Hoopla
Yosarian2
NO CURRENT DEADLINE
ekiM wrote:Good morning. Seems like random voting with so few players could be quite risky. So how do we get this party started?
Eh...quick hammering isn't really a huge risk in this setup, especally since if a townie gets quick hammered they get a venge kill.Hoopla wrote:ekiM wrote:Good morning. Seems like random voting with so few players could be quite risky. So how do we get this party started?Speed-lynching favours scum, especially in this set-up.
If all town players vow not to quick hammer, it guarentees a lengthier day, and would heavily incriminate anyone who wanted to hammer early. That should only be scum.
Yosarian2 wrote: Eh...quick hammering isn't really a huge risk in this setup, especally since if a townie gets quick hammered they get a venge kill.
Scum will sometimes quick hammer anyway, though, to eliminate the risk of the gf being lynched day 1.
Anyway, I don't really think we need an especally "lengthy day"; I tend to think vengeful games should move quite quickly. Just figure out the scum, nail em, bam.
Eh? Why, just because of their theory discussion? I thought Hoopla actually sounded rather town-ish from that, even though I didn't entierly agree with her.semioldguy wrote:Voting is the best way to account for your suspicions. I don't like when people suggest alternatives to voting without being under special circumstances such as lylo. I don't consider this setup to be lylo on day one as there is the vengeance kill to negate the threat of that.
Vote: ekiM
FoS: Hoopla
You're reaching here. What is scummy about considering whether voting normally is safe or not?semioldguy wrote:Voting is the best way to account for your suspicions. I don't like when people suggest alternatives to voting without being under special circumstances such as lylo. I don't consider this setup to be lylo on day one as there is the vengeance kill to negate the threat of that.
Vote: ekiM
FoS: Hoopla
"Scum mistake". . . ?Far_Cry wrote:I forgot that this was Vengeful game, and random voted as I normal do. My normal strategy in Vengefuls is to not vote for reason.semioldguy wrote:What was your mistake?
God I just made a simple scum mistake.
Yosarian2 wrote:Obviously lynching a scum is significantly better then venge-killing one, yes.
I'm not sure about a strict "no-voting" rule like you're trying to set up. Obv we have to be careful about putting people at lynch -1, and shouldn't without a good reason; but votes are also where you get most of your information. Also, if town people aren't willing to vote agressivly, we probably won't lynch scum today; town people need to be the ones starting bandwagons and such if we're going to be sucessfull.
Scum putting a player at L-1 isn't really as big of an issue, because a town player is not likely to hammer this early knowing they would be the venge-kill and additionally that scum couldn't hammer because his vote is already on the L-1 player.Hoopla wrote:That's fine, I can settle with careful voting - but if there wasn't some theory discussion or talk of precautions early, there would be more room for excuses by scum to put a player at L-1. Having some semblance of town-understanding is a good thing. When the town attempts to define pro-town motives, it forces scum to heed them, or at least compromise. I doubt anyone will quickly hammer now, or sacrifice themself to gain a venge-kill.
semioldguy wrote: Scum putting a player at L-1 isn't really as big of an issue, because a town player is not likely to hammer this early knowing they would be the venge-kill and additionally that scum couldn't hammer because his vote is already on the L-1 player.
But if a townie puts another townie to L-1 scum can hammer. If they do this early enough then the hammerer gets shot and there isn't enough information to find their partner on D2.semioldguy wrote:Scum putting a player at L-1 isn't really as big of an issue, because a town player is not likely to hammer this early knowing they would be the venge-kill and additionally that scum couldn't hammer because his vote is already on the L-1 player.Hoopla wrote:That's fine, I can settle with careful voting - but if there wasn't some theory discussion or talk of precautions early, there would be more room for excuses by scum to put a player at L-1. Having some semblance of town-understanding is a good thing. When the town attempts to define pro-town motives, it forces scum to heed them, or at least compromise. I doubt anyone will quickly hammer now, or sacrifice themself to gain a venge-kill.
Eh, this setup is almost perfectly balanced, in my opinion, and I've played a LOT of vengeful games (although not on the forum).ekiM wrote: You're being quite blasé about this. This set-up already favors scum I believe, and it'll be worse if they're allowed a quicklynch.