I'm not sure how much Rhand's idea helps, but it certainly won't make it easier for scum to hide. I'm down for proceeding that way if others want, I can't see a detriment to us and we may gain something from it.
I don't think there is any way to not hide in the drunk pile. Also you are forgetting if someone targets a mafia member and they claim that they targeted someone else making them look like a drunk as well. So it is very possible that we could have a total of 6 drunks show up. This is only if everyone targeted a different person.
I vote we go ahead with the claim because I see no way to eliminate these possibilities.
the more I think about it the more difficult I think breaking the game actually is.
anyway. I still don't want to claim (yet). because I think breaking the game and just catching scum will be harder we need to lean on behavior. so let's do that first, then come back to the claims later.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
No one actually thinks we are going to break the game.
This will simply have more accurate results, while not allowing the scum to hide.
@Rhand: You are also allowing the scum time to craft targets. Locking them into a target's actions seems alright, but my gut instinct says that it simply gives them more time to solidify their arguments. For instance, say scum me poisoned Megs because I hate him, and I see all the results and the one person that targeted me and claimed I targeted Rhand. I could then immeditately lie and say I targeted another player, where as in my method, I would either claim to have targeted megs, or claim I targeted someone else, but I would have to do that before anyone else claims to have tracked me. It is much easier to catch a liar by full claiming target immediately, and results as one, then moving on to the next person.
yeh we do have to massclaim.
I have got an idea: what if we randomly all claim who our target targetted, but not who our target was at first and then do another round claiming our targets?
That locks scum at least partially in a claim before getting help on what to claim.
I think the inverse of this idea might be better, claim only who you targeted, then once we've all claimed we can start lining up the results to see who's drunk and who's not. If more than 2 drunks show up we then have a specific pool of players to work with in which scum is hiding. Xyre did say drunks still have a chance that their random result will actually be the correct result, but with the maximum number of players in the game the odds are better that they'll get a false result today, as the player pool narrows the odds increase that they might get the correct result.
I actually really like this idea. I agree with DotArchon. Claim Who, then claim who they targeted. Furthermore, I would say that we then possible Re-Random the claim order for the target order, which make it even harder for the mafia to fake results.
I actually really like this idea. I agree with DotArchon. Claim Who we target, then claim who they targeted. Furthermore, I would say that we then possibly Re-Random the claim order for the target order, which make it even harder for the mafia to fake results.
there's a reason why i wanted results first and then targets. if you do targets first, then scum can already make their whole claim (i.e they see me claim targetting X, so they know they can claim that without danger)
If we claim results only (i.e my target targetted TCM), then they know nothing and have to use a guess as the first part of the claim.
there's a reason why i wanted results first and then targets. if you do targets first, then scum can already make their whole claim (i.e they see me claim targetting X, so they know they can claim that without danger)
If we claim results only (i.e my target targetted TCM), then they know nothing and have to use a guess as the first part of the claim.
What your not taking into account is what happens if no one claims the person I originally targeted? Taking my original example, no one says their target targeted Megs. You just gave me the ability to make a drunk tracker look truthful by claiming I targeted literally anyone else, and make it appear that that person was correct (this is a gamble not guarenteed). But what does locking me into saying Megs targetd player X do for the town in this situation? I might get locked into being a sober tracker, or I might be able to screw with the town big time. My method, scum have to be truthful, or risk getting blown out by someone who hasn't claimed yet.
You are giving them more flexibility, rather than less.
there's a reason why i wanted results first and then targets. if you do targets first, then scum can already make their whole claim (i.e they see me claim targetting X, so they know they can claim that without danger)
If we claim results only (i.e my target targetted TCM), then they know nothing and have to use a guess as the first part of the claim.
What your not taking into account is what happens if no one claims the person I originally targeted? Taking my original example, no one says their target targeted Megs. You just gave me the ability to make a drunk tracker look truthful by claiming I targeted literally anyone else, and make it appear that that person was correct (this is a gamble not guarenteed). But what does locking me into saying Megs targetd player X do for the town in this situation? I might get locked into being a sober tracker, or I might be able to screw with the town big time. My method, scum have to be truthful, or risk getting blown out by someone who hasn't claimed yet.
You are giving them more flexibility, rather than less.
I had to read this 3 times before I understood what you meant.
Don't forget that you've already claimed your target's target in that scenario, so options for abusing that will be very limited, if there are any at all. And round 2 will be random as well.
It's not going to matter which of the 3 options we use, it all comes down to where in the list the scum make their claims. If either of them (or both) end up at the end of the claims list then they can tailor their claims accordingly.
Fine by me, I was just about to ask if we can pause on the claims. I think I've figured out how we can solve this. Bear with me:
Right now we have no idea who targeted who (outside of me and Megiddo) and should hold the information back until toMorrow. If we can agree on a tracking order to ensure that there are no overlaps we can start tracking down the drunks and the scum. For example:
We vote for a no lynch today so we only lose one townie (if the scum poisoned anyone last night). When Day 2 begins anyone who got a different result from the track order claims it, this will narrow us down to between 2 and 4 drunk trackers. We can then use our Night 0 results to figure out A) who targeted the poisoned player and B) who of the drunks got potential false results on Night 0.
For example(assume I haven't revealed my track yet):
I tracked Megiddo, who targeted GJ. On day 2 I tracked GJ, but get a result that he targeted someone other than his intended target. I claim this and then ask Megiddo to confirm whether or not he targeted GJ on Night 0. If he didn't, I must be a drunk. If he did, GJ must then be scum.
With a no lynch vote today we go to 6 players left with three to lynch. With so few players in the game we can only afford 1, maybe 2 mislynches at most, and what I'm proposing should help cut down on the odds of a mislynch occurring. Thoughts?
What you and DV seem to be missing is that by no-lynching today, if the scum did poison (I don't see why they wouldn't), we are essentially in mislynch or lose tomorrow. That's the problem with the no-lynch strategy.
I wanted the chance to put my proposal forward so it can be discussed. Thing is, if we mislynch toDay we end up in the same boat. Even if we don't vote for a no lynch, I still think we should all agree to a tracking order. It ptevents anyone from overlapping on a player and leaving another untracked. If we are going to lynch today, then Megiddo needs to make his claim and continue the process.
i mean yes but lynching Today is the same math, no?
6 alive tomorrow -> one dies... if we mislych that's 2v2 and we lose.
5 alive Tomorrow -> one dies... we also have to lynch correctly or we lose.
we only get one mislynch, and mislynching means we cannot no lynch ever.
we can also double NL in place of a mislynch.
no matter what we do we have to hit scum by Day 3 at the latest.
check my math, at the gym and not really thinking about this hard.
Your math is correct. The difference is that the town get to decide two lynched rather than one. We actually lose a lynch by no lynching unless we no lynch twice.
Well right now you're top of the list for me. Insisting on going last in the claim order/refusing to share your tracking info with the town, especially since the math you did proves we need to hit scum day 1 if we want to win this, day 2 at the latest. And instead of answering my question about if you'd refuse to claim you call me scum without saying why.
Axel going into the day complaining about day 1 massclaiming (which 99% of the time, I agree with) in a game where we know every role just stikes me as filler. Rhand's speculation on the game reminds me of Amyrlin Seat, so I would call him town.
Dota's balking on Megs is bothersome, as is Bur's dislike of randomness.
You guys are also forgetting the randomness that we miss lynch the poison target which plays to our favor. And if it is a miss lynch than today we have a 1/5 chance of doing so.
Half of Megs screams town to me half screams mafia.
Bur is sort of lurky to me and in a game like this that screams mafia to me.
I have some other info, but I'll keep that to my chest until claims.
@Bur: When we have results, and know what each player's role is. I don't see a reason to ever bother with an RVS. I agree with mass claiming day one, and I believe we should do it in a random order. I want everyone to agree before determining that.
Excuse me? Massclaiming in random order?
Why do think that randomizing the massclaim order instead of just like... forcing scummy people claim first and towny people claim last?
@ Megs, You are trying to derail the best plan for the town. Either out of concern or because you are trying to hurt the town. I can't think of any reason for us not to claim the information its quite clearly the only way for us to win this game.
Except for the part where you decided to hold up claiming, but I guess that's less you being against claiming and more you not yet wanting to claim. Not sure that's any better though really. Personally I would like to see Megs claim next, partly because of not when you could have, and partly because of the posts where you ask everyone who the scum are. That's about the best form of active lurking I can think of, it portrays you as helpful without committing you to anything at all. It's not like we all forgot that we need to be hunting for scum, so what's the point of that post?
I hadn't though of the possibility of us lynching the poison target, that further solidifies the fact that we need to avoid no lynching at least today.
I'm still not sure if the method by which we claim is critically important, scum are kind of forced into how they claim by virtue of numbers. Assuming they poisoned someone, one has a legit track, and one is essentially a drunk. Now they both could claim drunks, but that's okay because then all the legit tracks we can confirm are town. So, one claims legit, one claims drunk, and we have a group of drunk claims and legit claims, each containing one scum. Or the drunk scum guesses a legit track, and there are five legit tracks, confirming the two drunks as town.
Feel free to tell me I'm an idiot if I missed something, but our methods don't matter as much because there are only so many possible outcomes. Just at this point we need to claim to get the information out there so we can parse it.
Well the thing is that if they both have to hide in the drunk pile because of this, we have an easier POE job.
I vote we go ahead with the claim because I see no way to eliminate these possibilities.
anyway. I still don't want to claim (yet). because I think breaking the game and just catching scum will be harder we need to lean on behavior. so let's do that first, then come back to the claims later.
This will simply have more accurate results, while not allowing the scum to hide.
@Rhand: You are also allowing the scum time to craft targets. Locking them into a target's actions seems alright, but my gut instinct says that it simply gives them more time to solidify their arguments. For instance, say scum me poisoned Megs because I hate him, and I see all the results and the one person that targeted me and claimed I targeted Rhand. I could then immeditately lie and say I targeted another player, where as in my method, I would either claim to have targeted megs, or claim I targeted someone else, but I would have to do that before anyone else claims to have tracked me. It is much easier to catch a liar by full claiming target immediately, and results as one, then moving on to the next person.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Megiddo, why did you insist that you go last? If your name had come up first with GJ's dice throw would you have refused to claim?
I actually really like this idea. I agree with DotArchon. Claim Who we target, then claim who they targeted. Furthermore, I would say that we then possibly Re-Random the claim order for the target order, which make it even harder for the mafia to fake results.
If we claim results only (i.e my target targetted TCM), then they know nothing and have to use a guess as the first part of the claim.
What your not taking into account is what happens if no one claims the person I originally targeted? Taking my original example, no one says their target targeted Megs. You just gave me the ability to make a drunk tracker look truthful by claiming I targeted literally anyone else, and make it appear that that person was correct (this is a gamble not guarenteed). But what does locking me into saying Megs targetd player X do for the town in this situation? I might get locked into being a sober tracker, or I might be able to screw with the town big time. My method, scum have to be truthful, or risk getting blown out by someone who hasn't claimed yet.
You are giving them more flexibility, rather than less.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I had to read this 3 times before I understood what you meant.
Don't forget that you've already claimed your target's target in that scenario, so options for abusing that will be very limited, if there are any at all. And round 2 will be random as well.
I tracked Megiddo, who targeted Gentleman Johnny.
Oops. Guess I must have misunderstood my role pm. Hang on, I'll check again. Nope, it says town. Sorry to disappoint you.
Megs goes next. Confirms or denies, then lists his track.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The GJ way path to no lynching:
and when did we agree to start claiming?
I'm going to hold up the line just to be a jerk.
Right now we have no idea who targeted who (outside of me and Megiddo) and should hold the information back until toMorrow. If we can agree on a tracking order to ensure that there are no overlaps we can start tracking down the drunks and the scum. For example:
1. Anaklusmos tracks Bur
2. Bur tracks Deaths_Vampire
3. Deaths_Vampire tracks DoTArchon
4. DoTArchon tracks Gentleman Johnny
5. Gentleman Johnny tracks Megiddo
6. Megiddo tracks Rhand
7. Rhand tracks Anaklusmos
We vote for a no lynch today so we only lose one townie (if the scum poisoned anyone last night). When Day 2 begins anyone who got a different result from the track order claims it, this will narrow us down to between 2 and 4 drunk trackers. We can then use our Night 0 results to figure out A) who targeted the poisoned player and B) who of the drunks got potential false results on Night 0.
For example(assume I haven't revealed my track yet):
I tracked Megiddo, who targeted GJ. On day 2 I tracked GJ, but get a result that he targeted someone other than his intended target. I claim this and then ask Megiddo to confirm whether or not he targeted GJ on Night 0. If he didn't, I must be a drunk. If he did, GJ must then be scum.
With a no lynch vote today we go to 6 players left with three to lynch. With so few players in the game we can only afford 1, maybe 2 mislynches at most, and what I'm proposing should help cut down on the odds of a mislynch occurring. Thoughts?
Why is Megs stalling completely ok with you?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
6 alive tomorrow -> one dies... if we mislych that's 2v2 and we lose.
5 alive Tomorrow -> one dies... we also have to lynch correctly or we lose.
we only get one mislynch, and mislynching means we cannot no lynch ever.
we can also double NL in place of a mislynch.
no matter what we do we have to hit scum by Day 3 at the latest.
check my math, at the gym and not really thinking about this hard.
so Tomorrow...
do you see where I am going with this
then what? do we no-lynch again?
Your math is correct. The difference is that the town get to decide two lynched rather than one. We actually lose a lynch by no lynching unless we no lynch twice.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
ok question for everybody: who's scum and why?
Dota's balking on Megs is bothersome, as is Bur's dislike of randomness.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Half of Megs screams town to me half screams mafia.
Bur is sort of lurky to me and in a game like this that screams mafia to me.
I have some other info, but I'll keep that to my chest until claims.
@tcm: was bur against random order? That's definitely eyebrow-raising.
Here you go Megs.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I'm all for claiming. always have been.
I hadn't though of the possibility of us lynching the poison target, that further solidifies the fact that we need to avoid no lynching at least today.
I'm still not sure if the method by which we claim is critically important, scum are kind of forced into how they claim by virtue of numbers. Assuming they poisoned someone, one has a legit track, and one is essentially a drunk. Now they both could claim drunks, but that's okay because then all the legit tracks we can confirm are town. So, one claims legit, one claims drunk, and we have a group of drunk claims and legit claims, each containing one scum. Or the drunk scum guesses a legit track, and there are five legit tracks, confirming the two drunks as town.
Feel free to tell me I'm an idiot if I missed something, but our methods don't matter as much because there are only so many possible outcomes. Just at this point we need to claim to get the information out there so we can parse it.
Answer this yourself please?
@Dota: how does not claiming toDay help that plan? Isn't it better to have the poisoned player's results in thread too?
At everyone else: I want you to also tell your reasoing for choosing your tracking target, when you claim.
Can we hold off on discussing the relevance until everyone has claimed please?
I too think it's relevant and explaining why defeats the purpose.
Also Megs, answer my question please