Jump to content

Mafia Game 3 - Not All in the Family..


CTM

Recommended Posts

Considering I never said that, it's hard to know how he'd answer.

You said this:

The theory that I'm a mafia roleblocker and we roleblocked SMC last night requires that I'm dumb enough to choose a plan that will eliminate "our" ability to NK every night instead of just killing SMC (who "we" would have known couldn't be doctor protected).

Which is essentially the same.

If SMC is not scum, and I lead this lynch, I'm dead. That's been clear forever. So giving up a NK in the hope that I can lynch SMC today (and get lynched tomorrow) makes no sense.

Think about it:

roleblock, no NK scenario:

Last night, No kill

Today - Me or SMC dies

Tonight - kill

Tomorrow - I die if I was still alive

End result: if SMC is lynched today: 2 dead innocents (today, tonight), 1 dead mafia (me, tomorrow). if I'm lynched today: 1/2 dead innocent (tonight's kill, probably whoever dies tomorrow)

NK, no roleblock:

Last night - I die, SMC dies

Today: Lynch of random player, likely innocent

Tonight: NK

Tomorrow: Lynch of random player, likely innocent

Liklely end result: 4 dead innocents, 1 dead mafia

Why would I give up the NK to stay alive for one more phase. It is the stupidest possible move I could make. Almost as stupid as aiming at Yellin night 1 would have been

Which is what I've been saying all along - if those are my options, I'd have killed SMC and accepted the chance that SMC kills me at the same time (remember, I can't know what SMC would have done) rather than almost guaranteed to be worse results of a roleblock/no kill.

Simply put, if you think I'm mafia who did this, you think I'm the stupidest mafioso ever.

SMC doesn't even argue that - he just says "YES" when I ask if you think I'd be that stupid.

Hey, crusher, you've been mafia teammates with me before. Am I that stupid? Or is SMC lying scum?

It makes sense, because your longevity helps this team. As long as we're hot on your tail, even if we catch you, it gives your buddies time to hide out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
But what if you were confident, as I'm sure Doggin was, that SMC was coming for you. Then, you'd take him out, but you'd be sacrificing yourself to do it.

Yes, exactly. Which is the smart play in the circumstances.

So yes, Doggin probably knows he's going to get lynched. But, he gets to live all through today, all through tonight, and then fight his hardest to propose another potential lynch target.

Yes, I'll fight so hard that I've already told you all that if SMC is innocent you need to lynch me tomorrow no matter what.

Yep, good call :roll:

I'll say it again - if SMC is innocent, you need to lynch me tomorrow, even though I'm innocent.

How would he have done that? By saying he was a killer, and we needed him gone. He couln't have known he was fighting for the good side, because he killed SMC. Would it work, who knows? And probably not. But, in the same token, it's no chance of survival vs some chance of survival.

mmhm, mmhm - except, well, that's not what I'm doing. And I am promising not to do that tomorrow. Which means if I do, I'm a lying liar who lied, and you should lynch me.

So . . . that wouldn't go over so well for me, I suppose :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serial Killer/Vigilante... same powers... you're going semantics on me now?

Not at all. In TV land, Bleedin was a serial killer who could recruit a mafia teammate. I think that's what happened to you between day 1 and day 2, and why you're suddenly SMC's biggest defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, exactly. Which is the smart play in the circumstances.

Yes, I'll fight so hard that I've already told you all that if SMC is innocent you need to lynch me tomorrow no matter what.

Yep, good call :roll:

I'll say it again - if SMC is innocent, you need to lynch me tomorrow, even though I'm innocent.

mmhm, mmhm - except, well, that's not what I'm doing. And I am promising not to do that tomorrow. Which means if I do, I'm a lying liar who lied, and you should lynch me.

So . . . that wouldn't go over so well for me, I suppose :roll:

Yes. But the reveal screwed you. I thought I had mentioned this earlier. I guess I didn't.

With the reveal, you have no outs. We both know it. Had he not revealed, you could have talked your way out of it. So, it's a simple matter of longevity for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's a matter of style. I'd probably block to save my ass, then try to get him lynched the next day. They're already down one. He lets SMC kill him one for one, and the scum is hurting in the numbers game. Doggin was on SMC the previous day. It'd be completely consistent to go after him the next. Even easier once EY's train killed the lawyer instead of another scum. EY was SMC's defender, and EY didn't look as good after Norway turned up important to the town.

Not my style, slats. I play the numbers and the odds. Ask crusher - no way I give up a NK on the off chance someone might be trying to vig-kill me. None.

Especially not with the numbers I posted above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously we take that risk with every lynch vote. If we whack the top two guys on the family's radar in one day -and they both turn up innocent- it'll suck, but it will have only sped the process up one day. Which really isn't that bad being that there were no kills last night.

Hardly debilitating, and worth the risk, IMHO.

The difference is, on lynch votes the target has a chance to reveal, save his life (well, if you're smart enough to let him). But a NK target? No chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is, on lynch votes the target has a chance to reveal, save his life (well, if you're smart enough to let him). But a NK target? No chance.

In this case he does because we'd be discussing who that NK should be out in the open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I would trust my team too. But I'd give them a head start by allowing my death to come in a day or so. Cause I'd try to kill SMC during the day first. Then my team cant get hurt anymore, and I stick around.

Also, when you plan out lynches like that, SMC 1st, Doggin 2nd, it ensures that your team doesn't get lynched in the process. Doggin's helping his team more by keeping the heat off of them if he knows he's dead.

I'm also willing to let myself get killed. But the more I delay it, the better the head start my team gets. None of Doggin's other mafia members will die today. That much we've been guaranteed by what he did. There's no guarentee that would have been the case if he sacrificed his life.

yes, I gave up multiple innocent kills because I was afraid that you'd randomly hit a teammate on a 2 in 15 shot :roll:

I don't think he could work on another enemy. SMC was going full speed ahead. He knew he had to beat him. Again, longevity.

Yes, I knew I had to beat him - so rather than killing him for sure, I decided to waste my life (for a day - remember, on your theory I know I die tomorrow anyway) on a bet that the town votes for SMC and not me.

Oh, and "knowing" that SMC will reveal to save his life if he gets close to a lynch.

Again, who thinks I'm that stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my style, slats. I play the numbers and the odds. Ask crusher - no way I give up a NK on the off chance someone might be trying to vig-kill me. None.

Especially not with the numbers I posted above

I revealed to kill you because you're a Rat. That's it. I tried to NK you and it didn't work for some reason.

You say you play by these numbers:

4 or 5 Rats, 1 dead. 15 players, 3 or 4 Rats left (12-11 family). You kill me and I kill you, 13 players, 2 or 3 Rats (11-10 rats). You block me, there's still 3 or 4 Rats left.

Your numbers argument doesn't add up because the Rats are at a statistical disadvantage. The Family losing another member is not as detrimental as the Rats losing another Rat.

The Rats can't afford to keep losing Rats. Whack me now, you NK EY, and you'll try to talk your way out of tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, Doggin. Besides me, who else should we vote for?

Right now, I'd say tops on my list are Yellin, Woody, Sharrow and Jets Babe. Yellin for the obvious reasons, Woody, Sharrow and JB for low laying.

But I wouldn't get to those 3 until killing you, then Yellin, and then re-looking at the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cause someone is gonna say "SMC... go kill vic"

Then he kills an innocent.

That does.... what? Cause on top of that the Mafia can STILL KILL.

Whatever, you've all bought into the crap you've sold. I dunno WHY I bother with these games. It's clear guys just automatically gravitate towards certain posters and buy their words no matter what.

Wow I think that makes me ahead of my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said this:

The theory that I'm a mafia roleblocker and we roleblocked SMC last night requires that I'm dumb enough to choose a plan that will eliminate "our" ability to NK every night instead of just killing SMC (who "we" would have known couldn't be doctor protected).

Which is essentially the same.

Not even close to the same. I said given the choice, I'd have just killed SMC. (Especially given that, if I was mafia, there'd be no reason for me to think your vigilante theory was right or that SMC would be targetting me if he was, so killing him would have the possible upside of keeping me alive, too)

It makes sense, because your longevity helps this team. As long as we're hot on your tail, even if we catch you, it gives your buddies time to hide out.

:roll:

Yes, you're hot after me but no innocents are dying. That's a great trade for mafia :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But the reveal screwed you. I thought I had mentioned this earlier. I guess I didn't.

With the reveal, you have no outs. We both know it. Had he not revealed, you could have talked your way out of it. So, it's a simple matter of longevity for you.

Yeah, I was counting on SMC not revealing. Because, you know, I wouldn't expect a roled player to reveal when they were close to lynching :rolleyes:

Oh, wait, I know - I was counting on everyone speed-lynching SMC before letting him role-claim (despite the fact that we all just learned why that should never happen - final 2 votes should never be placed before allowing for a role reveal). :rolleyes:, I say. And :rolleyes: again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan. There probably is a better explanation as to why we're all here. I don't know if we're going to figure that out though.

Fair enough. I just hope we're not underestimating the scum and playing right into their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I revealed to kill you because you're a Rat. That's it. I tried to NK you and it didn't work for some reason.

You say you play by these numbers:

4 or 5 Rats, 1 dead. 15 players, 3 or 4 Rats left (12-11 family). You kill me and I kill you, 13 players, 2 or 3 Rats (11-10 rats). You block me, there's still 3 or 4 Rats left.

Your numbers argument doesn't add up because the Rats are at a statistical disadvantage. The Family losing another member is not as detrimental as the Rats losing another Rat.

The Rats can't afford to keep losing Rats. Whack me now, you NK EY, and you'll try to talk your way out of tomorrow.

1) Where a mafioso is going to die anyway, you take as many townies as possible with you. You don't no-kill.

2) I won't have anything to talk my way out of. But if I did, I've already guaranteed that I can't talk my way out of it. So . .. yeah :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was counting on SMC not revealing. Because, you know, I wouldn't expect a roled player to reveal when they were close to lynching :rolleyes:

Oh, wait, I know - I was counting on everyone speed-lynching SMC before letting him role-claim (despite the fact that we all just learned why that should never happen - final 2 votes should never be placed before allowing for a role reveal). :rolleyes:, I say. And :rolleyes: again.

A late roll reveal, when he has 7 votes or so, is far less believable than one when he has 1. You figured one of your buddies could just hammer him, and then, you'd all say, 'oops, but he was dangerous, so we're ok'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can u elaborate? To be honest both doggin and smc look weird to me. But to me smc is offering a way to verify his status while doggin is not. Also, if smc is truly innocent the scum take him out anyways as he is a threat.

You have good intuition crusher. What are your thoughts on both?

Simply if SMC gets lynched we could check out his story and see if his role reveal is actual. The would be an absolute truth. Of course it would suck to lose the vigilante, but it would add some solid info to the game and damn some of his accuseres.

Doggin's death would only serve us if he was actually dirty. If he turns out to be just another loyal member of the family, we got nothing excewpt another dead family members. The rest of this back and forth who shield who stuff is a little to confusing. Though I will say that Vic has seemed a little bit more hopnest than most of the other few that are leading this game.

All this blocking and stuff is something I haven't encountered in a game yet. Sorta pissing me off because it's creating a little of crap thats easily mani[ulated and clouds the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply if SMC gets lynched we could check out his story and see if his role reveal is actual. The would be an absolute truth. Of course it would suck to lose the vigilante, but it would add some solid info to the game and damn some of his accuseres.

Doggin's death would only serve us if he was actually dirty. If he turns out to be just another loyal member of the family, we got nothing excewpt another dead family members. The rest of this back and forth who shield who stuff is a little to confusing. Though I will say that Vic has seemed a little bit more hopnest than most of the other few that are leading this game.

All this blocking and stuff is something I haven't encountered in a game yet. Sorta pissing me off because it's creating a little of crap thats easily mani[ulated and clouds the water.

I disagree with that. I think we learn more if we kill Doggin than we do if we kill SMC. If we kill the guilty one, then we get a 2nd scum down. If we kill SMC and he is innocent, we get Doggin. If we kill Doggin and he is innocent, then we get both SMC and EY. And if SMC is innocent, then we've got a role that either soaks up a scum NK or we get someone with a role that we can use if things ever get desperate and we absolutely have to (say it comes down to 1 scum and 2 townies going into the night phase).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A late roll reveal, when he has 7 votes or so, is far less believable than one when he has 1. You figured one of your buddies could just hammer him, and then, you'd all say, 'oops, but he was dangerous, so we're ok'.

Yeah, lets work with that scenario assuming he's innocent.

He role reveals late, either he gets believed, I get lynched, and he dies that night, or he isn't believed, he gets lynched, and I die the next day.

Same exact result as the worst case scenario for today, revealing early.

In other words, there's no downside at all to revealing late, and plenty of upside (if I end up being the lynch target anyway, he stays under cover)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply if SMC gets lynched we could check out his story and see if his role reveal is actual. The would be an absolute truth. Of course it would suck to lose the vigilante, but it would add some solid info to the game and damn some of his accuseres.

Doggin's death would only serve us if he was actually dirty. If he turns out to be just another loyal member of the family, we got nothing excewpt another dead family members. The rest of this back and forth who shield who stuff is a little to confusing. Though I will say that Vic has seemed a little bit more hopnest than most of the other few that are leading this game.

All this blocking and stuff is something I haven't encountered in a game yet. Sorta pissing me off because it's creating a little of crap thats easily mani[ulated and clouds the water.

Crusher, one and only one question for you.

Would I play this game the way they are arguing I did?

If the answer is yes, vote for me.

If the answer is no, vote for SMC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also willing to let myself get killed. But the more I delay it, the better the head start my team gets. None of Doggin's other mafia members will die today. That much we've been guaranteed by what he did. There's no guarentee that would have been the case if he sacrificed his life.

Your willing to let yourself get killed, but the longer you stay alive it allows for your team to get a better head start? Sounds like Vic, and CTM's strategy from last game. Dman,, oh no's.

Why wouldn't any of Doggins assciated die today? How do we gurantee it by what he did? Now I know I'm a tuff one to decipher, but damn EY WTF do you mean by this?

I don't think anything is guranteed except killing SMC and finding out if he is telling the truth. Everything else leads to more questions. Again though it would suck for the family to lose any advantage after the unfortunate death of our lawyer. Who by the way got cute and died, just like everyone always tells the Dr's not too. His comment about protecting Doggin just seemed scummy to me, taking in account EY's role up to that point. Or I just bought EY's poison for a quick second?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, lets work with that scenario assuming he's innocent.

He role reveals late, either he gets believed, I get lynched, and he dies that night, or he isn't believed, he gets lynched, and I die the next day.

Same exact result as the worst case scenario for today, revealing early.

In other words, there's no downside at all to revealing late, and plenty of upside (if I end up being the lynch target anyway, he stays under cover)

Yes. But the longer you live, even if it comes to an end soon... the better it is for your team. I've said this many times, and will not address it again.

I'd also like to address that you saying anything is 'not your style' is the same as saying 'trust me'. Styles can be manipulated, and often are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, crusher, you've been mafia teammates with me before. Am I that stupid? Or is SMC lying scum?

It was one of the first games I played and I did nothing. I did almost lose it for us in the beginning. But, Doggin was masterful and made up with it by pulling the same thing that it seems EY and SMC are pulling now. Whacking one of your own to gain credibility. Doggin invented this from my vantage point and seems to be better at it than you guys are right now. For the record, other than Vic everyone(more active players) smells like rat to me. And no, it's not becdasue I haven't eaten yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But the longer you live, even if it comes to an end soon... the better it is for your team. I've said this many times, and will not address it again.

I'd also like to address that you saying anything is 'not your style' is the same as saying 'trust me'. Styles can be manipulated, and often are.

I just think this is illogical.

You live longer so there's more of a chance for people to get connected to you.

So that way you get your team caught.

And not only that but the only way doggin wins out is if he gets SMC lynched.... which will still lead to his death. So then what... the #'s still work out the same but you've bought more "time".

If doggin's Petrelli argument is gonna be ridiculed. So should the time argument. But I'm sure it won't cause of the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. In TV land, Bleedin was a serial killer who could recruit a mafia teammate. I think that's what happened to you between day 1 and day 2, and why you're suddenly SMC's biggest defender.

He did go from hate mail to glee club pretty quick. At one time SMC was the guy to follow Irsh, no questions asked. Man, Im just picking things up like a super computer with a belly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your willing to let yourself get killed, but the longer you stay alive it allows for your team to get a better head start? Sounds like Vic, and CTM's strategy from last game. Dman,, oh no's.

Why wouldn't any of Doggins assciated die today? How do we gurantee it by what he did? Now I know I'm a tuff one to decipher, but damn EY WTF do you mean by this?

Because Crush Man, as I said, Doggin knows he will die, but if he dies tomorrow, it's because he killed SMC today. If he dies today, anyone could die tomorrow, possibly even his teammates.

Here's Doggin's best case scenario, and the one he's working towards:

Day 3: SMC Killed

Night 3: Innocent Killed

Day 4: Doggin Killed (his teammate will vote for him too)

Night 4: Innocent Killed

Day 5: This is the first day where it is possible for a teammate of Doggin's to die.

Here's Doggin's worst case scenario, the one he's trying to avoid:

Day 3: Doggin Killed

Night 3: SMC killed/SMC hits another of his teammates (more likely an innocent but could be a teammate)

Day 4: Anyone's guess

So Crush Man, as you can see, Doggin is working towards his death on Day 4, which prevents one of his teammates from getting hurt as early as Night 3. Which, is 4 game cycles faster than one of his teammates cold get killed in his worst case... which starts with SMC's death.

I don't think anything is guranteed except killing SMC and finding out if he is telling the truth. Everything else leads to more questions. Again though it would suck for the family to lose any advantage after the unfortunate death of our lawyer. Who by the way got cute and died, just like everyone always tells the Dr's not too. His comment about protecting Doggin just seemed scummy to me, taking in account EY's role up to that point. Or I just bought EY's poison for a quick second?

Check out Sharrows post above. It's true. Except that if SMC is lying, it doesn't mean I am too. But, I'd get killed anyway, as I'd have no real defense but to beg for mercy. Which honestly, you'd be foolish to give at that late point.

And no man. The argument was solid. It was crazy for Norway to suggest that, especially because he was the Dr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think this is illogical.

You live longer so there's more of a chance for people to get connected to you.

So that way you get your team caught.

Not if you know you will die. You make sure they distance themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my style, slats. I play the numbers and the odds. Ask crusher - no way I give up a NK on the off chance someone might be trying to vig-kill me. None.

Especially not with the numbers I posted above

True. Doggin knew the exact moment the #'s favored us and got me to drop the hammer. He doesn't really take chances. Like it's been said, he plays da numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...