/3 is possible I *guess* but less likely, and hella swingy. We're very likely looking @ 2/2. Seems the most balanced to me.

[Chaco]

Yeah, I'm gonna hop in and say Random Incants are not a good idea. As you could leave your vote on someone if you are gone. It could end up being a big mistake. That's if though.

Anyways, two sum teams of 4 is extraordinarily unbalanced. The win Ratio would be like:

45:45:10

The 10% being Town.

[Percy]

After brief pleasantries are exchanged, a council member stands. Their hands move in quick, controlled movements as the sacred prayer is uttered. At the culmination, they thrust their open hand out towards a seated member.

Another follows. The Ritual has truly begun. The solar insignias on their rainments blaze with light, and will not extinguish until the setting of the sun. One of you will not survive to see another dawn.

Incantation Count

Datadanne - 1 (DisCode)
Snow_Bunny - 1 (Faraday)

Not Incanting - 10 (Chaco, Datadanne, Deathsauce, Magua, mipe, Seacore, semioldguy, SerialClergyman, Snow_Bunny, startransmission)

The Ritual will take only 11 Incantations to complete at 6:00pm Sunday the 30th of November (site time).

[Seacore]

My vote really wasn't random at all. I thought Snow_Bunny's fos was a load of BS.

Then explain yourself when you vote. Voting without explanation is scummy.



Also, I didn't think we'd have 4 on each scum team, but given the example text for the cultists, I thought it was worth asking.
3/3/6 wouldn't be too bad. Scum need to hunt each other, the other scum team has a night kill that can slowly wipe them out.
The more scum there are on each team, the more they hunt each other, the less scum there are, the more they'll try to whittle our town numbers down.


Trusting Guardians is dumb, since cult can have guardians just as easily as us.
Basically, there is very little way of confirming somebody is town. Many of the town tells that you use will not work as well in this game. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, obviously we should, but I'm saying really think about it.

If you see somebody make a strong argument against somebody, lead a voting charge against them and they come up scum, in a normal game you're like "yeah, i feel better about this person now" but that means NOTHING in this game.

[SerialClergyman]

Incant Seacore

Setup over analysis.
Already discrediting town reads and possible power roles.
Deliberate obtuseness over scum team numbers.
Discouraging wagons.

My standard play on D1 is to look for players who I think are town and then vote anyone else almost at random. That occasionally gets put on hold when someone scummy comes along.

In almost record time, Seacore is that scummy person.

[Seacore]

Yeah, it's definitely dangerous to have a good hard think about how this game might be different to a standard mafia game.
It's poisonous indeed to clearly state my views so that if I then change my behaviour it's clear that I'm acting out of character.

Oh, I'm certainly scummy.

[Seacore]

Here's an example to prove my point.

Imagine on day 3 there are two bandwagons going.

One's on 7(Bob), one's on 5(Jane).

A Dreamwalker steps forward and says " No, don't incant Bob! He's innocent, I have seen it through the light of his dreams!" So everybody jumps off Bob, onto Jane, and Jane dies. Jane flips cultist.

My point is that "Scum tells" are our biggest desire. 'Town tells' do not help us, as 'town tells' usually describe a good scum hunter.
In a normal game, that would be strong evidence of this supposed Dreamwalker's innocence. In this game, it's just strong evidence that he's not on the same cult as Jane.

So we have two choices here. we can discuss these differences so we're prepared for them, or we can just treat this as a normal mafia set up, lose a bunch of town, and then go "hey, this doesn't work so well".

[Faraday]

My vote really wasn't random at all. I thought Snow_Bunny's fos was a load of BS.

Then explain yourself when you vote. Voting without explanation is scummy.

Why?

[Faraday]

Yeah, it's definitely dangerous to have a good hard think about how this game might be different to a standard mafia game.
It's poisonous indeed to clearly state my views so that if I then change my behaviour it's clear that I'm acting out of character.

Oh, I'm certainly scummy.

Don't like this.

[Seacore]

[quote=Fara]
Why?
[/quote]

Because it's important for town to understand your motivations so you can be held to account by them, rather than enable you to ascribe motivations to them later. Scum are revealed by their reasoning, so we need to see yours.

And what don't you like about my statement? Transparency of opinion is the crux of a good town game.

[Faraday]

Why?

Because it's important for town to understand your motivations so you can be held to account by them, rather than enable you to ascribe motivations to them later. Scum are revealed by their reasoning, so we need to see yours.

What about if I wanted to see how Sno_bunny reacted to my unexplained votes? Do you also not think it's possible to discenr if someone is making up stuff after their vote, as I certaintly do. Looking at unexplained votes being automatically scummy is bad. Everything has a use.

And what don't you like about my statement? Transparency of opinion is the crux of a good town game.

I don't like the way you brushed off the attack w/ sarcasm.

[Seacore]

Well I've already explained my thoughts on each of his points, but fine, I'll do it again.

Setup over analysis.

- I analyse a lot, I see no danger in having a good think about this game prior to heaps of people jumping in, particularly with RVS that is, in my opinion, dangerous.

Already discrediting town reads and possible power roles.

- Town reads are less reliable in this game, that's just a fact. Scum reads are fine though. Pointing out that power roles can belong to scum, and that they can't necessarily be trusted, how is that a scummy action?

Deliberate obtuseness over scum team numbers.

- Obtuseness? I read what was in the opening post and asked a question.

Discouraging wagons.

-RVS Bandwagons are bad because we can't easily get rid of our pool of incants. I'm fine with regular bandwagons, that's how this game works.

[Seacore]

Couldn't we wait till a guardian finds an innocent then have him unvoted and have everyone else with 1 vote on them?

I'm assuming you mean dreamwalker, not guardian?

Also.

This will never work because

a)We cannot confirm the dreamwalker is town aligned, or is, in fact, a dreamwalker
b)Assuming that everybody is sitting on 1 incant, except for our chosen one, at 1 minute to deadline all the cult change their votes and bam, several people potentially die, the cult then each do a night kill and it basically dissolves into a night action game of cult v cult.

The only way the town benefit from that is if the cults accidentally cancel out each other's votes with their last minute voting (i.e Darkness moves their votes to where shadow had them and vice versa) or they hit each other with their votes and enough town survive to the next day to throw some weight around the next day. Even then I'm not sure what would happen, the cult would be fairly easily identifiable, but it wouldn't be easy to multiple lynch them...

Anyway, I think it's a bad idea to do this.

[Chaco]

Actually the bottom is interesting, Seacore, if we are sure at times of 2. We can throw the weight in order to lynch two in a day by letting the incant number drop on the equal number of those two.

[Seacore]

Oh absolutely. A town engineered multilynch is a good idea towards the end of each day unless one person really stands out as guiltier than others.

Even if only one is a cultist, his cult buddies have to look on as he dies or do a last minute save which then makes both the saved player and the last minute incanter guilty. Even three is not a terrible idea as long as each of them has a reasonable scumminess about them. More than that is silly.

[Chaco]

Agreed. I like the idea of 2 confirmed to one suspicious as 3. That's the only way I'd do 3.

[Seacore]

Agreed. 3 is very risky and should only be used when people have been confirmed/ultra suspicious (i.e. they last minute voted the day before). If we are bad enough to get three town in one hit, we're fucked.

I believe I'm going to enjoy working with you, Brother Chaco.

[Chaco]

Agreed. 3 is very risky and should only be used when people have been confirmed/ultra suspicious (i.e. they last minute voted the day before). If we are bad enough to get three town in one hit, we're fucked.

I believe I'm going to enjoy working with you, Brother Chaco.

Agreed.

Also, just as a side hit @People who have already incanted. I do not think that was a good move in the slightest, and a No Lynch may not occur since you have done so. That can be considered scummy since, if you read the rules, you'd know the relation of the two.

A good practice in later days may be to withhold votes at first in case we are in need of a no lynch. Tenative idea though.

[Faraday]

Well I've already explained my thoughts on each of his points, but fine, I'll do it again.

Yeh and I'd have liked to have seen that the first time.

Chaco why would possibly ever want to NL the first day? I read the rules, and since a NL is a bad idea today, then obviously I had no real need to hold my vote.

[Chaco]

Chaco why would possibly ever want to NL the first day? I read the rules, and since a NL is a bad idea today, then obviously I had no real need to hold my vote.

Which is why I said for later days.