Playing SK.

[Thestatusquo]

I was wondering what people think of the playing the SK as a vanilla townie till mid-late game. I.E, not killing at all until late, in order to throw off the town in the number of nights they have.

It seems to me it has a couple of good points:

1) Throw the town off: "We had 1 death before, now we have 2! We're in LOL wtf?"

2) Gives you a very solid vig claim in the late game.

3) Makes it less likely for you to be caught by tracker type roles "WHERE WERE YOU LAST NIGHT?"

4) Makes it easier psychologicaly for you to play with the town if you pretend you really are on their side.


My questions are: What does everyone think? Is this a viable strategy, and do those positives outweigh the loss of an extra dead body per night.

[Save The Dragons]

i kinda think generally more dead bodyage outweighs benefits attributed from town.

Besides, I was SK in Alias, and it was hella fun to send in a choice and watch people die.

I think I'd just kill people, because the SK doesn't have a lot of time to get the game down to two people, pretty much.

Although it might be easier in a game where townies kill other townies...

[petroleumjelly]

Depends on the scenario, and the general vibes you get from the town. Also, if the Serial Killer has any abilities whatsoever, those must definitely be taken into account.

For example, I have played the role of Serial Killer once in the forums, in ScumChat Mini Mafia. As it happens, there were no other scum groups that could kill: instead, I was up against the town, and a cult. If I had withheld my killing ability, nobody would have died for many nights, and unless I managed to continaully lynch cult, the game would have gone to Hell in a handbasket rather quickly.

If there are advantages to withholding kills (such as Serial Killers who become untargetable, or gain investigation immunity, etc), then the strategy of not killing early in the game is more than feasible.

The big question comes down to how many days you think you can live without being lynched. The less days, the more killing you should do. This is counterbalanced by the fact that narrowing down the town quicker gives the mafia a greater chance in cross-killing you, so it is to your advantage to hunt well in the day (but not so well that you become a target), and try to kill

them

at night, if at all possible.

I would say it ultimately comes down to playstyle. I can certainly imagine keeping nightkills to myself, but I would personally rather kill off other people as quickly as possible (unless no-killing could end up in a mislynch, or something).

[Zindaras]

I always play as Townishly as possible, including scumcatching and the like. That's what people expect of me, and it's what I like to do.

As far as night kills go, I will probably do a No Kill Night 0, because I hate killing people Night 0, and I'm likely to be tracked and such. After that, I'll hit people I get scummy vibes from (but not enough actual evidence) or lurkers. That's viggish behaviour, and you always have to prepare for a fake claim later in the game (though I could also not shoot anyone ever at all and prepare for a fake claim).

[Nightson]

I kill as often and as early as possible.

I try to be protown during the day no matter what my riole is.

[Glork]

There's one main reason I'd kill right away as SK.

Usually when designing a setup, the creator/mod of the game will make the game under the assumption that there will be an SK kill every night. The SK is expected to kill and as a result, the numbers will be adjusted accordingly.

Choosing not to kill for the first few nights can drastically alter the balance of the game, even if it's just a pair of vanilla townies who would have bitten the dust. If you're not killing, you're doing two things. First, you're... inactively inflating the town's numbers. (And I'm using "town" in the loosest of terms -- meaning all of the other players.) You're making your job harder for yourself simply by virtue of the fact that there are more people for you to take out later. Secondly, you're creating more bullets for yourself to dodge (pun partially intended). More nights mean more investigations and/or nightkills. More days mean more opportunities for *you* to get lynched.

[Zindaras]

Yet would you kill Night Zero, Glork? For the sacrificing of your Night Zero kill, a Vig claim is lent more weight, a tracker investigation on you Night Zero won't screw you over, and other such things.

[Yosarian2]

As far as night kills go, I will probably do a No Kill Night 0, because I hate killing people Night 0, and I'm likely to be tracked and such. After that, I'll hit people I get scummy vibes from (but not enough actual evidence) or lurkers. That's viggish behaviour, and you always have to prepare for a fake claim later in the game (though I could also not shoot anyone ever at all and prepare for a fake claim).

Well, you could get tracked night zero, but then again, you're just as likely to kill the tracker night zero. If you want to win as SK, you've got to take some gambles.

You really don't have much wiggle room as SK. If the game ends with you and two confirmed innocents on the last day, you lose, so you need anyone who can make confirmed innocents (cops, other investigators, sometimes roleblockers) dead ASAP, or you lose no matter what, and you need masons and anyone with a confirmable role dead. If the game ends with you and 2 scum, you lose, so you want the number of scum to drop early (you might not want to kill off the whole scum group, but one or two dead scum is probably a good thing). And the faster people die, the less days and nights there are, and so the less chances there are for you to get lynched or targeted at night.

Basically, the more people die, the better your chances of winning the game. The whole "SK claims vig" gambit is something everyone looks out for anyway, and so unless you are forced into it, you're probably better off just playing it like a townie during the day instead of trying to plan all of your night actions in order to look like a vig. The idea kill for a vig is very different from the ideal kill for a SK anyway.

[Zindaras]

Well, you could get tracked night zero, but then again, you're just as likely to kill the tracker night zero. If you want to win as SK, you've got to take some gambles.

You're wrong here. SKs would kill randomly (okay, I wouldn't kill randomly if I'd kill N0, I'd kill someone who's a known lurker). Trackers don't track randomly. Like cops, they tend to investigate the most experienced/best players Night Zero.

I've got quite the reputation for scumcatching in most places I play, so I have quite a high chance of getting tracked Night Zero.

You really don't have much wiggle room as SK. If the game ends with you and two confirmed innocents on the last day, you lose, so you need anyone who can make confirmed innocents (cops, other investigators, sometimes roleblockers) dead ASAP, or you lose no matter what, and you need masons and anyone with a confirmable role dead. If the game ends with you and 2 scum, you lose, so you want the number of scum to drop early (you might not want to kill off the whole scum group, but one or two dead scum is probably a good thing). And the faster people die, the less days and nights there are, and so the less chances there are for you to get lynched or targeted at night.

You are completely correct here. In fact, confirmed innocents are the only ones I make exceptions for. But, following this logic, it's bad to kill Night Zero. Why? Because there is quite a minor chance for this player to already have been confirmed, and you want to keep as many unconfirmeds in to make the pool of targets for the Cops and lynches and such larger.

Killing someone Night Zero will, most of the time, just kill someone you could've gotten lynched later on.

[Seol]

Well, you could get tracked night zero, but then again, you're just as likely to kill the tracker night zero. If you want to win as SK, you've got to take some gambles.

You're wrong here. SKs would kill randomly (okay, I wouldn't kill randomly if I'd kill N0, I'd kill someone who's a known lurker).

really? i'd aim for a threat.

[Yosarian2]

You're wrong here. SKs would kill randomly (okay, I wouldn't kill randomly if I'd kill N0, I'd kill someone who's a known lurker). Trackers don't track randomly. Like cops, they tend to investigate the most experienced/best players Night Zero.

I've got quite the reputation for scumcatching in most places I play, so I have quite a high chance of getting tracked Night Zero.

Why would you kill a lurker night zero? Lurkers are someone who's going to get lynched later.

Anyway, in most games around here, you've probably got at least 1/2 to 1/3 chance of killing someone who's not vanillia night 0. A mason, a tracker, a cop, a doc, or something else like that.

And yeah, you could get tracked night zero, but trackers aren't all that common. Unless you're playing an open role mafia game and you know there's a tracker, I hardly think it's worth losing a night zero kill just on the off chance that there might be a tracker and they might decide to track you. If anything, unless the tracker is targeting randomally, one would think that the odds of the tracker tracking the SK would go up over time as the tracker had more posts to go from to at least narrow down the search.

You are completely correct here. In fact, confirmed innocents are the only ones I make exceptions for. But, following this logic, it's bad to kill Night Zero. Why? Because there is quite a minor chance for this player to already have been confirmed, and you want to keep as many unconfirmeds in to make the pool of targets for the Cops and lynches and such larger.

Well, you might kill a townie, or you might kill a townie who was going to be cleared by a cop night zero, or you might kill a mafia, or you might kill a mason, or you might kill a power role like a cop. Any of those are good outcomes for you.

Sure, if you kill a townie the cops have less people to look at to figure out who the SK is, but then again you have less people to kill before you kill the cop, or the other power roles. And the cop is dangerous even if he dosn't investigate you; all he has to do is clear a few townies and you're in trouble.

Killing someone Night Zero will, most of the time, just kill someone you could've gotten lynched later on.

I'd kill someone who's not so easy to get lynched, personally.

[Zindaras]

really? i'd aim for a threat.

A threat is only a threat if you play badly. Besides, leaving good players around adds more of a challenge to the game.

Why would you kill a lurker night zero? Lurkers are someone who's going to get lynched later.

You have no idea how much I hate that way of thinking. Lurkers annoy the living bajeezus out of me. Lurkers add nothing to the game. Lurkers don't add excitement, don't add challenge, don't add fun. Lurkers add annoyance and irritation and make lynching people slow.

To be honest, I despise people who just go with killing off all the good players. I find it a cowardly and dishonourable strategy.

I play to play well. I play to have fun. I play to have other people have fun. Killing off active people and let lurkers rule a game is not fun.

[Patrick]

Well it's one way of thinking. But many ppl would probably make the choices that increase their chances of winning. Now, lurkers are annoying, and if I'm pro town i'll certainly get annoyed with them and try to get them to either post or get replaced, and as scum I would fake the annoyance. But I would certainly kill off someone innocent looking or hard to lynch rather than a lurker. If the lurker has to be used as lynch bait, so be it, it's up to the pro town players to spot scum being oppotunistic with them.

[Nightson]

I kill lurkers too.

<3 Zindaras

[Zindaras]

Well it's one way of thinking. But many ppl would probably make the choices that increase their chances of winning.

You're a Serial Killer. By killing off supposed "threats", you also kill off threats to the Mafia. SKs do want to get rid of both Mafia and Town. By killing off good players, you reduce the chance of the Mafia getting offed by them, and you'll have to do that yourself.

Now, lurkers are annoying, and if I'm pro town i'll certainly get annoyed with them and try to get them to either post or get replaced, and as scum I would fake the annoyance. But I would certainly kill off someone innocent looking or hard to lynch rather than a lurker. If the lurker has to be used as lynch bait, so be it, it's up to the pro town players to spot scum being oppotunistic with them.

Innocent lookings, okay. But hard to lynch? You should really put some more faith in your own playing skills.

Edit: *huggles Nightson*

[Patrick]

Well I'm supposing I would play like that. I mean I've never actually been a SK and I've only been mafia twice. But I think it's pretty common for scum players to kill off perceived threats or unlynchable ppl, without them being insecure about their play skills. Where do you draw the line? If a doctor is forced to claim on day 1, would you as scum kill him night 1? Or would you keep him around because it's more of a challenge to keep poweroles alive too? I don't see the point in playing suboptimally just to provide more of a challenge. I find my games challenge me quite enough already without handicapping myself.

[Zindaras]

Well I'm supposing I would play like that. I mean I've never actually been a SK and I've only been mafia twice. But I think it's pretty common for scum players to kill off perceived threats or unlynchable ppl, without them being insecure about their play skills. Where do you draw the line? If a doctor is forced to claim on day 1, would you as scum kill him night 1? Or would you keep him around because it's more of a challenge to keep poweroles alive too? I don't see the point in playing suboptimally just to provide more of a challenge. I find my games challenge me quite enough already without handicapping myself.

I never advocated leaving people like docs and cops alive. I'm advocating offing active players instead of inactive players when there are no other influential factors (claims, suspicions regarding power roles, suspicions regarding alignment).

[Thok]

I can see Zindaras's point; it's easier for some people post/participate if the game is active. If you're such a person, a night 0 lurker kill might be a good idea.

(In Muppets I killed Coron Night 0 mainly for pace issues; while he's a good player, his play style can also slow down games. Muppets happens to be one of the quickest theme games since I've joined.)

[Zindaras]

Well, for me, it's not so much that it makes it easier for me to post/participate (though it does make a difference, I guess), it's that lurkers just annoy me. It also makes sure other people post/participate more.

What I strive for is that lurker killing becomes a part of the metagame. I think it would mean a huge quality boost for Mafias.

[Seol]

really? i'd aim for a threat.

A threat is only a threat if you play badly.

whoa whoa whoa that is

not

true. depends on the nature of the threat. some types of threat - the sort that pick up on play errors - are

more

dangerous if you play badly, but they're still threats if you play well, bearing in mind nobody's perfect. there are other threats too, like players who always kill you as soon as they can due to personal grudges.

Besides, leaving good players around adds more of a challenge to the game.

if it's more challenging to win with good players left alive, then it is tactically unsound to leave them alive. it also adds more of a challenge to the game if i decide not to use the letter "y" at any point, it may even add a layer of fun, but it certainly doesn't make it viable strategically or desirable as a de facto approach.

Why would you kill a lurker night zero? Lurkers are someone who's going to get lynched later.

You have no idea how much I hate that way of thinking. Lurkers annoy the living bajeezus out of me. Lurkers add nothing to the game. Lurkers don't add excitement, don't add challenge, don't add fun. Lurkers add annoyance and irritation and make lynching people slow.

indeed. lurkers are a problem. however, you have to ask yourself - as sk, what's your priority? making the game more fun for everyone.... or winning? because sometimes those two will come into conflict. now, sure, lurkers need to be dealt with... but that's a meta-game consideration, which should be accounted for primarily by the mod and secondly by town strategies.

To be honest, I despise people who just go with killing off all the good players. I find it a cowardly and dishonourable strategy.

let's not get into ad homs. if you don't kill the biggest threats - which doesn't necessarily mean the "good players" - you're playing a poor game. simple as that.

I play to play well. I play to have fun. I play to have other people have fun. Killing off active people and let lurkers rule a game is not fun.

fine, you're putting having fun over winning, that's a valid position. but it's not a valid

strategy

.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

*randomly saunters by and huggles Seol*

[Zindaras]

A threat is only a threat if you play badly.

whoa whoa whoa that is

not

true. depends on the nature of the threat. some types of threat - the sort that pick up on play errors - are

more

dangerous if you play badly, but they're still threats if you play well, bearing in mind nobody's perfect.[/quote]

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.

there are other threats too, like players who always kill you as soon as they can due to personal grudges.

Never seen such a player.

indeed. lurkers are a problem. however, you have to ask yourself - as sk, what's your priority? making the game more fun for everyone.... or winning? because sometimes those two will come into conflict. now, sure, lurkers need to be dealt with... but that's a meta-game consideration, which should be accounted for primarily by the mod and secondly by town strategies.

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

let's not get into ad homs. if you don't kill the biggest threats - which doesn't necessarily mean the "good players" - you're playing a poor game. simple as that.

Threats, threats. As I said, I have no qualms with killing good, active players because they're the Cop or anything.

fine, you're putting having fun over winning, that's a valid position. but it's not a valid

strategy

.

Over the whole, it is the best strategy. I think you'll agree that you're town more than 50% of the games, right? So, in more than 50% of the games, you hate lurkers and want to get rid of them. Now, my town percentage is 80%. Why would I want to leave lurkers alive in 20% of my games if it screws over the other 80%. If everyone kills lurkers in those 20% of their games, everyone gets an advantage in the other 80%.

From a metagame perspective, killing lurkers and leaving active players alive is good.

[Seol]

depends on the nature of the threat. some types of threat - the sort that pick up on play errors - are

more

dangerous if you play badly, but they're still threats if you play well, bearing in mind nobody's perfect.

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.

because you try to look town, you look town? only if you play perfectly. that doesn't happen. even the best players make play errors, but only the best players catch the small ones. eliminate the best players, you can get away with more, and are therefore more likely to win.

let's not get into ad homs. if you don't kill the biggest threats - which doesn't necessarily mean the "good players" - you're playing a poor game. simple as that.

Threats, threats. As I said, I have no qualms with killing good, active players because they're the Cop or anything.

a cop is a threat because they are more likely to be able to demonstrate to the town that you are scum than other players.

a good analyst is a threat because they are more likely to be able to demonstrate to the town that you are scum than other players.

where's the difference?

fine, you're putting having fun over winning, that's a valid position. but it's not a valid

strategy

.

Over the whole, it is the best strategy. I think you'll agree that you're town more than 50% of the games, right? So, in more than 50% of the games, you hate lurkers and want to get rid of them.

so... lurker hunt when you're town? and do it during the daytime when you're sk, push lynches etc - this not only furthers your metagame considerations but also helps you get easy lynches. 8)

Now, my town percentage is 80%. Why would I want to leave lurkers alive in 20% of my games if it screws over the other 80%.

it doesn't. it might scew over those 20%, but it doesn't affect the other 80%.

From a metagame perspective, killing lurkers and leaving active players alive is good.

from a metagame perspective, sure. but developing the metagame to favour town is not in itself a desirable thing.

eg, for a really extreme example: "give up and come quietly" is a really strong pro-town metagame strategy. what you do is, when you're scum, you admit it on day 1 and out your scum-mates. obv you lose every game you're scum, but because you're town more often than scum, your win % goes up. in fact, it's a breaking metagame strategy if adopted sufficiently.

it is, however, a lousy strategy within the game.

now if you're trying to develop the metagame such that games are more involving and fun, that too is legitimate - but it's not a strategy, it's putting having fun ahead of winning.

[Zindaras]

because you try to look town, you look town? only if you play perfectly. that doesn't happen. even the best players make play errors, but only the best players catch the small ones. eliminate the best players, you can get away with more, and are therefore more likely to win.

As SK, I play exactly the same as I would when I'm town. If you play the same as when you're town, you'll look town.

a cop is a threat because they are more likely to be able to demonstrate to the town that you are scum than other players.

a good analyst is a threat because they are more likely to be able to demonstrate to the town that you are scum than other players.

where's the difference?

Under this logic, getting lynched is the same as getting killed by Mafia. The huge difference is that when a Cop says you're scum, you die, unless you claim miller or something and get away with it. When a good analyst says you're scum, you can defend yourself against his allegations.

so... lurker hunt when you're town? and do it during the daytime when you're sk, push lynches etc - this not only furthers your metagame considerations but also helps you get easy lynches. 8)

By lurker hunting as SK, it gets more difficult to get rid of Mafiates, and people will look at you as scummier because you're pushing for lurker lynches.

it doesn't. it might scew over those 20%, but it doesn't affect the other 80%.

Not if everyone does it.

From a metagame perspective, sure. but developing the metagame to favour town is not in itself a desirable thing.

My goal is not to make it more favourable to the town but to make it more fun. It can be argued that it doesn't even make it that much more favourable for the town.

eg, for a really extreme example: "give up and come quietly" is a really strong pro-town metagame strategy. what you do is, when you're scum, you admit it on day 1 and out your scum-mates. obv you lose every game you're scum, but because you're town more often than scum, your win % goes up. in fact, it's a breaking metagame strategy if adopted sufficiently.

it is, however, a lousy strategy within the game.

now if you're trying to develop the metagame such that games are more involving and fun, that too is legitimate - but it's not a strategy, it's putting having fun ahead of winning.

As I said, that's the main point. I'm trying to make the games more fun for everyone, and I think that developing the metagame to make it more fun for everyone is a good idea.

[Seol]

because you try to look town, you look town? only if you play perfectly. that doesn't happen. even the best players make play errors, but only the best players catch the small ones. eliminate the best players, you can get away with more, and are therefore more likely to win.

As SK, I play exactly the same as I would when I'm town. If you play the same as when you're town, you'll look town.

no, you don't, you

try

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

a cop is a threat because they are more likely to be able to demonstrate to the town that you are scum than other players.

a good analyst is a threat because they are more likely to be able to demonstrate to the town that you are scum than other players.

where's the difference?

Under this logic, getting lynched is the same as getting killed by Mafia. The huge difference is that when a Cop says you're scum, you die, unless you claim miller or something and get away with it. When a good analyst says you're scum, you can defend yourself against his allegations.

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.

so... lurker hunt when you're town? and do it during the daytime when you're sk, push lynches etc - this not only furthers your metagame considerations but also helps you get easy lynches. 8)

By lurker hunting as SK, it gets more difficult to get rid of Mafiates, and people will look at you as scummier because you're pushing for lurker lynches.[/quote]see, now you're talking strategy.

it doesn't. it might scew over those 20%, but it doesn't affect the other 80%.

Not if everyone does it.

are you saying everyone

should?

As I said, that's the main point. I'm trying to make the games more fun for everyone, and I think that developing the metagame to make it more fun for everyone is a good idea.

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.

furthermore, this isn't a topic for how best to play an sk, it's a topic for how best to deal with lurkers or the ethics of metagame strategies.