In post 95, RedCoyote wrote:
lalala 70 wrote:I'm on my (screencracked) phone as my laptop isn't cooperating, so it's a little harder to read the stuff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I've gathered that Muffin dislikes Cupcake (Katsuki) for some reason I guess, other than rivalry...
And mollie replacing out was very strange, yes - I'd initially thought maybe because she got town and thought it was boring so left..? But the others seem to think more likely she was scum? Idk, I haven't completed any games with her so I'm not sure what she prefers.
Gaiden's lurking is annoying, the no lynch vote was kinda strange (was it a joke?)
But quite a few players haven't even joined us yet, so we can't make any hasty conclusions.
I dislike the "easyness" of this post, for lack of a better word. I hope to see something a little more substantial from lalala in her next post.
In post 95, RedCoyote wrote:I refer to his general behaviour, not in this game especially.
It's RVS - what does a No Lynch vote achieve? Nobody is pressured, people are distracted by it and wonder why he did it..
Did you agree with the No Lynch vote? Did it seem completely ordinary and a good way to progress the game?
lalala, you need to get up to speed. I just spent ~30 minutes reading the game and I feel sufficiently caught up with what has been discussed so far. I was willing to cut you slack with your first couple of posts being kind of lame, but with this post I get the idea that this is as far as you're able to delve into SXTLH's plan. These questions are too shallow and come across as though you're just throwing out useless filler.
VOTE: lalaladucks
Ah, I see you joined in 2008. Did you see when I joined?
What kind of exceptionally significant things do you expect from me at this point?
You want me to delve into Gaiden's play?
Okay, then I'll surely be obliged
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
idk what this is supposed to achieve...
In post 38, SXTLHGaiden wrote:cause no lynch is clearly superior
rightio, it achieves superiority, nice.
In post 41, SXTLHGaiden wrote:We no lynch until the Angel's kill doesn't go through.
Then the Angel claims and we are reduced to mountainous w/ a bulletproof IC who still has all the input of all the dead town.
We get no sin until then so the sin counter only goes up from that point.
Others have already responded to this, but here's my take; with this strategy the power of townies is minimised. Demons get to kill whichever innocent people they like each night. Town doesn't get to lynch who they think is a demon. To me, it seems like a better option to take the chance and lynch the most suspicious candidate - at least there's a chance we'll get the right one.
In post 71, SXTLHGaiden wrote:In post 56, zMuffinMan wrote:In post 52, Glass wrote:@Gaiden
If only 1 kill goes through and somebody claims angel with a CC, how do you know which is the angel?
this is another issue with gaiden's plan
Scenario 1: Angel claims angel, scum must counterclaim. we lynch one, then the other if needed.
Scenario 2: Demon Claims angel, angel does not counterclaim since it is a for sure demon kill.
am i really missing something here?
Hmmm.
In post 74, zMuffinMan wrote:In post 71, SXTLHGaiden wrote:In post 56, zMuffinMan wrote:In post 52, Glass wrote:@Gaiden
If only 1 kill goes through and somebody claims angel with a CC, how do you know which is the angel?
this is another issue with gaiden's plan
Scenario 1: Angel claims angel, scum must counterclaim. we lynch one, then the other if needed.
Scenario 2: Demon Claims angel, angel does not counterclaim since it is a for sure demon kill.
am i really missing something here?
(1) means potentially lynching the bulletproof vig
(2) is impossible with factional roleblock
I agree with pretty much everything the MuffinMan says. He's more eloquent at expressing his take than I am, currently. He also made a gameplan before the game started!? That's commitment. Do people usually do that
![Eek :eek:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
In post 75, SXTLHGaiden wrote:so we always just go back to case 1 then.
50% for conftown w/ scum kill
This doesn't make much sense imo.
In post 79, zMuffinMan wrote:look, gaiden, you're wrong
do any playtests with your idea and you'll see it's a largely scum-sided plan even without the possibility of basically outright losing because of the 50/50 chance
it's not good for town
like even assuming scum don't find the angel for 3 whole nights, you're looking at a 36% chance the vig hits no scum in that time and the numbers are 7:4 after that. if they block the angel the following night, 6:4 mylo
then you're gambling the game on a 50% chance of hitting only one scum
with 2 nights of being unblocked, it's a bit less than 50% chance of hitting scum with the angel shots and leaves us at 9:4. it's scum-sided here
even if the angel manages to hit one scum before they're blocked, it's still scum-sided by the time it goes into mountainous... the only way it wouldn't be scum-sided is if (a) scum players are incredibly bad / obvious, or (b) angel gets incredibly lucky
your plan is dumb. the game was designed around getting 2 town-controlled kills for every 1 scum-controlled kill
just... stop arguing it if you haven't even considered the numbers
sin is never going to be a way town loses if it's controlled properly (or if we hit scum with lynches) - like we can control it so that, assuming we lynch at least one scum by D3, the sin counter is only 2 by D4... sin is not an issue in this game unless the collective reads are just so bad that it becomes an issue, which is more a problem with the town being bad than the sin counter being an issue
This makes sense imo.
RedCoyote, maybe if you ask me a specific question I'll find it easier to contribute something you consider useful