Yitzi2
-
Posts
715 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Yitzi2
-
On the other hand, odds are pretty good that a villager's getting lynched the first day anyway, so there's no reason for an elim to go out of his way to determine that a particular villager is lynched; if anything, keeping suspicious villagers alive might benefit the elims by causing the village to waste a lynch on them later on when the chance of lynching an elim is higher. Or are you just saying that you wouldn't be a very good elim?
-
So you are of the opinion that their behavior is useful to the village, then? In such a way that will stop when they're lynched, but not stop when the PMs become inactive at the end of the day?
-
When I said I'd be unable to post day 2, I was thinking 12/12 per cycle, not 24/24.
-
If so, it might be best for any important discussions in said group to happen in a new PM with all such individuals except for Straw.
-
It doesn't take much effort as an eliminator (or as a villager), but it can lead to an increased chance of elims slipping up (something I have personally found useful: My opening PM to Lopen in QF23 was even weaker (I only sent it because that game had a 1-PM-started-per-day rule), and Lopen slipping up in that PM ended up turning the game from elim domination to something that went right down to the wire). I didn't see that separation into groups of 3; did I miss it? (I wasn't able to get on for the first few hours of the game, so in going through the rest I'm sure I missed some things), and obviously didn't see anything from your one-on-one.
-
Aren't a lot of PMs good for the village? Yes, it might be annoying, but the only way it'd be an elim-ness indicator is as a disguise, and that's not a particularly strong argument. Now, if his posts were completely content-less, that might be different, but at least as far as the PM's I've gotten go, the one from Straw was potentially useful (he asked for my thoughts about the game, though at this point there is nothing I am inclined to say in PM with someone who hasn't proven himself that I am not willing to say in-thread), but the only apparently content-less PM I recieved was from STINK.
-
Cloudjumper was not a cytonics kill. I know this because soldiers do not have any active abilities. It could have been the PC operator, though.
-
Oh, and I will be unable to post night 1 and day 2.
-
Probably no lynch. Which is good for the village if it doesn't lead to both (or just the villager among them if only one is village) being lynched later but bad if it just delays it. Can we have another switch from me or to Arinian, or at least indications on whether a tie will just lead to both of us making the top of the lynch list?
-
Actually, if I vote for someone, then BR plus a third-party vote could swing it, so: Arinian.
-
That's the thing: By my proposal, it wouldn't be everybody saying who they use Cytonics against, but rather who should not use Cytonics against them. So no matter who's killed, we know exactly one person who could have done so safely. And my proposal was assuming UIB is an alignment scanner as well. Otherwise, we should probably just all be usually using Cytonics, as knowing a role doesn't really tell us all that much. True. Which is what I did was take the highest-total scenario (50% cytonics and 50% scanning), and then adjust lower by ignoring things like elims not guarding against elims and Cyto Adepts. The votes seem to be based on objections to my earlier plan, so there's really no way to address them. It's currently 4 on me (including you) with nobody else at more than 1. Feel free to move, and if someone else moves as well, that will swing it without a risk of a tie. (If I vote, then the total number is even and that makes a potential tie.)
-
If there's only one using non-Cytonic actions, then I'm wondering how you get from 20% per person to 50% for 3 people, when only one of the three is using non-Cytonic actions. And if you just scale up, then you end up overestimating. I meant the former. "Fake claims" would be guaranteed, since everyone is naming someone but not everyone is targeting someone. And it would require that everybody agrees to (if they're villagers) not use cytonics against someone who names them. This would slightly increase the chance of death of the people who agree, but survival is not a win condition. And if everybody names someone else, and the elims decide to always target people who the kill-placer named, then we can notice who named people who were then killed. Multiple namings of the same person will reduce this somewhat, but we could see who tends to double up. And yes, it could set up a villager for a mislynch once every few turns (though that gets into IKYK), but if they're doing that, they're killing someone who might have targeted them, while the village scanners get to avoid the risk of cytonics.
-
That would better be matched by a Survivorist priest than Pathist, though.
-
What percentage of people did you assume are using actions on others? Also remember, someone using actions on others isn't using cytonics. That said, it's clear that "just target randomly" won't work well as the game gets on and cytonics becomes that much more effective. I did have another idea, though, combining my earlier one with something that IIRC you said: If we can all agree to have everyone name a person and then target either that person or nobody with their action (unless they are the PC operator, who can target someone they didn't name, since we all find out whom they targeted), then the aliens won't get any role info (since everybody is naming a potential target). We'd also then ask firebrands to consider using their abilities (it doesn't really matter that much if the aliens have some clues as to who the firebrands are.) The aliens could use cytonics...but that will pretty much reveal them when the person who targeted them ends up dead from cytonics, and given typical elim/village ratios I doubt the sacrifice would be worth it to take out someone who might be a UIB agent but might just be a firebrand. They could also use it to get a cytonics-free kill...but that would require them to kill someone that one of them named, giving the village some information. This would have to be either something that the village either agrees for everybody to do, or doesn't do at all, so a vote on the matter may be appropriate.
-
It'll probably cost the village a person every 4 rounds or so, depending on what portion use actions, what portion are cyto adepts, etc. This cost would be in high-value players. Now that I think of it, though, you may be right that target requests would increase the cost in high-value players (though it would also increase the number of elims killed by cytonics by letting cyto adepts pretend to be scanners and the like later on, and would have fewer total village kills than your plan). No thanks, at least not yet. If I vote for myself, I make it harder for a last-minute change to clear me. If I vote for Ecth, I just cause a tie, making me extremely suspicious (essentially ensuring that I get lynched anyway at some point, and then the village just wasted a lynch due to the tie).
-
You're also ignoring cyto adepts, and that aliens won't target each other. The chance of using an action and dying for it is low...but not that much lower than the chance that you successfully targeted an alien with your action. Which doesn't necessarily mean we should never use actions...but your plan does have costs as well.
-
Having 3 scans on the same person could be an advantage, since it'll make it that much easier for the result to influence the vote without PMs or roleclaims. "Harder for people to catch on" is not always a good thing, particularly if you have a less important role. Your math is not correct; there is only a 1 in 289 chance that you will target a particular individual who targeted you with cytonics (leaving aside role actions on their part), but if we ignore the target's role (assume he's a soldier, so uses cytonics exactly once) it's a 1 in 17 that whomever you targeted targeted you with cytonics. I still think my plan is optimal due to the ability of fake requests to avoid giving the elims too much information (and maybe even direct them to cyto adepts that suspect them), but if nobody else thinks it's a good idea, then I'm willing to abandon it. As I stated earlier, it is more important for the village to all be on the same page. I do, however, have to wonder how "keeps pushing a plan, and is the only one to do so" is supposed to indicate elim-hood. If anything, elims would find it easier to find other people to support them. (Of course, that gets into IKYK, but it certainly isn't a stronger indication of elim-hood.)
-
I would suggest that in such case, the Thief's Child gets priority due to being first, but the Convict's Ward still gets a PM. If the Thief's Child dies, it switches to the Convict's Ward (the Pauper Noble does not die from the lovers effect), and any rioter or soother can also use their ability to switch it (at which point it cannot be switched back); however, if the Pauper Noble discovers that the Convict's Ward is trying to cause one of those effects, the Pauper Noble denounces the Convict's Ward, who then dies of heartbreak. If it does not switch by the end of the game (or by the point the Pauper Noble is killed), the Convict's Ward commits suicide, and both the Convict and the Convict's Ward lose. (Love triangles can be quite vicious, more so when others are drawn in.)
-
Also, if someone is killed, that will draw attention to those who requested to target them. There's some IKYK, but if the elims use such a tactic the village will get at least some information. And yes, any benefit from scanning will give the elims some information, but the possibility of fake requests and requests for things other than scans, and the fact that not all scanners will be focusing on the same person, will reduce it. Though on the flip side, I realized that if we publicly ask someone to start a lynch discussion on the scan target and everybody to take part in that discussion, that would help cover the scanners (A scanner might even vote opposite what they know in order to hide their identity if it won't affect the lynch result, though that comes at a risk if they're killed).
-
By the way, I noticed my mistake in my signup post and corrected it. Garshin will not be under the misimpression that he is in Elendel.
-
EDIT: Post in the wrong thread.
-
-Sacrificial plays are quite feasible for village players, since they win as long as their team wins. -By "maximum information", I meant that we know whom that individual investigated or whatever. -Your alternative seems to be that we just throw around role actions, possibly leading to important roles being killed early on. I feel much the same about you as you say about me and PK. I would, however, like to hear from everybody else as to which approach (no special actions, special actions without warning, special actions with permission and fake requests) we should take, as having different people doing different things would probably be worse than any of them. -Some roles' actions are based in using cytonics rather than instead of using cytonics. Not if it's a fake request. The only way the village takes on friendly fire is if only the UIBs use active actions. This actually cannot be a Prisoner's Dilemma between the sides, since this is a zero-sum game and the Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't apply to zero-sum games. What this actually is (and you might get to it eventually in your class) is a type of coordination problem for the villagers. @BrightnessRadiant @randuir You raise good points against an "only ask if you're going to take an important action" approach. However, I mentioned (and am now confident that if this is implemented we should have) fake asks, where you use cytonics but ask someone for permission to target them. That way, the elims don't know whom to target because most such requests do not actually indicate an important role. I liked it a lot at first, but then realized: That way, the elims then know when one of theirs was scanned. Without PMs, that means there's no way to turn that scan into a lynch without the elims having a pretty good idea of who the scanners are. EDIT: Regarding your other ideas: Role-claims are, as you said, a bad idea (and fake role-claims mean the elims can role-claim as well, and still have an idea). Declaring who you're warding against pretty much eliminates the anti-alien benefit of the cytonics (since someone else can send in the kill). Having specific "no cytonics" days for scanning is an interesting idea, but that really just boils down to a compromise between "don't use cytonics at all" and "use only cytonics" and is likely to be in between the two in terms of benefit.
-
(I don't think he's ever called Lord Elend; usually in age 2 he's just called "The Last Emperor".) I will be joining as Garshin, who's happy to get back to his own time after his time-travelling journey (even if it's perhaps not quite the same timeline as he came from). He's even more clueless about Les Miserables than I am, though...
-
I would propose the following: If you are planning on targeting someone with a role action, ask their permission first. It does give the elims some info (less so if we have fake asks as well), but at least it should help prevent friendly fire, as well as give the village maximum information if you are killed as a result of the request. Question for @Sart: Do we find out the manner of a character's death? Also, I will likely be unable to post night 1 and day 2 under the new schedule; can I send in my action for night 1 before it starts?
-
There is a fairly egregious mistake in the OP, and the correction of the mistake is a bit of a spoiler, as Elenion said.