Open 316 - Hard Boiled (Day Two)
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
DarkFlashlight wrote:Hoopla, I think you've confused quite a few people. Were you intending for the massclaim to happen D1?
I believe there is a method claiming/organising actions that will yield the town a very strong chance of winning. I'm mostly inquiring about people's reservations because I know there would be some who think it would cheapen the game, even if it were favourable. Personally, the reason I joined this game was on the hope I was town, so I could try and break this game.
zMuffinMan wrote:Anyway, I figured I'd lay this idea out here as a basis for discussion, BUT I don't think it should actually happen until much later in the day.
This is true - I also want to get some information on the table first, so we're not just randomly picking a player to lynch from the pool of VT's.
~~
Mild town read on neil from his opening post - displays a lack of understanding that would be ignorant and reckless to post as scum. If he were scum who feared a massclaim plan, I'd expect a more calculated or rhetoric-based response to quell the idea, as opposed to nonsense.
Muffinman's post of laying down a massclaim plan, and investing effort in brainstorming the net value of such a plan indicates an eagerness to corner scum - an inherently town motivated action. If he were scum, he'd have had to have thought about the true consequences much longer, found a loophole or theory that gives scum decent chances of winning, and pass it off as a town-looking plan OR be game enough to make a big bluff and push scum into a suboptimal plan (for them) and try and ride off town points for being pro-plan. I think neither of those situations are as likely as Muffinman being town.
Mildly suspicious of swankidelic for his early attempts to shut down a massclaim idea. Could just be town not prepared/capable of understanding the benefits of a plan, or scum understanding the benefits and wanting out. Post 38 reads slightly artificially, in particular the language shaping the vote for Quilford.
Amrun's reluctance is understandable, given the knowledge she has of some of my scumplay. Luckily there are no numbers in this game!
~ Early days, I know, but this is how I'm seeing things so far.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Amrun wrote:Hoopla (and all) what do you think of littlegrey's vote shenanigams?
I am interested in hearing Hoopla's gamebreaking plan for evaluation.
zmuffin is on the right track as far as a plan goes. I can go into more detail when everyone has responded to the possibility of a massclaim/partial massclaim.
Looking back on LittleGrey, it is a little unusual to present an opinion in that manner, yet random-vote elsewhere. It could easily be interpreted as scum trying to tick boxes by appearing to have suspicions - you need to invent stances. Yet, upon the invention, he doesn't realise he needs to attack in that direction. If he were town, you'd expect him to be more deeply connected to his reads, as these reads would be genuine, thus improving the chances of him lining them purely due to them being believed, rather than invented.
That is a big leap in logic - it could just as easily be explained by him being careless. But it's noteworthy nonetheless.
~~
swankidelic wrote:You sound genuine in your desire to break the setup, though. I'm tempted to give up hopes of winning and follow through with your proposed experiment. In the end, I don't really have any metaknowledge of you, I simply don't trust you.
So, I sound genuine in my desire to break the set-up? Yet you simply don't trust me? That doesn't really match up - as "breaking the set-up" is something only town can do (something you believe I was genuine with).-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
swankidelic wrote:Let me put it this way, then: any towntell there might be in your interest in breaking the setup isn't enough to make me hand the reins over to you.
I don't know how you can come to the conclusion of "not wanting to hand the reins over to me", when you haven't even heard what I have to say. It sounds like you're preemptively positioning yourself to be against it no matter what, rather than waiting to evaluate it from a balanced perspective.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
This is an open game. What I propose can be fact-checked, critiqued, refined (or abandoned altogether if deemed suboptimal). There are no hidden roles or mechanics that can screw things over behind the scenes, with scum secretly maneuvering things in their direction, forcing town to place trust in certain people or roles. We have all the information - we can project, and we can work out how favourable a plan could/should be for each alignment.
Risk aversion isn't a valid out - if we deemed a plan to have an 80% chance of being successful, or a win if we can eliminate all but 1 or 2 of the VT-pool, then it is a viable play when compared to playing it straight, which is at best a 60% chance (probably closer to 40-50% since this set-up has gone 1 for 4 so far for town). You don't need to bet I'm not scum any more than you need to bet on every other player's alignment. We only have ~3 mislynches - we have to make a lot of bets on certain people being town throughout the game. That is just how it goes. However, I'm decently confident that a plan is workableeven ifI'm included as one of the deaths at some point.-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
DarkFlashlight wrote:Hoopla, you've been mighty discrete. I believe most if not everyone is willing to try your crazy strategy, but you seem to be keeping it underwraps. You even said that after you say it, we don't have to do it, so why are you so hesitant?
From a reads/information standpoint, I had a vested interest in hiding the strength and details of the plan. Slow-cooking it allows scum to get nervous, make stances prior to my plan, as opposed to me just dumping the plan in my first post and scum acting according to it's strength. I have some theories about how scum may have acted in the build-up, but I'll reveal my plan now.
~~
When designing an open game, the threat of a Day 1 massclaim being beneficial is always a factor you need to compensate for. Most set-ups prevent this strategy by having a high amount of VT's to minimise the ratio of unique roles to non-unique roles. By massclaiming in a game with a low ratio of unique roles, the scum have a big enough pool of VT's to hide within, and can eliminate the unique roles faster than the town can eliminate the pool of VT's. Another way for mods to prevent massclaim being a breaking strategy is by giving scum abilities that can manipulate other powers, or provide a set-up with slight uncertainty (ie; two possible set-ups, or certain roles possibly not existing, which gives scum fakeclaiming space). In this set-up, we have complete information - the only way for scum to fakeclaim is to set up a 50/50 between them and one of the power roles.
This set-up in particular has an unusually high amount of unique town power roles. This is what we want to capitalise on. The fact that the scum has no daytalk and is vanilla in every way makes crafting a plan even more viable. Essentially, we are trying to create a pool of confirmed town PR's and a pool of VT's/scum, and are racing scum to eliminate the VT pool faster than the PR pool.
Hang on, you say. If we're dividing the players into groups of 4 and 8 - how are we suupposed to whittle down that group quicker than the scum? This is where the vig comes into play. As opposed to having a kill cycle that operates like this; T/S/T/S, a vig changes it to T/T/S/T/T/S. The only problem here is that outing the vigilante Day 1 means we don't get to cash in on that cycle of improved town to scum kills - the scum can just kill off the vigilante N1. This is where zmuffin was on the right track. We keep the vigilante hidden from scum. However, I want to go one step further and keep it hidden from town too.
Having the Hider/Hider Tracker/Detective-Psychologist as the only claimers means we have a new problem to solve. We run the risk of running the vigilante up on D1, essentially outing it for the N1 kill, meaning we can't cash in on the improved kill cycle long-term. We also now create a fakeclaim option for scum - they can claim Vigilante D1 upon being wagoned to lynch. Although the real vig will kill this scum N1, we now don't get the chance of lynching scum D1. Coupled with potentially outing the real vig, we need to find a better way to organise the lynch, whilst still keeping the vig hidden. Here is how we do it;
After the three town PR's are claimed, we have scum locked in a pocket of 9 players. Voluntarily, four players (not the vig) will claim they are a VT and not the vig. And we only lynch from that pool of VT claimers. The vig then shoots from the pool of non VT claimers. This means that scum now has to choose which sub-pool to position themselves in. If they go all in the lynch pool, they essentially guarantee one of them being lynched today. If they all go in the vig pool, they essentially guarantee being vigged N1. The only rational play here is for scum to split 2 and 1 across the two groups.
This doesn't matter to the town, really. We're purely focused on our PR group outlasting the scum group. And we give ourselves a very good chance of doing so by hiding the vig. A false scum kill targeting a VT (if they attempt to hit the vig N1) all but loses the game for them, as that is a two-player swing. One VT gone, plus one PR still alive. Unless scum want to gamble on going for vig N1 (and losing if they're wrong) we force their hand into killing from the pool of PR's. Fortunately, we have a Hider, which we can use strategically to avoid scumkills and/or pinpoint scum. It's preferable in this instance, if the Hider DOESN'T die from hiding behind scum, as this gives scum a free PR kill, even if it does yield us scum the next day.
My plan for Night 1 entails the Hider flipping a coin between hiding/not hiding. If it hides, it is to hide behind our pool of claimed VT's, because we don't want it to hide behind the Vig - and it is likelier than the scum are divided 2:1 in the 5:4 pool respectively, making the VT pool a lower chance of dying. Now that I've said this, scum could easily tailor a plan to have two scum claim VT and nominate themselves for the lynch - in which case, I welcome it. We now have a 50/50 chance of lynching scum today, and the vig is even more well hidden, as there are more VT's in that group.
This should be enough margin for error to make shooting at the Hider a gamble too - if scum miss, they've just killed another VT falsely (or got no kill if going for the Hider), which is enough for us to lock down the game. Scum's only real NK options on N1 is to kill the Hider Tracker or the Det/Psych. Neither of these are net losses for town. We either get an investigation from the Det/Psych, or confirmation from the Hider Tracker on what the Hider did (this is handy if the Hider flips hide, and chooses to hide behind scum).
In most instances, we should wake up tomorrow with 9 alive. There is an outside chance of the Hider failing - if the Hider flips hide and hides behind scum, leaving us with 8 alive tomorrow. Even if that were to happen, we still have a 50/50 chance of the Hider Tracker being alive, netting us a guaranteed scum from that info. Really, we stand a strong chance of hitting scum Day 1/Night 1 as well, so if we wake up with 9 alive and one scum down, we're in a supremely advantageous position. I'll elaborate on what happens from D2 onward after I dump this plan. I just want to make sure everyone understands everything so far, as it is complex.
~~
Of course, to get into that position, we need to ensure that scum DON'T counterclaim one of our roles on Day 1. I think it is more beneficial for us in the long-run if they do, but I haven't thought this path through as deeply as I have the other. But locking themself into a 50/50 claim with a player means they cannot kill that powerrole without outing themself. It isn't viable for scum to counterclaim the Hider, as the Hider playing as an investigation role has a chance of dying on its own, proving the other player to be scum. It isn't viable for the scum to counterclaim the Hider Tracker, as the scum now has to fake results on what the Hider did - something scum cannot know. It's not viable (but the most viable of the three options) to claim Psych/Detective, as we can leave these two players alive until deeper in the game, knowing one is scum, forcing them to constantly produce results. We should get to a stage where scum cannot keep clearing/incriminating players.
As the Psych/Detective is the only rational counterclaim option for scum, we should have this role claim first WITHOUT the other roles claiming. If no scum counterclaims, great. We can move onto the massclaim idea. If scum does, and we have two Psych/Detective claims, we still have the Hider/Hider Tracker/Vigilante hidden and we've forced scum into going into a 50/50 for no gain. The beauty of that situation is that scum cannot kill the Det/Psych, meaning we can generate results for free and take the 50/50 chance later in the game when we get results either way. Surely by then, we should be good enough as a town to work out which player is likely the liar. I also have some ideas on how to play it so we protect the vig if scum choose this path, but I'll let you all read this post before I continue.
Sorry for the giant wall.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
zMuffinMan wrote:Also, this circumvents the issue I had with your plan (that all 3 scum could hide in the possible-vig pool and aim the vig tonight) because we'd be building a pool of confirmed townies outside of the possible-vig pool.
If scum were to all hide in the vig pool, we still get one vig-shot from it, have a 50/50 chance of scum missing, and guarantee that the Hider doesn't die when it hides within the VT pool. Since we are in even numbers we either want one death at night or three to maximise our chances at winning. One death at night is free. Two deaths costs us a mislynch, whilst we get three night deaths for the cost of one mislynch. We should be aiming for three vigilante kills - we can't get that with a Hider death.
If the scum decide to all hide within the vig-pool, they're signalling their intentions that that's where they are hiding. They are not going to shoot there if they have a 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 chance of being right - as they lose the game in almost all situations where they miss. If they have a 1 in 2 chance at hitting the vig, they could take it, but once the Hider and Hider Tracker claim an innocent target, we'll have probably had one scum vigged and one player in the VT's cleared - it isn't a viable strategy for scum.
Hider claiming target prior to the Night is dim. We give the scum two free kills and get no information from the Hider. The Hider should claim a pool of players (ie; the VT pool) and hide behind whoever it thinks is the towniest player (if we're ruling out not-hiding as an option).-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
zMuffinMan wrote:
This would be optimal for town.
Hider/townie dying while the vig takes a shot, the det-psych gets a check and the HT is a confirmed townie alive D2? I'll take that.
Absolute worst case scenario, we'd be down to 8 people with 3 scum still alive, 2 confirmed townies, 1 vig who could claim D2, and we'd be in a really, really good position to win the game.
I'm not sure if it would. Two vig kills, one Hider death isn't bad. But it pales in comparison to three vig kills, because that is nearly enough brute on it's own to win the game. We should use the other PR's as bait to take the NK away from the vig.
Of the three town-aligned night kills we're awarded, any three of those kills can be scum if the vig uses them all. In a situation with two vig kills and one Hider-related death, the cap is reduced to two. One of those three kills has to be town from the outset. In the situation where the Hider/Townie dies, that is obviously suboptimal when you compare it to allowing the scum to kill the Hider for free and the vig taking a shot at a VT. As the Vig has a chance of a scum death - the Hider doesn't. Are you following me?-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
It's not a bad thing, it's just less optimal.
The thing with 12 player games is, they're bound by the typical metric of three mislynches to lose, three correct lynches to win. Being in even numbers, you need to no-lynch at some point. An alternate method to no-lynching is by having a vig-kill. You still get three mislynches, but you get a vig kill for free. Say that vig used its kill on Night 1 - great! We just got that kill for free, without being at the expense of the town losing a mislynch. However, if it were to kill again on Night 2, we wouldn't get three mislynches. The vigilante is cutting into that supply by taking a second kill and putting us back on even numbers. We now get two mislynches and two vig-kills, which many would argue is less desirable than three mislynches and one vig-kill. If the cycle continued once more (the vig is still alive and able to have a third shot), the town attains two mislynches and three vig kills, which is obviously more desirable than the first two options, as they only allow four town aligned lynches/kills throughout the game.
In the worst case scenario where we mislynch twice and misvig three times - we lose the game. The only way this happens is if those five kills are on all five of the VT's, which is extremely unlikely. If we lynch scum D1 or D2 without hitting scum at night, our second available mislynch is still in tact on D3 enabling us a third vig kill that night. If we kill scum N1 or N2, and don't hit scum during the day, we gain a third available mislynch for Day 3, enabling another vig kill that night.
Our whole strategy should be predicated on netting the town five possible wrong guesses. We can do that with two mislynches/three misvigs or three mislynches/two misvigs. But the only way we can attain the magical five shots is if the Hider doesn't take one of the kills. The Hider dying costs us a mislynch or a misvig. That Hider death isn't worth losing an extra shot at hitting scum with our vig, because in most situations where a Hider/Townie dies, that's a guaranteed town death for the cost of a mislynch/misvig. That isn't worth it.
All we need to do to get five shots is protect the vig until Night 3 and be correct at least once in our first four shots (D1 lynch, N1 vig kill, D2 lynch, N2 vig). In every other situation with the Hider dying, we only get four.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Amrun wrote:No, because a confirmed clear will go a hell of a long way.
The reward of gaining a confirmed innocent isn't worth the risk of cutting into our total mislynch/misvigs. I'll explain;
In a situation where we don't use the Hider at all (other than being bait), and use the vig to get us three NK's - the only way we lose is if scum take a risk and go for the vig (and succeed), or if we're wrong four times in a row (D1/N1/D2/N2) before hitting scum. We essentially need to nailallthe townies and leave the the last scum alive. If we get down to the last scum, that scum player needs to outlive EVERY other townie in the game (it should come down to a 2:1 with a confirmed PR at worst). This means we have to gamble on one alignment of a player in the game. What is the point of gambling with the Hider straight up, than in a 50/50 in lylo? We might not even get to that stage where we need to gamble on someone's alignment. Doing it earlier in the game with less information is suboptimal, and doesn't really reap any benefits. It only has risk.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
zMuffinMan wrote:@Hoopla,
One last thought. Your objection to the Hider claiming who he would hide behind is that scum would be able to take out the VT he hides behind and we'd have one less mislynch/misvig available, right? But if scum take out one of the potential mislynch/misvigs anyway, is this really a problem?
My analysis factored in the scum nightkill. They only get to kill one player each night. The Hider taking a player with it at night is the additional kill messing up the cycle. We don't want that extra kill.
We should essentially be treating the Hider/Hider Tracker/Det-Psych as named townies, and disregard their abilities.
Amrun wrote:But losing the utiliiity of the hider and ht also doesn't seem good. :/
This is tempting logic to follow, and using the Hider as NK bait to protect the vig could even feel counter-intuitive to some, but the plan is sound. I think all you need to do is look at the last two Hard Boiled games to see how the PR's in this setup can go wrong. Securing a stable, predictable amount of benefit from the PR's we have (in this instance, using them as NK bait to protect the vig) is a superior option to the boom/bust nature of unplanned/unclaimed actions.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
neil1113 wrote:Again, I really don't like the idea of the plan. Dark explained why a little better then I did. It's a good plan, but not a sound one. And with one lucky shot, our vig could wind up dying night 1. Then what Hoopla? Also, what if the vig doesn't exactly know of the pool of people who to vig? Just take a lucky guess and cross your fingers?
We have two pools - 9 players in the non-PR pool, and 3 players in the claimed PR pool. For all intensive purposes, those three claimed PR's are confirmed town if nobody counterclaimed. It is like a 3-player open masonry. This is an especially threatening prospect for scum, because if they don't get rid of this "masonry" quicker than we can pare down the other pool, then we win - this is the whole premise behind the Friends and Enemies setup. If scum attempt to shoot the vig, it will lose them the game if they miss. They missed an opportunity to remove one of our 3 PR's,andhelped further town's goal by minimising our pool, which is all we need. We essentially force them to play our game unless they want to gamble.
Having said all of that, it might be more efficient to keep the vig pool slightly larger so scum have less idea about who the vig is. 6 in the vig pool and 3 in the lynch pool (for D1 at least) seems wiser.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
neil1113 wrote:Amrun, I didn't say the vig wouldn't know which pool to vig from. I said what if the vig doesn't have a clear choice, out of the people in the pool to vig? Does he just make a random shot, and cross his fingers?
Sure. Or we can nominate players from the vig-pool who would make better options, and the vig can go off that advice.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
zMuffinMan wrote:
Hoopla wrote:The Hider taking a player with it at night is the additional kill messing up the cycle. We don't want that extra kill.
This I disagree with, because if scum are taking out one of the VTs, it means we don't actually need the additional kill in the cycle. I want to run through some scenarios and think about this before I say anything else.
It's not scum taking out the VT. The scum only get one kill each night. If they choose to nightkill the Hider, that's all they get. The Hider electing to hide behind a player is what is causing the extra death. The scum still kill their PR, but the other death is guaranteed. It also runs the risk of the Hider claiming to hide behind a scum, and the mafia killing another PR - meaning we lose two in one night. Yes, we get a scum lynch the next day, but the scum have all our PR's dead by N2 (except the vig).
Both plans are railroaded to get four chances of being wronginitially, but once one scum is down, we get two more chances to be wrong under my plan before we need the next one dead, as opposed to one. That's because using the three nightkills as all possible vig scum kills is better than using the three nightkills for two vigs and one Hider-related death, as the Hider related death guarantees a town player's death regardless (and the possibility of a PR). They look similarly beneficial when you project to Day 2, but it is less optimal the deeper you go into the game.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
zMuffinMan wrote:You're right that if we do hit scum in your scenario, we have a bit more leeway, but the chance of hitting scum by D3 in my scenario is also much higher. Which is why I want to think about it first.
That's valid - it has a slight benefit for the short-term, but is worse in the long. I think if we aren't able to hit 1 scum from 4 tries with 3/8, 3/7, 3/6, 3/5 odds we deserve to lose. I don't see how we wouldn't hit scum at least once with those odds - especially when you factor in reads.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
zMuffinMan wrote:I don't think it's as simple as looking at odds and 'reads'. You're discounting how scum would interact based on knowing a mass claim is likely at this point, and knowing they may have to bus their scum buddies. An example of this is you; I assume if you're a VT, you'll be nominating yourself for the non-vig pool, right?
It absolutely is. Playing independent of a coherent plan is just as much leaving it to chance, if not more (I believe a lot more). Playing the game out normally, we have to gamble on some players being town throughout the game - we cannot kill everyone. I've devised a plan that enables us to kill more than usual and guarantees a set, predictable return from the power roles, as opposed to leaving it to chance that they don't kill each other.
If I'm a VT, I'm not sure what I would nominate myself for. I don't think I need to commit to any stance right now.
zMuffinMan wrote:Not to mention if you are scum, your buddies probably knew you'd be doing this, and any reads based on the game so far aren't really reliable.
If I'm scum, I wouldn't lock us into a suboptimal play. I believe this game is scum-sided when played straight, and breakable for town when a plan is formed. That is why I chose to pick this game - because I had good odds either way regardless of what role I was given. I just wouldn't have organised a plan if I were scum.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Amrun wrote:No, 3/6 split is better. It almost guarantees scum in both pools.
I'm starting to come around to the belief that 3/6 is more beneficial since the Hider isn't doing anything. It means even if scum all hide within the no-claim/vig pool, they've only narrowed the vig down to a 1/3 chance. If scum want to take that 1/3 chance of hitting the vig, I welcome it, because a miss all but guarantees a town win, as they've just closed down our pool without closing down the other PR's.
It also means that they have a 3/5 chance of being vigged, unless they want to give us a 1/3 chance of lynching them today, which I expect is their "safest" option.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
glowball wrote:I think there is a point. For one thing I would feel better about participating if this was the brainchild of a townie
But we can't continue with the plan if we lynch myself or anyone else in a normal manner, as the game conditions will have changed (read: more people will be dead). The whole plan is predicated on hiding the vig so we can maximise the amount of town-aligned kills in the game, and we run a severe risk of not getting it by playing it straight.
By lynching normally Day 1, we're essentially throwing the plan away. This is an open setup. There are no hidden roles that can manipulate a potential plan. The plan stands alone, and can be evaluated from an objective level - that's the beauty of it. We need everyone on board for it to operate efficiently, though.
~~
The plan itself isn't making the game unplayable. On the contrary, we need to be lynching and vigging based on reads. The plan is merely framework - an alternate lynching/vigging scheme. The fundamentals of the game don't change. We still lynch the scummiest players (of the players nominated), and then vig the scummiest players (of the players nominated).-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I'm interested.
And I've been interested in what others have had to say too, which is why the plan has evolved to its current state. It's been mostly accepted, but refined based on peer review. The reason the plan was decided upon was because most embraced it, deeming it a better chance of producing a town win than playing it straight, and of those who disliked it, they didn't provide reasons why. We can't abandon something most of us want if there is no rational reason why.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
LittleGrey wrote:I'm interested in the plan, but what if the person who is det/psy happens to be away(like me) for a while and they lose their chance to roleclaim and scum end up taking it? Then scum could be pretending to be a PR and everyone would be believing them?
This is why we wait and get everyone to claim Det-Psych/Not Det-Psych. It shouldn't take more than a day or two. If anyone in this game is only onsite and prepared to post once every two or three days, they probably shouldn't be playing...-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
One player isn't going to hold the town hostage to play the game her way, when the whole town wants to play by a plan. This is just giving scum an easy out, when a plan has cornered them. I'm not suggesting glowball is necessarily scum, but she is making it easier for them.
This is kind of getting ridiculous. Glowball, unless you can pick faults with the plan as to why it's less likely to yield a town win than normal, you're going to have to comply. Saying no for the sake of saying no, when the plan requires EVERYONE on board is just foolish. You shouldn't get to have your way if you're not going to do a thing to prove it is better.
~~
We should start to do the Det-Psych/Not Det-Psych claims once everyone is ready.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
The vig cannot die by a "random NK". By hiding the vig in a pool of non-confirmed players, we essentially assure it can't be lynched without exposing who it is to scum. If we have three PR's out in the open, scum NEED to kill those players, because if they shoot for the vig and miss, they lose the game because we can close down the VT/non claimers quicker than they can close down the PR's we have claimed, thus equaling a town win.
This means it's a REAL risk if scum go for the vig, as them missing loses them the game. And when they have at best, a 1/3 or 1/4 chance of hitting it tonight, there is no rational way they make that play if missing equals losing. This means, scum are forced to shoot at one of the PR's, giving the vig a free shot tonight and tomorrow (and likely the next night too). Which is exactly what we want, because it supremely benefits town, as it gives us extra chances of hitting scum via the method of killing MORE players.
The more players the town gets to kill in the game, the better chance we have of hitting all the scum. You cannot argue that the town has a better chance of winning if we have three mislynches available, than if we have three mislynches and two/three misvigs available.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I'm concerned about outing all the PR's except the vig. This is what gives the vig protection (we're baiting scum away from it), prevents scum from fakeclaiming deeper in the game (where a 50/50 situation is less damaging to a scumteam), enables an open masonry/town voting bloc, and prevents any of our PR's having the vig kill wasted on them, and instead gives us extra kill(s).-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
zMuffinMan wrote:Hold on.
Lots of stuff, I have briefly skimmed, but I'm considering Quilford's idea. It is a nice touch, and counter-claims still aren't an issue if we do this (if we have more than 3 people claiming PR, we can go through and deal with CCs). Plus it makes it harder for scum to decide on their NK.
I think it makes it easier for scum to counterclaim, as they can choose to claim to be a PR based on the strength/scuminess of the actual PR claimers. They don't get to analyse this as much if we do it one at a time.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Amrun wrote:But then if we get 4 PR claimers, we can choose a popcorn of who says their role.
Alright, I guess we can do it this way. If we get no counterclaimers, it means we're in a better position than before as scum has less info on our roles. I think it might slightly raise the chance of a CC as they stand to lose a bit more, but I still think that isn't a viable choice for scum either way.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
zMuffinMan wrote:@Hoopla,
What Amrun said. Minus popcorn.
We deal with proper claims if, and only if, there are more than 3 people claiming PR. In this case, we do det-psych claim/s first, HT claims second and hider claims third, within the group of people claiming PRs.
Yeah. I'm down.
We'll do it like "PR" or "not PR" - obviously the vig claims to not be a PR.
Should we popcorn for this initial sequence of claims, or get a list from scummiest to towniest going?-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
glowball wrote:Is it possible that the three holding up the claiming are scum? I mean none of them were on my scumdar but they have all been online since we started claiming and for them to overlook this thread is kind of hard to believe especially for Swank because he was contributing quite a bit.
I don't think that's realistic - the plan is going through regardless. Stalling and making themselves the ones responsible for the hold up isn't really a viable scum-strategy.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008