Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Teneb]

Also: "Reaction Test", really? Can't you come up with anything better to explain that?

Like something other than what I meant? No. Meph came in.

Then why did you repeat it after he came in?

No, there isn't a %, but if I were to use it after most people had used their defends, then the chances of someone stopping my attack would decrease. Your question: if one attacks the Prince, then of course he is scummy. Attacking other players without a case is also scummy. But if you do have a case, then the scummy-ness of the act would depend on the case itself (if it's a good one or just a lot of BS).

I didn't say anything about the presence of a case. Anyway, hypothetically, why would you attack a player without a case anyway? If others have defended, it means progress and thus, ideas have been given. Why would you bring in the obvious? Back to being a traitor, when would you think is the best time to attack the Prince.

I stated all possibilities for the sake of completeness.
And I think I already said what is the best time to attack the Prince as a traitor, but here is the answer anyway: when, at least, half the players are dead. The best scenario would be if one or more other players have already attacked him, thus attracting attention away from you.

[Tiruin]

Also: "Reaction Test", really? Can't you come up with anything better to explain that?

Like something other than what I meant? No. Meph came in.

Then why did you repeat it after he came in?

I skimmed the post, saw lime green, then PM'd him.

-snip-
I stated all possibilities for the sake of completeness.
And I think I already said what is the best time to attack the Prince as a traitor, but here is the answer anyway: when, at least, half the players are dead. The best scenario would be if one or more other players have already attacked him, thus attracting attention away from you.

But here, you don't know who your allies are - town or scum. Can you expound on that best scenario further? I find it hard to see when a player feels confident to attack the prince. Also, why panic about your own survival when attention is equal? The last part of the bolded portion seems like a badly thought diversion attempt.

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail: Would you wait for somebody to defend you if you were attacked or defend yourself as soon as possible?

The timing of the defense doesn't matter as long as it's before the phase ends, so I'd wait as long as possible to use my defend in case there's a sudden attack on IronyOwl or something.  In addition I'd retaliate if the attack was not first sanctioned by IronyOwl.

Leafsnail: Suppose you were a Crossbowman (y'know Meph, if we can just look at others' weapons, it would be so much easier...), would you use your Unblockable attack if you were put under attack by other players? If so, or if not, why?

Unless the traitor I'm taking aim at is blocking or able to block, yes.  Might as well sink a point of damage into a traitor if I'm going down.

Leafsnail:  What value does a massclaim have this game?  Is it affected by several roles being obvious when used?  (IE someone attacking or defending twice in a turn)

I think the value of a massclaim in this game is zero.  Any traitor role can safely pretend to be a guard until they feel they can make a break for the prince or are about to die.  All a massclaim would do is tell the traitors who's a priority target for elimination... unless the loyals lie, in which case the massclaim is rendered useless again.

If your role can kill a traitor a turn earlier than would otherwise be possible, use it.  If you need two defends to save the Prince, use them.  Otherwise I can't see any reason to reveal your role.

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not really sure. I would be able to claim Stalwart if I was the target of a random lynching, but it might seem scummy so I would probably keep quiet. The extra hp would be useful to stop being killed so early and so I'd be more effective in defending the Prince.

Why did you feel the need to add the bolded to this response?

[Caz]

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not really sure. I would be able to claim Stalwart if I was the target of a random lynching, but it might seem scummy so I would probably keep quiet. The extra hp would be useful to stop being killed so early and so I'd be more effective in defending the Prince.

Why did you feel the need to add the bolded to this response?

I was just explaining myself. In the same vein as you assuming you are taking aim at a traitor whenever you attack.

Do you believe that IronyOwl should take the lead in scumhunting? Why do you feel that all attacks must be sanctioned by him?

[Leafsnail]

"and so I'd be more effective in defending the Prince" is a wholly redundant addition.  It doesn't clarify your thought process - it just adds "also I'm town".

IronyOwl is confirmed town, so it therefore makes sense for him to direct our actions.  If IronyOwl approves an attack that means that it's being directed by a townie, whereas if we allow players to act independently there could be mafia directed attacks.  This doesn't mean he has to take the lead on scumhunting - just that it makes most sense for him to have the final say on "lynches".

[Teneb]

-snip-
I stated all possibilities for the sake of completeness.
And I think I already said what is the best time to attack the Prince as a traitor, but here is the answer anyway: when, at least, half the players are dead. The best scenario would be if one or more other players have already attacked him, thus attracting attention away from you.

But here, you don't know who your allies are - town or scum. Can you expound on that best scenario further? I find it hard to see when a player feels confident to attack the prince. Also, why panic about your own survival when attention is equal? The last part of the bolded portion seems like a badly thought diversion attempt.

You asked me the best time to attack the prince. I said that it would be if either most players were dead or someone had attacked the Prince. Sure, no one knows their team, but anyone attacking the Prince is scum, and if their attacks helps you kill the Prince yourself, then it is a good thing. Why do you think it's a diversion attempt?

Did I fail to answer you question? No, I didn't. Did I say anything about my survival? No, I didn't.

So, what the hell are you on about? Are you trying to come up with bullshit to justify an attack on me?

[Caz]

IronyOwl is confirmed town, so it therefore makes sense for him to direct our actions.  If IronyOwl approves an attack that means that it's being directed by a townie, whereas if we allow players to act independently there could be mafia directed attacks.  This doesn't mean he has to take the lead on scumhunting - just that it makes most sense for him to have the final say on "lynches".

Alright, but even a scum-directed attack in this game would have a chance to hit scum. The traitors can't tell each other apart either.

[Leafsnail]

It should be a lower chance though since they're aiming for town.

[IronyOwl]

Ah, my loyal subjects! Well, most of you. Half?

Anyway, I'm sure we'll manage.


Toaster:

Prince Irony:  What does your confirmed status mean in terms of your scum hunting?

To be honest, I think it'll harm it. Everyone's going to be reacting differently to me because I'm the Prince, which will probably harm a lot of usual scumtells.


Tiruin:

Reaction Testing. I did that to see how others would react if I stated such. My defense has not been used yet as of this moment.

Why? What did you learn? Why specify the bold part?


Leafsnail:

Leafsnail: Suppose you were a Crossbowman (y'know Meph, if we can just look at others' weapons, it would be so much easier...), would you use your Unblockable attack if you were put under attack by other players? If so, or if not, why?

Unless the traitor I'm taking aim at is blocking or able to block, yes.  Might as well sink a point of damage into a traitor if I'm going down.

Why so eager to reiterate how much you're aiming for traitors? How would uncertainty at who actually is a traitor affect this? Would your answer change as scum?

[Leafsnail]

Why so eager to reiterate how much you're aiming for traitors? How would uncertainty at who actually is a traitor affect this? Would your answer change as scum?

That's what I'd do if I was sure I'd found a traitor.  The second part is meant to clarify that there's no point in staying alive if i'm not achieving anything in doing so.  If I didn't have a strong suspicion I'd prioritize defending (although usually after a bandwagon forms against you it's possible to identify at least one person opportunistically jumping on it).

As scum my answer would not change, but my intended actions would, to "attack you with an unblockable shot".

[ToonyMan]

ToonyMan: If in a player's first post, they defended you while asking you about how you felt by being defended, how would you generally react?

Uh, if we remove the fact a player can't defend me unless I'm being attacked (I consider myself able to not get attacked the very moments the game starts), then I would feel pretty cool about getting defended because I could action more this turn.  This wouldn't help me determine the alignment of my would-be helper (or would-be attacker) but it gives me the ability to attack the people I think are traitors (and defend people I find loyal).

Leafsnail: Would you wait for somebody to defend you if you were attacked or defend yourself as soon as possible?

The timing of the defense doesn't matter as long as it's before the phase ends, so I'd wait as long as possible to use my defend in case there's a sudden attack on IronyOwl or something.  In addition I'd retaliate if the attack was not first sanctioned by IronyOwl.

Okaaay.

-snip-
I stated all possibilities for the sake of completeness.
And I think I already said what is the best time to attack the Prince as a traitor, but here is the answer anyway: when, at least, half the players are dead. The best scenario would be if one or more other players have already attacked him, thus attracting attention away from you.

But here, you don't know who your allies are - town or scum. Can you expound on that best scenario further? I find it hard to see when a player feels confident to attack the prince. Also, why panic about your own survival when attention is equal? The last part of the bolded portion seems like a badly thought diversion attempt.

You asked me the best time to attack the prince. I said that it would be if either most players were dead or someone had attacked the Prince. Sure, no one knows their team, but anyone attacking the Prince is scum, and if their attacks helps you kill the Prince yourself, then it is a good thing. Why do you think it's a diversion attempt?

Did I fail to answer you question? No, I didn't. Did I say anything about my survival? No, I didn't.

So, what the hell are you on about? Are you trying to come up with bullshit to justify an attack on me?

I''ll attack Deathsword here though, he looks pretty panicky.

[Teneb]

Defend Self

Toony: Care to elaborate on why I am "panicky", what caused you to reach that conclusion?

[Jim Groovester]

Jim:  Why shouldn't we pick someone at random, kill them, and then repeat until the game is over?

For the same reasons random lynching in a mafia game doesn't work: Low chance of success, lack of scumhunting, lack of actually trying to figure out the game.

Since there is no nightkill, it will work better than in a game of mafia, since one member of the town is not guaranteed to die every cycle, but it's still not that great of a strategy.

Reaction Testing. I did that to see how others would react if I stated such. My defense has not been used yet as of this moment.

Liar liar pants on fire. That's a ridiculous explanation.

I''ll attack Deathsword here though, he looks pretty panicky.

So soon? Why?

IronyOwl, as Prince, do you tell people who to kill or do you let them figure it out on their own? How much command of the game do you take?

Caz, how do you find other traitors if you're a traitor? How do you work with them?

Dariush, is this game better suited to more or less deliberate play? I.E., should we spend a lot of time trying to figure out who's a traitor or not, or should we pay close attention to our gut feelings and attack and defend whenever we get a strong one?

[Toaster]

Toony:  How much of that attack was true suspicion and how much was to break us out of RVS?


Deathsword:  Why did you defend yourself right away instead of waiting until later in the day to see what other actions unfold?


Irony:  Noted.  Do you expect people to follow your lead in attacks?


Caz:  How do you interpret someone who passes their turn very early on?

[Tiruin]

-snip-
I stated all possibilities for the sake of completeness.
And I think I already said what is the best time to attack the Prince as a traitor, but here is the answer anyway: when, at least, half the players are dead. The best scenario would be if one or more other players have already attacked him, thus attracting attention away from you.

But here, you don't know who your allies are - town or scum. Can you expound on that best scenario further? I find it hard to see when a player feels confident to attack the prince. Also, why panic about your own survival when attention is equal? The last part of the bolded portion seems like a badly thought diversion attempt.

You asked me the best time to attack the prince. I said that it would be if either most players were dead or someone had attacked the Prince. Sure, no one knows their team, but anyone attacking the Prince is scum, and if their attacks helps you kill the Prince yourself, then it is a good thing. Why do you think it's a diversion attempt?

Did I fail to answer you question? No, I didn't. Did I say anything about my survival? No, I didn't.

So, what the hell are you on about? Are you trying to come up with bullshit to justify an attack on me?

Hello Sire Jumpy.

Of course you didn't say anything about that, but I was inferring from the last six bolded words I put, assuming 'you' meant...you, as a traitor. What the hell I'm on about, is conversation. Tell me, why would I want to attack you, from your perspective?

Defend Self

Why so self-conscious?

Reaction Testing. I did that to see how others would react if I stated such. My defense has not been used yet as of this moment.

Why? What did you learn? Why specify the bold part?

Reaction Testing. I did that to see how others would react if I stated such. My defense has not been used yet as of this moment.

Liar liar pants on fire. That's a ridiculous explanation.

What is your take on it, Sire snark?

Jim:  Why shouldn't we pick someone at random, kill them, and then repeat until the game is over?

For the same reasons random lynching in a mafia game doesn't work: Low chance of success, lack of scumhunting, lack of actually trying to figure out the game.

Since there is no nightkill, it will work better than in a game of mafia, since one member of the town is not guaranteed to die every cycle, but it's still not that great of a strategy.

This is a pretty simple game, really. Every action is visible and every motive can be shown by those actions. Why do you think the low chance of success is present when the # of people are roughly equally divided into two factions, and nobody knows anybody elses' role?

Anyway, seeing as the game is roughly divided into two equal portions of 'town' and 'scum', which are Loyalists and Traitors [Minus third-party Heir, if any], if you were a traitor: How would you approach the situation if another person attacked the Prince and others defended him [Prince] in his stead while counterattacking the attacker? What would your opinion be on the Prince's aggressor, and on those who chose to retaliate? Assuming normal roles and 8 people.