Oh, hey, this ended. Good job guys. I thought it was Arkasas, since he was pushing the theory that the final wolf was outside the group who knew the seer, but I guess I was wrong. Just curious, why the oyoyoy lynch? That one didn't make sense to me.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Have you strayed from the pack, Cliges? Been experimenting outside the family?
Those Other Forums can go to hell, and Ted Chaough can fly them there.
Interesting. I didn't know that majority refers only to absolute majority in English.
The wording of the rule is unambigious, anyway.
nice win, by lucky scans from unlucky seer..
IIRC, the RL variants work that way. Bad idea for a forum, considering the variable deadline.
Well said! We had this debate before, the community was fairly split, but I always agreed with what you say. It is far better for the game, disregarding everything else, for less active players to be lynched over more active players, when there's no other deciding evidence.
The first one was luck. I mean, I have a focused strategy to keep the voting as close as possible on the first day, but that's about it. I certainly had no suspicions about anyone at that point. While I did help get a wolf, I'm not sure that deserves much congratulation. I was quite proud of the double-lynch, I must admit, although it was Wagonlitz who pulled the trigger and he deserves equal credit. And while I did conclude aedan was the wolf, I was weak. I changed at the last minute based on nothing but a gut feeling for the same reason I have been wrong before. From now on, I, Marty, will never ever move off someone because I don't think a wolf in their position would play on, if the voting record indicates otherwise. In fact the same player, aedan, has done this to me before. I don't blame him, I blame myself for falling into way of thinking.
Lastly, thank you for being so gracious, considering it was me that killed you. I apologise for that, but I think you don't seem to value wins as much as playing an enjoyable game, which I commend. I look forward to playing with you more in future.
One last brag on my part (I'm an arrogant bastard, I know) it was my idea to send that pm. Ironically, if I didn't do that, Aedan would probably still have been the best candidate and we may have lynched him on his own, but I think it well and truly ruined the wolves' chances of winning. In future games I think this should probably be the standard response used - villagers have had problems with these types of outings before, quit a lot. This means that seers should probably not send information to untrusted players unless they have at least two wolves, like leksu did, or maybe if there are only two wolves left and the seer has one name.
Yep. This game wasn't impossible for them to win, but it wasn't far off it. Sometimes you just don't have the luck in these games.
But Cliges was right here. Most online Mafia forums play that way, at least I think the biggest one, MafiaScum, does. In some games, anyway, there are lots of different rule-sets.
I have? I don't recall, since virtually all my wolf games occurred after you left.
Actually, I think the risk-minimizing strategy in this case is for the seer to send his outing PM to exactly two unscanned people. There's no more than one wolf in the group, and the two goodies can't both be killed that day. Your method threw an extra person in there, giving one more person who might know the seer and also removing one additional person from the pool the wolves could choose from (if the last wolf wasn't one of the outing recipients). But yes, it was definitely correct to make sure Arkasas wasn't the only person with the seer's name.
No, but I had a glance at a few back when we sent representatives to the World Championships.
Spot on! I only value wins if I have played a meaningful part in achieving them.
Will there be a new game soon?
Oy
That is a good idea - but you're talking about a different, albeit closely related, concept here.
I'm talking about what a villager should do if he receives a pm from a seer claimant. First, he does not know if the claimant is real, hence the whole necessity of the strategy. Secondly, while the seer, if he is real, should do as you suggested, he might not and if he doesn't then the lone recipient still has to take action. You're talking about how a seer should out someone without a scanned villager to do so.
I meant who he scanned first, me or snoop.
And thanks to EURO for hosting the game!
I scanned Snoopdogg first.
Snoopdogg made the choice not to hunt you on the first night. And that is how you repay him.
Snoopdogg made the choice not to hunt you on the first night. And that is how you repay him.
Mercy is a sign of weakness.
There are different interpretations about it, sure. Unless GM says otherwise (like in this it does regarding lynch victims), I consider people dead when update is posted and the names are revealed. And since in this it was outing, there was no way Arkasas would have been lynched so I don't see any problems with him posting a PM after deadline has passed. Mind you, when I wrote about it I really considered rather ideal situation where final vote count appears within minute or two from the deadline and the update very shortly afterwards, so the PM posting wouldn't naturally have half the night. Some GMs have even sent scan results to seer before updating the nightly activity and JL has been able to discuss the new info even if the seer was hunted that night. If GM is out of town for half the day... well, then the GM should get GM sub.
And I can't agree more re: active/passive players getting lynched. Quality of game suffers immensely if players promote zombieism.
edit: new Lite up here.
Last edited: