[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 10964086 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null Micro 873 - Game Over - Mafiascum.net
I can get a solid read on Blake once she starts contributing more, so I'm waiting for that before coming to a conclusion on that slot. I dislike her early posting thing in this game, but it's based mostly on flimsy reasoning.
Okay, well. If you insist on making things harder than they should be, go ahead.
I don't see what you're trying to accomplish by doing any of this; it doesn't feel natural whatsoever, and the end goal will be you ending in 0 (zero) coalitions.
In post 123, Blake Belladonna wrote:I think people are confusing me planning around the coalition failing with me being pessimistic about it failing?
I mean.
What exactly is the problem here?
It really does look like you've no confidence with your approach, and it feels like you're overthinking it a little bit too much. Previous cases of coalitions failing have nothing to do with this game, and saying stuff like "I'd rather be out of coalition" isn't exactly a good look.
In post 119, Skygazer wrote:dont think quest actually SRs me here after marathoning w me this morning
That's a really bad (not good) read.
i mean u saw me get mislynched like 3 times so you know im an easy push and correctly read me when i was town then iirc
Marathon games are fuck-around games. I've played non-marathon game(s?) with you, and I can't say that I'm sold on the fact that you're an easy push.
i mean im not easy to lynch by any means in non-marathons but thats different than what i meant by pushing
My point is that, do you really think I would come to the conclusion that you're an easy push / lynch based on a few marathon games that all lasted under 25 minutes? That seems far-fetched.
In post 119, Skygazer wrote:dont think quest actually SRs me here after marathoning w me this morning
That's a really bad (not good) read.
i mean u saw me get mislynched like 3 times so you know im an easy push and correctly read me when i was town then iirc
Marathon games are fuck-around games. I've played non-marathon game(s?) with you, and I can't say that I'm sold on the fact that you're an easy push.
i mean im not easy to lynch by any means in non-marathons but thats different than what i meant by pushing
My point is that, do you really think I would come to the conclusion that you're an easy push / lynch based on a few marathon games that all lasted under 25 minutes? That seems far-fetched.
i mean this is a similar situation wrt rt interactions
I disagree. I purposefully play more like myself when in marathon games because those games are just meant to be fun for me as opposed to playing my heart out for my win condition. Coming to the conclusion that I think you're an easy lynch based off of that seems exaggerated to me.
In post 131, Skygazer wrote:tbf to ank i opposed having myself in the coalition last time i played this setup
Do you think it makes what I said wrong? From my point of view, it's a very low-confidence approach to the setup.
i agree w you
but there aren't any strong consensus TRs yet and i feel like ank would be playing townier as scum rather than making the ??? tim/quest read based on the potential slip
Ank's town here. I'm not arguing any of this because of her alignment, I'm arguing with her because I would expect her to not approach the setup this way. I know she's able to get good reads, and her approach almost makes it feel like she thinks she won't be able to. Everyone that's sided with town today should be playing to win with the coalition, and if it fails, then it's whatever, this player list is more than capable of winning during mountainous.
Post
Post #145 (isolation #35) » Fri May 24, 2019 10:30 am
Postby Quest »
In post 144, Blake Belladonna wrote:You could say I don't have confidence in my reads, which is true since I don't have particularly strong reads at this point, but I independently find it pretty silly to bank everything on the coalition succeeding.
I'll let the thread breathe for a bit since this is kind of derailing the game.
I'll be around later if you want to talk some more. I'm not trying to get on your nerves, and it's not that I've got no faith in you; I just think you're using the wrong approach.
The things that I think are scummy aren't things that are the byproduct of town playing weird, though. If I'm wrong it's from a wrong understanding of tone/mindset type things.
Eh. I think her tone's been fine this game, there's nothing that's standing out as particularly scummy about it. Although, tonal reads are so personal that that's such a weak thing to say.
A lot of her posts are to try and bait for reactions which would explain why you the wrong understanding of her mindset. Whether she wants to admit it or not, she's the type of player who loves to do reaction tests.
Post
Post #181 (isolation #42) » Fri May 24, 2019 11:41 am
Postby Quest »
why you've got the wrong understanding*
That said, I can understand why she has a scum lean read on me but I don't think it really has anything to do with anything I've posted; I think it's mostly based on her knowledge that she knows I would play like this as either alignment.
Post
Post #185 (isolation #44) » Fri May 24, 2019 11:57 am
Postby Quest »
I think his opening postings was very natural and matched a town thought process. Your opening posts were awful, and the way he approached them and questioned them was very close to how I wanted to approach them.
Post
Post #188 (isolation #45) » Fri May 24, 2019 12:04 pm
Postby Quest »
Not really. Saying "I think a maximum of one scum has posted so far" is an odd read; it's incredibly vague, and something that I would've questioned too. You gave no evidence that you actually believed this, and if you want to go with the "reaction bait" argument, then I still think what I said holds true. It's not a great opener, especially when you follow it up with 28.
In post 188, Quest wrote:Not really. Saying "I think a maximum of one scum has posted so far" is an odd read; it's incredibly vague, and something that I would've questioned too. You gave no evidence that you actually believed this, and if you want to go with the "reaction bait" argument, then I still think what I said holds true. It's not a great opener, especially when you follow it up with 28.
Are you understanding what I'm saying here?
This response heavily implies you don't.
I don't see what I misunderstood about your question? If there's someone misunderstanding someone, it's you.
Your opening posts weren't great, you can argue this as much as you want, but Tim's approach to them was townie because of aforementioned reasons.
If you think I'm misunderstanding something, then make yourself more clear because it's obvious that you're trying to stay vague on purpose.
Post
Post #192 (isolation #47) » Fri May 24, 2019 12:13 pm
Postby Quest »
In post 190, Tim Goodman wrote:If you think that I'm scum with Quest and I slipped that information by saying that you 'knew' that she was also scum you're assuming that I'm a fairly incompetent scum player.
You're probably right, but this is my first coalition game so it made sense in my head. What's wrong about this?
I just think it's very narrow-minded to remove her from your coalition because she said she'd rather not be in one. If you town read someone, and I'm not saying this is the case here, you should be adding them to your coalition.
It feels like you're purely going off of those 3 (three) posts, and that's the only reason why you decided to hurt her. I think it's based on flimsy reasoning, and I don't think it should change your stance on her (if you had any to begin with).