| Coalition 1.1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voter | Coalition | ||||
Irrelephant11 1 |
Gamma Emerald |
Chara |
My Milked Eek |
no lunch |
Irrelephant11 |
Chara |
Chara |
Irrelephant11 |
|||
no lunch |
no lunch |
||||
Aubrey |
|||||
aslightrain |
|||||
skitter30 |
skitter30 |
||||
Gamma Emerald |
Aubrey |
no lunch |
|||
My Milked Eek |
|||||
Nukaholic |
|||||
| (expired on 2018-11-08 22:53:59) | |||||
More accurately:In post 28, no lunch wrote:if 1-2 of the scum can't look townie enough to get on the coalition, they deserve to lose.
This looks like you’re suggesting something that didn’t work very well in the past, what’s up with thatIn post 28, no lunch wrote:From having a look at Micro 803.
The coalition selected was:
1. Not_Mafia
2. the worst
3. Wisdom
4. Hiraki
5. Myloninja13
none of these players were readable.
Not_Mafia, Hiraki and Myloninja13 didn't post enough readable content. All 3 were later mislynched (which is a loss). Not_Mafia was the game losing mislynch besides being the most readable player on the wagon, and actually looking like town later.
Wisdom was the scum on the wagon, and the most universally townread on the wagon.
the worst was nearly mislynched on day one, and was suggested as a high-equity partner for Wisdom. Wisdom's partner nightkilled him after Wisdom was lynched.
Honestly speaking, if 1-2 of the scum can't look townie enough to get on the coalition, they deserve to lose. Which is the point of the setup.
So just electing people who look like town is a far weaker strategy than forcing a pentotomy of players who are more readable in later phases.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Okay. I read through normal, I was just confusedIn post 31, no lunch wrote:Sorry, I think you read my post backwards..
Last time the coalition was 5/5 unreadable players who looked enough like town to get through.
I'm suggesting we consider the opposite. Elect 5/5 readable players.
Sure. I have a small scumread brewing, and I definitely will not be electing them no matter what.In post 33, Chara wrote:personally, i think we should be aggressively sorting our coalitions. scum are in an instant-loss scenario if they aren't a part of it from the get-go. the town that lost the previous iteration let Wisdom lead them by the hand, which lead to the loss.
knowing that scum can lose immediately is where we'll get the reactions to sort them out.
Already on this.In post 36, Chara wrote:i'm going to bed, but essentially it's less about who is very town (besides me obviously) and more about how mafia need to squeeze themself in somehow and how they're going to do that.
to that end i'd suggest keeping your coalitions small with players you either genuinely trust or want to pretend you genuinely trust, instead of keeping them constantly populated at 5/5.
basically: don't use your coalition like your readslist.
Me three.In post 38, Gamma Emerald wrote:Already on this.In post 36, Chara wrote:i'm going to bed, but essentially it's less about who is very town (besides me obviously) and more about how mafia need to squeeze themself in somehow and how they're going to do that.
to that end i'd suggest keeping your coalitions small with players you either genuinely trust or want to pretend you genuinely trust, instead of keeping them constantly populated at 5/5.
basically: don't use your coalition like your readslist.
Getting some town pings off this.In post 35, no lunch wrote:
However, I believe there are some players on this list who are exceptionally hard to read. There's a very low chance I'll be allowing them into a coalition personally, even if they do present as very towny.
Why do you oppose learning from past mistakes?In post 41, Aubrey wrote:Let’s not go through a bunch of possibilities from an old game. I doubt few will have read it.
