431 posts in this topic

I don't think this whole faction thing is going to be a problem at all. If it ever becomes necessary, those who aren't in a faction can be a faction, and I'm pretty sure they will always outnumber those who are actually in factions.

Quote

Beyond that, Magestar, Straw, and Ecthelion all hopping on the same vote so quickly is worrying if there is an eliminator faction. With everyone focusing on the FFA aspect, they might feel like they could get away with it.

Seriously, Meta? Just because I poke-voted Alvron and two others jumped on right after for whatever reason, that does not make me part of an eliminator faction. (Alvron)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw Ecth's first vote, and thought 'Hey, it's a free for all.  Killing random people is not a bad idea here! Lezzgo!'.  I seriously doubt there is an eliminator faction, as there is nothing even hinting that anywhere.  And, no, I am not an eliminator.  I am surprised to even have to say that in a free for all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I'm not even going to try quoting on mobile. 

@Eolhondras, I'd like to address some of the points you raised in your response to Meta. 

First, you claim that without factions, the game would have no intrigue. The whole Pokémon mechanic kinda defeats this in that the game is not about picking people off one by one, but instead finding out who has which Pokémon in order to maximise efficiency. Otherwise you're likely to just die. And given the lack of PMs, alliances don't increase the information, and if anything decrease it, as you don't find out what Pokémon your team have, which means you're going to struggle when your team is all that's left. Meta raises a valid criticism of the alliances as voting blocs. I imagine the non aggression isn't going to last very long either. 

You also downplay the power a bloc of 5 people has. The largest minority is still the biggest group, and a fifth of the village is a large fraction. Being able to direct the vote in such a way, quite naturally, would make a player not therein uncomfortable. 

You also seem to misrepresent what Meta meant by favouritism. From what I can tell, he was referring to what happens once the alliance begins to fall apart, at which point favouritism decides who lives and who dies. Who is allowed to join is irrelevant. I'd even argue that having a blanket invitation could be cover for tricking players into one sided non aggression, increasing some players' information about their teammates, at said teammates' expense. 

That all being said, I agree with you about Meta dividing the village, but in this kind of game, it might be better that way, due to the issues I mentioned earlier. I haven't played a factionless game, so I'm not sure, but the lack of formalization of factions makes them easily exploitable. 

Anyway 

@Magestar, I'm sure it was just an offhand thing, but your statement about not being a danger to anyone at the moment makes me think you have an unown role, given all basic roles are effectively a threat to 2/3 of players. 

And with that out of the way, I'm also going to declare myself Neutral. I'm of course willing to work with people to the ends of increasing information, but I'm not going to join any non aggression pacts. 

 

(Also all this talk of Non aggression pacts (NAPs ) just reminds me of Ayn Rand D:< (NAP also stands for non aggression principle, and they sound similar and stuff)). 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh.  Why do known roles represent a danger to 2/3's of people?  This is probably me just not paying attention, but that seems to be off.  Also, your player pings do not appear to be working, for whatever reason.  :huh:  

I also agree with what you are saying about Neutrality/NAPs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also going to "officially" declare neutral. We're probably going to end up dying first, but I don't want to play a faction game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Magestar said:

Yeah, I saw Ecth's first vote, and thought 'Hey, it's a free for all.  Killing random people is not a bad idea here! Lezzgo!'.  I seriously doubt there is an eliminator faction, as there is nothing even hinting that anywhere.  And, no, I am not an eliminator.  I am surprised to even have to say that in a free for all.

 

21 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

I don't think this whole faction thing is going to be a problem at all. If it ever becomes necessary, those who aren't in a faction can be a faction, and I'm pretty sure they will always outnumber those who are actually in factions.

Seriously, Meta? Just because I poke-voted Alvron and two others jumped on right after for whatever reason, that does not make me part of an eliminator faction. (Alvron)

Meta is misrepresenting a non-aggression alliance as a voting block for the sake of garnering votes from anti-faction players. And that's interesting because it gives a pretext for non-alliance players to form their own voting blocks, a thing which Meta just condemned.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheMightyLopen said:

I'm willing to team up with anyone! Go Team Scott! :D

I kinda would be okay with a Day 1 lynch on Alvron. Mostly I'm just hesitant because of our Ghostblood/eliminator ties. But he's killed me a couple times lately, so, eh, not particularly loyal to him at this point. :P Alvron

Whoops, forgot to read page 2 before I started this post. Ah well.

R.I.P. 
Some people just want to be attacked. I got your back, Alv.

 

@Ecthelion III, Meta did not misrepresent. He rightly pointed out that you would have a lot of motivation to keep the people in your non-aggression pact alive until the pact breaks apart. Not so much a voting block as a defensive block to counteract votes on the members of the pact. I believe you're the one intentionally misrepresenting Meta.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kipper said:

R.I.P. 
Some people just want to be attacked. I got your back, Alv.

 

@Ecthelion III, Meta did not misrepresent. He rightly pointed out that you would have a lot of motivation to keep the people in your non-aggression pact alive until the pact breaks apart. Not so much a voting block as a defensive block to counteract votes on the members of the pact. I believe you're the one intentionally misrepresenting Meta.

That might be the case assuming Ecthelion III is in a pact, which he is not. Even if he was, cloak-and-dagger tactics would be evident to the entire thread.

Edited by Elenion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Elenion said:

That might be the case assuming Ecthelion III is in a pact, which he is not.

Meant to use your name.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kipper said:

Meta did not misrepresent. He rightly pointed out that you would have a lot of motivation to keep the people in your non-aggression pact alive until the pact breaks apart.

Uhhh... What non-aggression pact? I think declaring neutral is basically telling everyone "come at me bro"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?  You lot are voting for a cripple.  How could you?  Bad enough he will never know the joy of walking or running but to gang up on him just because he's different is going to far.

I retract my vote on Myself in order to vote for myself, er I mean Alvron.  And I encourage all those that wish to stand up to those able bodied bullies to vote for me too.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please get a vote tally to see where we stand?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because I'm always keeping tally's, and I'm such a thoughtful GM:

(4) Metacognition: Bugsy6912, Eolhondras, Ecthelion III, Elenion,

(4) Alvron:  Magestar, Straw, TheMightyLopen, Alvron,

(1) Orlok: Kipper,

(1) zas678: Nyali,

(1) Bugsy6912: Metacognition,

(1) TheSilverDragon: zas678,

(1) Sart: The Young Bard,

 

Also, there's only an hour and a half left! Get your orders in if you haven't already, please and thank you!

Edited by Amanuensis
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply, Aman!

35 minutes ago, Alvron said:

Really?  You lot are voting for a cripple.  How could you?  Bad enough he will never know the joy of walking or running but to gang up on him just because he's different is going to far.

I don't discriminate based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, marital status, disability, or anything else. I just want to kill everyone. :D

And I'd just as rather kill Alv as Meta; I'm just waiting to see how the votes shift over the next hour.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alv hasn't done anything suspicious. I poked him to see what he would say, and that magically turned into a bandwagon. (I hate to reference past games, but what is up with bandwagons lately?) Meta on the other hand....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for proving my point guys. I told you this would happen and yet everyone else is just letting it happen. I pointed out the influence that their voting block would have and now, if not for Alv, I would be the one getting lynched because I went up against them.

I'm surprised that everyone else is just so accepting of such mafioso tactics, but if you're all willing to let them just continue to gain power, that's your call. I doubt I'll be around to help with it from here on out. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

Alv hasn't done anything suspicious. I poked him to see what he would say, and that magically turned into a bandwagon. (I hate to reference past games, but what is up with bandwagons lately?) Meta on the other hand....

Next time you poke me, don't use a sharp stick.:P  Drawing blood like that makes all the sharks circle.

Edit: @Metacognition, vote for me.  My Diglett will protect me for this cycle.  And with that, I'm off to see Suicide Squad.

Edited by Alvron
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alvron, I'm going to remove you from my chronological voting list because you just made an end-neutral action.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to create a team to attempt to make sure any faction is not too powerful. It is called Team Kallam. Kudos to those who get the reference.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right, let's play "what percent of people will die tonight?"!!! Not factoring in secret roles, the probability is what, 1/3 of us? My guess is a little less considering some people will attack the same target. I'll go 23%

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was gonna say half. :P  But I guess that's a bit high.  I think I will go with 20% solid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I wholeheartedly support Meta here. The voting blocks seem to go against the spirit of the game, and are not something I can support. I think it wrong that Meta has received so many votes for what I see as a perfectly valid, and sensible point.

Whilst for now, I shall vote Alv, I will endeavour to vote against this grouping in the future, where ever possible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally get what you are saying Meta, and I am choosing to stay neutral but I'm not really sure how we can stop what has already formed :/ thanks for the sacrifice Alv.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let it be done. Meta Alv

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  This might be the first rollover I've actually seen happen.  I wonder what will happen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.