3v1 mylo strategy.

[Toto]

What do you guys think about the following strategy.

First, Imagine for a simple case you have a confirmed townie.

Confirmed town (a) selects and votes one player (their top scum read).

Selected pleyer votes their top scum read and this player must vote them back.

At this point the player not voting can be cleared. This has 66% chance of being town. More if you assume that both players had better than random schmhunting ability.

If cleared everyone unvotes and it is now 1v1. With the advantage you have town numbers in your favor during discussion.

Now the advanced case. Nobody is confirmed town. You start by everyone choosing their top town read. Until you converge with 3 votes on one person. This person acts like the confirmed town above. You can also proceed to clear him with >75% chance so you dont waste time.

While the advanced approach is only 75% as townsided as the usual no lynch, I think the extra discussion that needs to happen to converge can add a lot of information to town. Also clearing individuals with high chance has the benefit of helping town by concentrating discussions around less people and also potentially solving tvt conflicts.

[gigabyteTroubadour]

thats called hammertesting

i've used it in like every mylo i've been in or been close to lmao (except for in my first game)

idk if i'd say it's great but

[RadiantCowbells]

hammertesting is great I always recommend it

[gigabyteTroubadour]

hammertesting is great I always recommend it

u won because we decided to hammertest you in mylo and you didnt hammer in 1769

gave me false confidence i understood the gamestate LMAO

[RadiantCowbells]

I mean I could have just hammered

[Toto]

Oh well I never heard of it before why?

[Gamma Emerald]

Hammertesting is common in chat mafia

[Accountant]

problem is that it leaves people open to just winning via hamer

[Toto]

problem is that it leaves people open to just winning via hamer

If they are hammertested (generally.townread) Wouldnt they have likely won anyway?

[Lycanfire]

That's only if scum successfully pilots the town. There's three outcomes and two benefit town. The third (voting scum) is certainly something people would like to do every game.

If you have a good consensus, you get the advantage. If you don't, scum outplayed you and get the win.

[Infinity 324]

problem is that it leaves people open to just winning via hamer

If they are hammertested (generally.townread) Wouldnt they have likely won anyway?

But if you're not even going to consider that they're scum, you might as well treat them as conftown anyway. No need to hammer test.

[Toto]

problem is that it leaves people open to just winning via hamer

If they are hammertested (generally.townread) Wouldnt they have likely won anyway?

But if you're not even going to consider that they're scum, you might as well treat them as conftown anyway. No need to hammer test.

Sure. The first hammertest is optional, only makes the game shorter if you are about to lose anyway. Also removes one variable from the equation.

[Accountant]

So hammertests dont really improve towns understanding of gamestate

[Accountant]

No I was wrong if only some people are online you can hammertest to convince people others are town

[Toto]

So hammertests dont really improve towns understanding of gamestate

Well you are assuming there is always an universal town read. If there isn't it may be easier to converge accurately on a town read than a scumread, assuming scum doesn't have town by the balls.

[vonflare]

problem is that it leaves people open to just winning via hamer

If they are hammertested (generally.townread) Wouldnt they have likely won anyway?

But if you're not even going to consider that they're scum, you might as well treat them as conftown anyway. No need to hammer test.

Hmm, this is actually interesting.

If you are certain it's 3v1, does hammer testing have a purpose? You're basically betting the game on a situation where if you're wrong you lose anyway. It doesn't make a difference...