Mafiascum.net

In post 21, Kublai Khan wrote:

In post 12, Ellibereth wrote:My point was that there's nothing inherently bad in the former case, and it's sometimes better if Tom is reasonably sure that said L-1'd person is scum and Tom also suspects that town will potentially be "fooled" off the lynch given more time.

True, but I argue that the fact that Bob and Tom were willing to L-1 someone but not lynch is indicative of being likely bussing scummates. It's a good info boost to consider.

Yes, maybe. I think there's a rather large set of people who have been brought up on the "extending discussion" and that would dilute things a little but in a concrete game with specific individuals there is a potential info boost there yeah.

I think for most players this is probably a "learn the fundamentals first then break them" type of thing with the intent declaration being the "by the book play" that's correct more often than not. If anything declaring intent a bunch teaches you about the cases where it may have been better not to, while I think the educational value the other way around is comparatively lacking.

Playing mafia in a by the book team focused manner is + win equity for about 85% or so players if only that. People shouldnt be deathtunneling or hammering without intent or performing most gambits until they have a great deal of games under their belt to trust their judgement and ability to execute things like that. Most people neither need nor deserve the ability to get any specific scumread lynched.

In post 25, Ellibereth wrote:Yes, maybe. I think there's a rather large set of people who have been brought up on the "extending discussion" and that would dilute things a little but in a concrete game with specific individuals there is a potential info boost there yeah.

I think for most players this is probably a "learn the fundamentals first then break them" type of thing with the intent declaration being the "by the book play" that's correct more often than not. If anything declaring intent a bunch teaches you about the cases where it may have been better not to, while I think the educational value the other way around is comparatively lacking.

Yeah. Absolutely agree. I think people too often try for the thrill of individual heroics where methodical scum-hunting is needed.

There are times where a illogical town play shocks scum and can force scum to expose themselves. But if illogical town play is common, scum will anticipate that and mimic it in a beneficial manner.

Being methodical and fundamentally boring is effective is more effective in the long run. 85% of the time sounds about right.

I think this may depend on the setup? "Intent to hammer" is very different between a role madness game (in which you can expect the player in question to be plausibly saved by their claim), and a vanilla game (in which there's no claim that the player in question can reasonably make). I'd say that a hammer without intent is arguably pro-town in a vanilla game, because expressing your intent doesn't actually do anything nightplay-wise to help solve the game. Meanwhile, if votes on someone come along with the potential risk of an unexpected hammer, it makes everyone's votes more meaningful; placing a vote on a scumbuddy is something of a real risk because they might end up getting hammered out of nowhere.

On the other hand, "intent to hammer", or the more or less equivalent "You're at L-1, claim" from someone off the wagon, is highly important to avoid lynching power roles who could be saved by their claim (or at least coralled, i.e. having their actions directed by town in such a way that it proves their role, if not their alignment). Forcing claims is normally anti-town, but in the case of someone you're genuinely planning to lynch, you'd probably be fairly happy if they claim a powerful power role and end up getting nightkilled as a result; it's better than mislynching them. Note that this implies that a player who gives intent to hammer should, theoretically, actually place the hammer upon hearing a "vanilla" claim; this rule tends to not be followed in practice because townies think they can outWIFOM it, but they are usually wrong.

Of course, in a vanilla, "we don't use intents here", meta, town should be very careful about running random wagons up to L-1 early in RVS! I think that from the logical point of view it's a more townsided way to play, but everyone needs to be on the same page or you'll end up with games being ruined by impulsive townies.

In post 23, Raskolnikov wrote:

In post 0, Invisibility wrote:I've played a game on a different account in 2014 and in that game people said "intent to hammer" when they intended to hammer (duh). However, the games I have seen that happened this year had instances where people hammered without stating that they were going to beforehand. Has the site meta just shifted to do this less or is it simply fate that I did not see any threads where people weren't completely sure that a player was scum?

Just to be clear, you're talking after they already claimed right?

No

Don't hold back and declare intent. Murder without remorse is the most townie position to take.

In post 0, Invisibility wrote:I've played a game on a different account in 2014 and in that game people said "intent to hammer" when they intended to hammer (duh). However, the games I have seen that happened this year had instances where people hammered without stating that they were going to beforehand. Has the site meta just shifted to do this less or is it simply fate that I did not see any threads where people weren't completely sure that a player was scum?

It's been awhile since I've played but intent to hammer was definitely still a thing like 6 months ago. Still, there are some people who have a tendency to hammer regardless.

honestly role madness is a setting where claims shouldn't as likely to save you as normalish setups, as you'll always be claiming a PR

Intent to hammer should always be given

In post 33, Not_Mafia wrote:Intent to hammer should always be given

lmao

If there were any 'have to' aspects of mafia, every game would become more and more formulaic. If someone does or does not intent before hammering, it gives you something to discuss which is only a good thing.

In post 35, profii wrote:If there were any 'have to' aspects of mafia, every game would become more and more formulaic. If someone does or does not intent before hammering, it gives you something to discuss which is only a good thing.

Right. My arguments where that if all town action fall in a range;

Formulaic ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chaotic

Where procedural stuff like announcing to claim falls under formulaic and instinctual stuff like just hammering without discussion falls under Chaotic.

Being formulaic is beneficial most of the time, but not every time. Whereas the more chaotic town behavior is, the less their chance of victory.

yeah I like your point about 85% of the time it's fine

Stating intent to hammer is bad. You want to quickhammer asap and unexpectedly. This prevents the mafia from fakeclaiming cop and A. Avoiding the lynch or B. Getting counterclaims which leads to your cop dying Night 1.

In post 38, Aronis wrote:Stating intent to hammer is bad. You want to quickhammer asap and unexpectedly. This prevents the mafia from fakeclaiming cop and A. Avoiding the lynch or B. Getting counterclaims which leads to your cop dying Night 1.

So all you have to pressure people with is a weak "oh no, you're at L-2. Maybe two more people might be willing to lynch...."?

Per Hoopla's recent summary, the town in a mini normal hammered a fucking Friendly Townie without claim. If you're not familiar with the role, a friendly townie can pick someone every night and the mod will tell that person the friendly townie is town. In other words they hammered confirmed town without claim.

Please wait for claim. When they start claim stalling, bring down the hammer with the force of righteous anger.

I once hammered town after re-reading and tinfoiling. She got mad and left the site. (Which is fair, I hammered without really Camn to talk me out of it)

Of course, I also hammered scum in 'Fish Town Mafia' or w/e it was that Chesskid hosted. Basically no one was probably going to hammer but I hammered because I wasn't really caught up and I read Amrun joking 'I wish someone would hammer him!' and so I did and then Llamarble yelled at me and then WOO TOWN WIN. That did get me blacklisted though. Although it was because I prod dodged to infinity that game.

So I don't know. I like what Kublai Khan and others have said though.

In post 40, GreyICE wrote:Per Hoopla's recent summary, the town in a mini normal hammered a fucking Friendly Townie without claim. If you're not familiar with the role, a friendly townie can pick someone every night and the mod will tell that person the friendly townie is town. In other words they hammered confirmed town without claim.

Please wait for claim. When they start claim stalling, bring down the hammer with the force of righteous anger.

This.

Hell I even wait for claims as scum.

Now, whether or not I believe your claim is a whole different story.

Here's my take:
If there is any sort of major disagreement on whether the wagon is on scum or town, or if you are just trying to draw out info, ALWAYS claim intent.
If there is general agreement that the wagon victim should be lynched, just vote. The rest of the town is not going to care.

In post 4, Alisae wrote:Lol posting intent

In post 34, Alisae wrote:

In post 33, Not_Mafia wrote:Intent to hammer should always be given

lmao

Ali your triple banner led me to believe you were grounded on good fundamental play even if you did have lolbalance tendencies.

I am disappoint Ali ... you broke my heart ....

Don’t claim intent

Lmao

If someones been at l-1 for a long time, I think its their own fault if they haven't claimed. Don't just speed hammer people though.

In post 44, MagnaofIllusion wrote:

In post 4, Alisae wrote:Lol posting intent

In post 34, Alisae wrote:

In post 33, Not_Mafia wrote:Intent to hammer should always be given

lmao

Ali your triple banner led me to believe you were grounded on good fundamental play even if you did have lolbalance tendencies.

I am disappoint Ali ... you broke my heart ....

I’m trolling

In post 47, Alisae wrote:

In post 44, MagnaofIllusion wrote:

In post 4, Alisae wrote:Lol posting intent

In post 34, Alisae wrote:

In post 33, Not_Mafia wrote:Intent to hammer should always be given

lmao

Ali your triple banner led me to believe you were grounded on good fundamental play even if you did have lolbalance tendencies.

I am disappoint Ali ... you broke my heart ....

I’m trolling

I mean NM has a rep for lolhammering in games imo


Also intent is something I don’t see in games anymore tbh because by the point someone reaches L-1 or L-2 a claim comes out