Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PHOENIX MAFIA: ONLINE TURNABOUT
Posts
pianotm
View playlists
CloseWell, good mafia players are all good at lying. Let's follow your line of reasoning. You've left out a player who won a previous mafia as scum without anyone being the wiser. You. In fact, in that game, you and Yellow Magic were both scum. I was so bummed out about my disastrous performance I nearly forgot that little factoid. How would you like it if everybody bandwagoned you based on that line of reasoning? What if one of the things people immediately did in mafia was lynch all of the previous scum winners? You're a good game designer. How's that sound for a game mechanic? Making a game where the player can be good or bad and if s/he wins as a bad guy, s/he can never play the game again?
There's nothing inherently wrong with your points. What's wrong is that Cave has pointed out the flaw in your logic and you're studiously refusing to address that aspect of his argument.
There's nothing inherently wrong with your points. What's wrong is that Cave has pointed out the flaw in your logic and you're studiously refusing to address that aspect of his argument.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I lost that game, though. Admittedly I was close to winning. If you tried to bandwagon on me based on that logic I'm sure I would fight back just like Cavedog is fighting back.
I'm not interested in making a fair and enjoyable Mafia experience for everyone, I'm interested in winning.
What flaw did he point out? That YM and himself are also useful as town members? At worst that makes my play no different than bandwagoning on anyone else. The math here isn't difficult. If we lynch someone, tomorrow we have the list of votes to analyze. If we lynch no one, tomorrow we are in the same situation as today, but with one less person and probably no more info.
If you really think that you two lawyers can gather more information during the Investigation Phase so that tomorrow we can make informed decisions during the Trial Phase even if no one was lynched, then I'll switch to a nolynch. But the way it looks to me right now is that investigating has a 10% chance of revealing one person's role, while a lynch has a 20% chance of revealing 6 people's roles. Since if we lynch the scum on day one, we have six practically-confirmed town members.
I'm not interested in making a fair and enjoyable Mafia experience for everyone, I'm interested in winning.
What flaw did he point out? That YM and himself are also useful as town members? At worst that makes my play no different than bandwagoning on anyone else. The math here isn't difficult. If we lynch someone, tomorrow we have the list of votes to analyze. If we lynch no one, tomorrow we are in the same situation as today, but with one less person and probably no more info.
If you really think that you two lawyers can gather more information during the Investigation Phase so that tomorrow we can make informed decisions during the Trial Phase even if no one was lynched, then I'll switch to a nolynch. But the way it looks to me right now is that investigating has a 10% chance of revealing one person's role, while a lynch has a 20% chance of revealing 6 people's roles. Since if we lynch the scum on day one, we have six practically-confirmed town members.
How many damned times do I have to say it? You're bandwagoning but you're not scumhunting. Bandwagoning without cause is bad. It does not make perfect sense.
According to the bandwagoning school of thought, it doesn't matter who we lynch as long as we lynch someone, so since you're using that logic, I don't see why you should have a problem with it being you.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I personally feel quite confident that I am not scum, and am unlikely to support lynching myself.
Why would bandwagoning on day one be bad? Bandwagoning is only bad if you have enough info to pick a better lynching choice.
Let me break this down because you apparently still don't get it. Lynching can kill scum. Scum kills can't. Less lynching means that a higher percentage of kills are scum kills. Mathematically, if there are two scum and we blindly lynch at random every single day, the town has a 44.4% chance of winning. If we do not lynch on day one, that drops to a 40.5% chance of winning. The more days we don't lynch, the lower our chances of winning fall. At the extreme, if we continue not lynching every day, our chances of success are zero.
I can show my work to the prosecution if you like. Would you like me to submit the algebra into evidence?
Why would bandwagoning on day one be bad? Bandwagoning is only bad if you have enough info to pick a better lynching choice.
Let me break this down because you apparently still don't get it. Lynching can kill scum. Scum kills can't. Less lynching means that a higher percentage of kills are scum kills. Mathematically, if there are two scum and we blindly lynch at random every single day, the town has a 44.4% chance of winning. If we do not lynch on day one, that drops to a 40.5% chance of winning. The more days we don't lynch, the lower our chances of winning fall. At the extreme, if we continue not lynching every day, our chances of success are zero.
I can show my work to the prosecution if you like. Would you like me to submit the algebra into evidence?
Your algebra fails to factor in town powers. Going by sheer blind lynching, yes, there is a 40% win possibility, but not all of our lynches are going to be blind. Which is why I stand by a nolynch on day one. In simpler games with only a Doctor and an Investigator (and possibly a vigilante), your logic would be sound, but that's not the case here.
It's unlikely any day besides the first will result in a no lynch. I've never seen that happen in any mafia game I've ever played. But at current, all townies are alive, so all town powers are in play. Randomly lynching a potential town member means we're possibly down one power and one player. That is more likely to decrease our possibility of winning over anything else.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Uh, obviously, I was simplifying it for the sake of showing one example. There's no point in listing a thousand extra variables that change nothing about the conclusion, because holy shit this is not hard to figure out. If there's a cop then the chances of winning are more like 60% if we lynch and 50% if we don't lynch. If there's a serial killer then the chances of winning are more like 20% if we lynch and 15% if we don't lynch. If you figure out one of the mafia identities with investigative powers then our chances of winning are more like 80% if we lynch and 70% if we don't lynch. None of that matters. Both of the lawyers are idiots.
Lynching can kill scum. Scum kills can't. Therefore, less lynching means that a higher percentage of kills are scum kills. End of discussion! This is an extremly straightforward concept that I thought almost every mafia player would be familiar with. Many mafia games straight up disallow players from nolynching, because it gives the scum an unfair advantage, effectively eliminating one extra town member for free.
I'm done arguing with you two, since you're not even players, and everyone else seems to understand pretty clearly.
Lynching can kill scum. Scum kills can't. Therefore, less lynching means that a higher percentage of kills are scum kills. End of discussion! This is an extremly straightforward concept that I thought almost every mafia player would be familiar with. Many mafia games straight up disallow players from nolynching, because it gives the scum an unfair advantage, effectively eliminating one extra town member for free.
I'm done arguing with you two, since you're not even players, and everyone else seems to understand pretty clearly.
I-IDIOT?
Yeah, well, whatever. The witnesses can do what they like, I'm going to do my job. I'm not voting today...well, unless I can vote without objecting.
Mr_SuNa
50
1.If we lynch then we don't give the mafia a free night.
2.If we lynch a mafia, we have one less to worry about, we might even get the mastermind and win right away!
3.However, if we lynch a townie, that is one less townie for the mafia to worry about.
I guess we need to decide which one is less destructive for the town and go with it
2.If we lynch a mafia, we have one less to worry about, we might even get the mastermind and win right away!
3.However, if we lynch a townie, that is one less townie for the mafia to worry about.
I guess we need to decide which one is less destructive for the town and go with it
As usual, I'm with the no-lynch on this one. As Puds stated, in a vanilla game it's a little more effective to lynch on day one BUT in a game with a lot of powers in play, all we do is run the risk of screwing ourselves out of interesting powers that could do well for the town.
Lynching might be able to kill scum but on first day it is more likely to kill fellow townies. What part of that don't you understand? It's simple elementary.
Take a group of people. Give 1-3 a tissue to put in their pocket, then have the group pick one at random to search. More likely than not the group will pick someone who doesn't have a tissue. In fact, in a game of 10 (likely to only be 2 mafia) the chances we pick mafia on first day is quite damn slim.
Again, this wouldn't be so bad if it were a vanilla game as there would likely be only a few powers to help the town (say, 2-3) so the chance of hitting one of those powered townies is down a little, but in a game where everyone has powers (which this game is likely to be) this kind of thing is, in a word, moronic.
There, I said it. Every time we play one of these games and you lot shout "Let's kill someone on day one duuuuuuuuurrr" I am actively considering you all to be fucking morons.
Mathematical equations exist for this fucking reason you know? I believe the chance of hitting mafia in this case is, oh, 12%. Twelve fucking percent. Yeah.
And what? If we don't hit them (which is very unlikely. We've had one game where that happened) we learn... what exactly? That x wasn't mafia and that they had x power. Oh, and we lose another person during the night.
The night kill tells us more than a day kill does. And leaves us with more powers at our disposal for scum hunting.
#no lynch
Lynching might be able to kill scum but on first day it is more likely to kill fellow townies. What part of that don't you understand? It's simple elementary.
Take a group of people. Give 1-3 a tissue to put in their pocket, then have the group pick one at random to search. More likely than not the group will pick someone who doesn't have a tissue. In fact, in a game of 10 (likely to only be 2 mafia) the chances we pick mafia on first day is quite damn slim.
Again, this wouldn't be so bad if it were a vanilla game as there would likely be only a few powers to help the town (say, 2-3) so the chance of hitting one of those powered townies is down a little, but in a game where everyone has powers (which this game is likely to be) this kind of thing is, in a word, moronic.
There, I said it. Every time we play one of these games and you lot shout "Let's kill someone on day one duuuuuuuuurrr" I am actively considering you all to be fucking morons.
Mathematical equations exist for this fucking reason you know? I believe the chance of hitting mafia in this case is, oh, 12%. Twelve fucking percent. Yeah.
And what? If we don't hit them (which is very unlikely. We've had one game where that happened) we learn... what exactly? That x wasn't mafia and that they had x power. Oh, and we lose another person during the night.
The night kill tells us more than a day kill does. And leaves us with more powers at our disposal for scum hunting.
#no lynch
Oh good, someone said what I really wanted to but decided I was too much of a professional to actually do.
Anyway, I suspect that the day will be over by the time I get on next, unless I jump on tomorrow morning. So I'll be picking my client pretty soon.
And in case I need to formalize it, #no lynch.
Really? Unnecessary? We have this same issue and discussion every time we play. I figured I'd just put it all out there in one go because good God am I sick of having to point out the idiocy of destroying ourselves on first day by killing off possible awesome powers. Very necessary in my book.
ok, I buy lockez being town for now.
##unvote
lynching scum day one is not, and has never been, the most important part of lynching someone day one.
I really, really don't buy liberty's histrionics in her latest post. It seems way too aggressive (i.e. molded)
##unvote
Mathematical equations exist for this fucking reason you know? I believe the chance of hitting mafia in this case is, oh, 12%. Twelve fucking percent. Yeah.
lynching scum day one is not, and has never been, the most important part of lynching someone day one.
I really, really don't buy liberty's histrionics in her latest post. It seems way too aggressive (i.e. molded)
you might have a point if mafia consisted only of night actions and no words, but it's not. it's mainly a social game where the words people say are as important, if not more important than, their night actions. the timing of this post also bothers me.
Ugh, I'm stuck between LockeZ and no-lynching.
I was unsure of what to think of LockeZ before, but I'm getting more scummy feelings from him now. He IS still of the mind to lynch someone based on such meta reasons, which I've decided is definitely no good (I mean, if nothing else it's pretty unfair, as someone else said). He's unashamedly admitted to wanting to bandwagon on, who was it again? YM? Someone who doesn't seem scummy, based on the reasoning of "better to kill SOMEONE than no one today" and Libby just explained why that could be a bad idea. He just keeps reiterating the same points in his defense (I don't find bandwagoning bad, for example. You may not dude, but the rest of us do, especially when you're doing it with little reason), and his posts in the last few pages have just in general given me scummy vibes as well.
Of course, everything that Libby said just now is... well, it really is a good argument for no-lynching. I've never really liked the idea of lynching someone on day 1 when we know next to nothing, and her talk about how many town players could have powers is definitely compelling. Wouldn't want to kill someone important.
So I'm tempted to no-lynch, but I really think that LockeZ is probably not a good guy. I want to lynch LockeZ, as I feel like he's too suspicious to not lynch, but Liberty makes such a good case for no-lynching as well... I need to think about this a bit.
I was unsure of what to think of LockeZ before, but I'm getting more scummy feelings from him now. He IS still of the mind to lynch someone based on such meta reasons, which I've decided is definitely no good (I mean, if nothing else it's pretty unfair, as someone else said). He's unashamedly admitted to wanting to bandwagon on, who was it again? YM? Someone who doesn't seem scummy, based on the reasoning of "better to kill SOMEONE than no one today" and Libby just explained why that could be a bad idea. He just keeps reiterating the same points in his defense (I don't find bandwagoning bad, for example. You may not dude, but the rest of us do, especially when you're doing it with little reason), and his posts in the last few pages have just in general given me scummy vibes as well.
Of course, everything that Libby said just now is... well, it really is a good argument for no-lynching. I've never really liked the idea of lynching someone on day 1 when we know next to nothing, and her talk about how many town players could have powers is definitely compelling. Wouldn't want to kill someone important.
So I'm tempted to no-lynch, but I really think that LockeZ is probably not a good guy. I want to lynch LockeZ, as I feel like he's too suspicious to not lynch, but Liberty makes such a good case for no-lynching as well... I need to think about this a bit.
