Playing SK.

[Zindaras]

no, you don't, you

try

to. you may do it relatively successfully, but nobody's perfect. it's not that easy.

As town, you try to play as town as well, so it's really quite the same.

I'm not saying they're the same. i'm saying the reason why they can be considered threats is the same - you're more likely to get caught. obviously there's a difference of scale, but i'm just trying to illustrate that it is totally legitimate to consider them threats.

Yes. But their danger depends on how well you play.

see, now you're talking strategy.

Your point?

are you saying everyone

should?

Yes. It makes game more fun for everyone.

which leads us to my main counterpoint then - deliberately adopting suboptimal strategies robs

me

of

my

fun. i like the challenge of mafia, the tension when under pressure, the excitement of pulling out the win. i like a hard-fought game. the thought that people may be doing things they

know

are going to undermine their chances of success in the interests of "metagame principles" is deflating when they're my opponents and hugely hugely frustrating when they're on my side.

A hard-fought game, eh? Now, how exactly does removing all the good players and letting the lurkers alive until Judgement Day equal a hard-fought game? I enjoy all the things you say you enjoy, but I see removing lurkers as just the way to get those things. By leaving the analysts alive, you get that tension, that excitement.

As for undermining my chances, to be honest, it doesn't really work that way. Lurker-infested games have the same balance as normal games, as far as I've noticed.

Another argument is that more active players are easier to read. That lurker can always claim Cop and out you. Active players tend to give off more clues to their alignments and roles.

[Mr. Flay]

Removing the "good" players forces the other players not to rely on them. I've faced many players I didn't *know* were good until I got rid of the MeMes and the mathcams and the Seols. It's not bad strategy to remove threats

to you

, whether they are good players or power roles or mafia. I don't understand your motivations here, although I do agree with the metagaming strategy of killing lurkers. I just think it should be done during the lynch, failing a better option...

[Nightson]

Zindaras, lets you and me be SK buddies

<3

[Zindaras]

I can see your point, Flay, but I've noticed that lurkers don't post that much when there are no more "good" players around anymore either. It's just not noticeable because there are no real active players to compare them to.

Edit: <3 Nightson.

[Yosarian2]

If, as SK, you play as you would play as town (which is, in my eyes, the best way to approach a game as SK), you're not going to make any big play errors, so people wouldn't catch up on it.

Of course you always

try

to play as town, but the entire point of the game is that you can sometimes figure out people's motivations based on the things they do, even if they don't want you too. It's a little harder to spot a SK then a mafia during the day, but no one is perfect, and no one plays exactally the same no matter what their role is no matter how hard they try. If you're honest with yourself, and you go back and re-read a game you played as SK, there will be posts where you can say "yeah, I probably wouldn't have done it quite that way if I was town". Dosn't mean it's something someone else would be able spot, but it's always there.

Making the game more fun for everyone should obviously be your priority. I'll also comment on this later, but meh.

(shrug) I have the most fun playing a stratagy game like Mafia when everyone involved is doing everything they legally can to win.

This is one reason it's useful to have a doc around, becuase then there's some deterent to killing all the most active players. And the most active players are not necessarally the most dangerous, or the best at figuring you personally out when you're scum.

There's also the ability to use kills to subtly manipulate the way the conversation will go, to either decrese the chances of you being lynched by killing off someone who suspects you or framing someone else by killing off a pro-town player who suspect them.

Basically, lurking hurts the town the most, and it's therefore the job of the town (and the mod) to get rid of lurkers. You shouldn't count on the bad guys doing it for you. Usually when you see a lurker get nightkilled, it's because the bad guys think they're a power role trying to be quiet.

[Zindaras]

Of course you always

try

to play as town, but the entire point of the game is that you can sometimes figure out people's motivations based on the things they do, even if they don't want you too. It's a little harder to spot a SK then a mafia during the day, but no one is perfect, and no one plays exactally the same no matter what their role is no matter how hard they try. If you're honest with yourself, and you go back and re-read a game you played as SK, there will be posts where you can say "yeah, I probably wouldn't have done it quite that way if I was town". Dosn't mean it's something someone else would be able spot, but it's always there.

I'll admit that there are probably small slips, but it's very difficult to catch Serial Killers.

This is one reason it's useful to have a doc around, becuase then there's some deterent to killing all the most active players. And the most active players are not necessarally the most dangerous, or the best at figuring you personally out when you're scum.

Exactly, so why out them?

There's also the ability to use kills to subtly manipulate the way the conversation will go, to either decrese the chances of you being lynched by killing off someone who suspects you or framing someone else by killing off a pro-town player who suspect them.

I'm not saying I'm against this. I think this is quite a good way to play. I'm just saying that in a situation of (reasonable) ceteris paribus, it's better to off a lurker than an active player.

Basically, lurking hurts the town the most, and it's therefore the job of the town (and the mod) to get rid of lurkers. You shouldn't count on the bad guys doing it for you. Usually when you see a lurker get nightkilled, it's because the bad guys think they're a power role trying to be quiet.

If lurking hurts the town, then why would the mod have to bother getting rid of lurkers?

Lurkers hurt the game just as much as they hurt the town. That's why the mod has to do something about them. What I'm saying is that we self-regulate to an extent, by being more punishing towards lurkers as scum. I'm not so much saying that scum should always kill lurkers, I'm saying that, in a situation of (reasonable) ceteris paribus (such as Night 0) it's better to kill a known lurker than a known active player.

[Mr. Flay]

But as SK, you're scum. Why are you trying to do anything that's good for the town? Sure, you're trying to eliminate *everyone* besides you, but the order in which you do so makes a difference, and eliminating other good lynch targets isn't good for your personal survival rate.

[Zindaras]

But as SK, you're scum. Why are you trying to do anything that's good for the town? Sure, you're trying to eliminate *everyone* besides you, but the order in which you do so makes a difference, and eliminating other good lynch targets isn't good for your personal survival rate.

1) It's better for the game as a whole.
2) Lurkers are more difficult to read, and they can come out and Cop claim with little to no earlier warning. Active players usually give off hints.
3) Near the end, you will usually have a mass claim (or so I've noticed). A lurker is just as likely to have an easy-to-confirm role as an active player.

Lurkers tend to confirm themselves to the end of the game and just sit there and still not do a lot. But they do need to die if you're SK.

[Seol]

A hard-fought game, eh? Now, how exactly does removing all the good players and letting the lurkers alive until Judgement Day equal a hard-fought game? I enjoy all the things you say you enjoy, but I see removing lurkers as just the way to get those things. By leaving the analysts alive, you get that tension, that excitement.

it's a hard-fought game because everyone is doing everything they can to win. you can make a game harder by sabotaging your strategy in other ways as well, but i don't approve of them either. winning as sk is hard enough as is.

now, if you think that killing lurkers makes you more likely to win, i have no objection. it's when you kill lurkers

knowing it helps the town, and therefore damages your chances of winning the game

, that you're not playing to win. i don't see the point of playing games like this with people who aren't trying to win, it's a fundamentally hollow experience. people invest many hours over a period of months in these games. in that capacity, i view it as my

responsibility

to the game to play my part to the best of my ability, and play to win.

i agree that anti-lurker strategies are important, but it's not the sk's place to implement them.

[Zindaras]

it's a hard-fought game because everyone is doing everything they can to win. you can make a game harder by sabotaging your strategy in other ways as well, but i don't approve of them either. winning as sk is hard enough as is.

So you enjoy a game where everyone lurks, just if everyone is doing all they can to win?

now, if you think that killing lurkers makes you more likely to win, i have no objection. it's when you kill lurkers

knowing it helps the town, and therefore damages your chances of winning the game

, that you're not playing to win.

I disagree with this stance. Killing lurkers makes you more likely to win, because it makes the fight between Mafia and Town closer. I'd argue that it's better as SK to be on the town's side than to be on the Mafia's side, with his kills.

Let's say, for example, we have a 24 player game. There are two paths for the SK to take: Town side or Mafia side. After a while, there are 7 players remaining. If the SK played on the town's side, there's only one Mafiate remaining, if the SK played on the Mafia's side, there are 3 remaining. Now, if the SK played on the Mafia's side, he's had an easier game so far. Less pressure, less danger of getting lynched due to pesky posting people.

But now the SK has a problem. After all, he wants to win, but, in the second scenario, he has a far worse chance.

Let's make it even simpler: 3-person endgame, what's better for the SK: 1 Town, 1 Mafia, him.

or

2 Town, him.

Situation 1, he has 33% chance to win (random), Situation 2, he has 67% chance to win.

SK's would really prefer to be with just town rather than also have a Mafia to deal with. While a pro-scum playstyle may pay off in the short run, by reducing the pressure on you, it also reduces the pressure on the actual scum, thus making it more likely for them to stay around until the endgame, where the scum will be the biggest threat to you.

[Thestatusquo]

Zindaras. Look at it this way:

More lurkers = less discussion = less information = better for scum

More lurkers = force town to check = more meta misslynches = better for scum


So at the point where you're taking out lurkers, you're hurting your chances of winning in two very significant ways.

[Zindaras]

Zindaras. Look at it this way:

More lurkers = less discussion = less information = better for scum

More lurkers = force town to check = more meta misslynches = better for scum


So at the point where you're taking out lurkers, you're hurting your chances of winning in two very significant ways.

More lurkers=Less discussion=Less Information=More difficult to read for Cops and Docs.

More lurkers=Less discussion=False sense of security=More screw-ups.

More lurkers=Unfun.

That's one.

For two, while you have a point, we're talking SKs here. SKs need to get rid of the Mafia as well. By leaving all the lurkers alive, the SK's giving the Mafia the edge. This is exactly what the SK wants to avoid. It's better, as SK, to give the town the edge than to give the Mafia the edge, because of the reasoning I outlined above.

[Thesp]

Let's say, for example, we have a 24 player game. There are two paths for the SK to take: Town side or Mafia side.

I don't see the need for this dichotomy.

[Zindaras]

Let's say, for example, we have a 24 player game. There are two paths for the SK to take: Town side or Mafia side.

I don't see the need for this dichotomy.

Hmm, well, we're doing it a bit black-or-white here, yes, but, well, in my vision, SKs standard kill lurkers but kill confirmed town when possible.

[Thestatusquo]

For two, while you have a point, we're talking SKs here. SKs need to get rid of the Mafia as well. By leaving all the lurkers alive, the SK's giving the Mafia the edge. This is exactly what the SK wants to avoid. It's better, as SK, to give the town the edge than to give the Mafia the edge, because of the reasoning I outlined above.

I fail to see how this point garners any offense for your advocacy, as meta lurker misslynches are just as likely to hit scum as well as town. Basically, any lynch that is not you is a good lynch for a SK, especially if it's random so it has a better chance of hitting power.

[Zindaras]

I think you'll find that, statistically, lurker lynches tend to hit town.

[Thestatusquo]

Warrant?

[Zindaras]

Warrant?

I don't have any real hard statistics (other than personal experience), but, usually, when there are multiple lurkers, the Mafia will manage to get a town lurker lynched.

[Yosarian2]

Warrant?

I don't have any real hard statistics (other than personal experience), but, usually, when there are multiple lurkers, the Mafia will manage to get a town lurker lynched.

I don't know about that, I've found scum by lurker-hunting before.

[Norinel]

i have no objection. it's when you kill lurkers

knowing it helps the town, and therefore damages your chances of winning the game

, that you're not playing to win. i don't see the point of playing games like this with people who aren't trying to win, it's a fundamentally hollow experience.

Once you've got three sides, helping the town doesn't necessarily decrease your chances of winning the game. Which is part of why I'm not a huge fan of the SK mechanic in the first place- it's better to try to work against whoever you think is doing better, so more of the chance of winning you take away from them can go to you, so it's better for the town and scum to not look like they're doing well.

[Patrick]

Zindaras, I can understand the policy of wanting to get rid of lurkers to make the game more fun, even if I don't agree with it and wouldn't play that way. But I think you'll struggle to prove that killing lurkers is actually best play for a SK.

[Thestatusquo]

Zindaras, I can understand the policy of wanting to get rid of lurkers to make the game more fun, even if I don't agree with it and wouldn't play that way. But I think you'll struggle to prove that killing lurkers is actually best play for a SK.

QFT

[Zindaras]

Zindaras, I can understand the policy of wanting to get rid of lurkers to make the game more fun, even if I don't agree with it and wouldn't play that way. But I think you'll struggle to prove that killing lurkers is actually best play for a SK.

Meh. I'm going to try.

[Thesp]

Hmm, well, we're doing it a bit black-or-white here, yes, but, well, in my vision, SKs standard kill lurkers but kill confirmed town when possible.

Hmm. I'd say they typically kill people who are unlikely/impossible to get lynched (which included people who are confirmed town) at night. The typical lose conditions for the SK are:

1. The unlynchable number of townies exceeds the number of lynchable ones. (This is the number the SK always fights against, and why mini games with SKs are often unbalanced against the SK.)
2. The SK is perceived by scum to be a power role. (Only applies to nightkillable SKs.)
3. SK stupidly gets themselves lynched. (This one is simply a more drastic, thorough condition than the same that all players find themselves in. Teams lose when they get lynched, but only over time (and over a number of such lynches, but the SK loses right away.)

I've always thought #1 is far more important than most people take for granted. I don't see where lurker hunting fits into it.

I think you'll find that, statistically, lurker lynches tend to hit town.

But do you think scum are more likely to lurk than town? If that's the case, the tendency of lurker lynches hitting town (if that does indeed hold up) is still explainable, and doesn't make lurker lynches an inherently bad move. There are always factors which go into any lynch which are more complex than we're accounting for, but if scum are more likely to lurk than town, then the ratio of scum players lurking to town players lurking is statistically likely to be higher than the overall ratio of scum to town in the game, making them a better-than-random lynch.

[Zindaras]

Hmm. I'd say they typically kill people who are unlikely/impossible to get lynched (which included people who are confirmed town) at night. The typical lose conditions for the SK are:

1. The unlynchable number of townies exceeds the number of lynchable ones. (This is the number the SK always fights against, and why mini games with SKs are often unbalanced against the SK.)
2. The SK is perceived by scum to be a power role. (Only applies to nightkillable SKs.)
3. SK stupidly gets themselves lynched. (This one is simply a more drastic, thorough condition than the same that all players find themselves in. Teams lose when they get lynched, but only over time (and over a number of such lynches, but the SK loses right away.)

I've always thought #1 is far more important than most people take for granted. I don't see where lurker hunting fits into it.

Lurker hunting, especially early on (as I said, with, to a reasonable extent, ceteris paribus), fits in because a known lurker has the same chance of having a confirmable role as an active player.

But do you think scum are more likely to lurk than town? If that's the case, the tendency of lurker lynches hitting town (if that does indeed hold up) is still explainable, and doesn't make lurker lynches an inherently bad move. There are always factors which go into any lynch which are more complex than we're accounting for, but if scum are more likely to lurk than town, then the ratio of scum players lurking to town players lurking is statistically likely to be higher than the overall ratio of scum to town in the game, making them a better-than-random lynch.

I think town is more likely to lurk than scum. Scum semi-lurks. They post enough not to ever be seen as lurker, usually.