Ok that makes more sense. And nothing I could have done about it. thank you.
Yeah, it was kind of out of your hands. I was prepared for that to be the point at which my theory - which looked pretty good up to that point - was proved wrong.
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
This is why I think randomized mafia among total players is better. Keeps people guessing.
Or build clans to be unequal. Similar to how saber had different numbers for each of the signs in his game.
The counterpoint to those - which are fine ideas - is that the game actually ought to be solve-able to some extent with available information so that we're not totally dependent on voting + luck with ability targeting.
Or build clans to be unequal. Similar to how saber had different numbers for each of the signs in his game.
The counterpoint to those - which are fine ideas - is that the game actually ought to be solve-able to some extent with available information so that we're not totally dependent on voting + luck with ability targeting.
I mean, it would be just like a normal Phalla game, where you have to use voting records, posting style, etc. to find mafia. Having the clans help point the way is extra.
Or build clans to be unequal. Similar to how saber had different numbers for each of the signs in his game.
The counterpoint to those - which are fine ideas - is that the game actually ought to be solve-able to some extent with available information so that we're not totally dependent on voting + luck with ability targeting.
I mean, it would be just like a normal Phalla game, where you have to use voting records, posting style, etc. to find mafia. Having the clans help point the way is extra.
Even in those you need, for example, "the mafia is probably 20% of the player base" and "we probably have X specials" as known data to play with. I'm remembering what I think was GG's first time hosting, where we had a cult and nobody had any idea for days because we were expecting a regular mafia.
This game was a little too obvious once the pattern started to be clear, but it helps a lot if there's something you can throw your brain at besides the voting, especially in a game with two mafias.
Or build clans to be unequal. Similar to how saber had different numbers for each of the signs in his game.
The counterpoint to those - which are fine ideas - is that the game actually ought to be solve-able to some extent with available information so that we're not totally dependent on voting + luck with ability targeting.
I mean, it would be just like a normal Phalla game, where you have to use voting records, posting style, etc. to find mafia. Having the clans help point the way is extra.
Even in those you need, for example, "the mafia is probably 20% of the player base" and "we probably have X specials" as known data to play with. I'm remembering what I think was GG's first time hosting, where we had a cult and nobody had any idea for days because we were expecting a regular mafia.
This game was a little too obvious once the pattern started to be clear, but it helps a lot if there's something you can throw your brain at besides the voting, especially in a game with two mafias.
I liked the idea, and I thought it worked out well. The Vig was just the worst shot and trusted the Necromancer.
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Or build clans to be unequal. Similar to how saber had different numbers for each of the signs in his game.
The counterpoint to those - which are fine ideas - is that the game actually ought to be solve-able to some extent with available information so that we're not totally dependent on voting + luck with ability targeting.
I mean, it would be just like a normal Phalla game, where you have to use voting records, posting style, etc. to find mafia. Having the clans help point the way is extra.
Even in those you need, for example, "the mafia is probably 20% of the player base" and "we probably have X specials" as known data to play with. I'm remembering what I think was GG's first time hosting, where we had a cult and nobody had any idea for days because we were expecting a regular mafia.
This game was a little too obvious once the pattern started to be clear, but it helps a lot if there's something you can throw your brain at besides the voting, especially in a game with two mafias.
I didn't divide the clans up exactly, and the mafia clans were RNG, so I had hoped there was enough leeway to not make the role distribution plain and simple.
I had a good deal of fun.
Thanks for playing with me guys!
My main criticism with myself is that I adhered too much to my villager playstyle.
If I had been chatty with more folk early on, I might have gotten out of being voted.
Normally though, I'm lazy as a villager, or spend more time exploring crazy ideas via spreadsheets, than talk to a bunch of folk.
I thought Austin P played really well, and I really thought your reaction to my vote on you was cool.
You still gotta work on avoiding the suspicion of players,
I don't got any special info on Austin.
Mostly just a lot of, "I'm not sure about this posts",
and "I don't have any cool powers",
and then soft balling INAGTP
but other than that, I think you played your neutral role really well.
This was YOUR WIN, more than anyone else's! Good Game!
Ok that makes more sense. And nothing I could have done about it. thank you.
Yeah, it was kind of out of your hands. I was prepared for that to be the point at which my theory - which looked pretty good up to that point - was proved wrong.
That theory was what lost the village the last V:TM phalla.
Overall, a normal distribution pattern across multiple groups is likely to have most groups with similar numbers of bad people in them.
But you're usually going to wind up, if there is one bad person for each group of equal people, having some groups with 2-3 mafia, and others with zero.
And this sort of expectation needs to be adjusted throughout the game as more of the distribution gets known. Because it's still perfectly possible to have all the mafia in one group, but it is less likely from the outset.
The past two games, I finally am starting to feel like I have a grasp of how to play a little less blindly and with purpose.
That said, I'm much more comfortable working out the odds/strategy when the numbers dwindle towards the end.
I'm still have so much work to do to figure out how you all soft network so well. I can never decide whether to send random PMs or not, and as you saw, when I tried this time, I ended up with two Sabbat and a Neutral....
AustinP0027 on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
oh, and thank you austin for letting me br an oracle!
The past two games, I finally am starting to feel like I have a grasp of how to play a little less blindly and with purpose.
That said, I'm much more comfortable working out the odds/strategy when the numbers dwindle towards the end.
I'm still have so much work to do to figure out how you all soft network so well. I can never decide whether to send random PMs or not, and as you saw, when I tired this time, I ended up with two Sabbat and a Neutral....
To be fair, that network actually could have done some decent damage if we hadn't started dropping like flies and decided to work together!
Martoss on
0
Options
AuralynxDarkness is a perspectiveWatching the ego workRegistered Userregular
Ok that makes more sense. And nothing I could have done about it. thank you.
Yeah, it was kind of out of your hands. I was prepared for that to be the point at which my theory - which looked pretty good up to that point - was proved wrong.
That theory was what lost the village the last V:TM phalla.
Overall, a normal distribution pattern across multiple groups is likely to have most groups with similar numbers of bad people in them.
But you're usually going to wind up, if there is one bad person for each group of equal people, having some groups with 2-3 mafia, and others with zero.
And this sort of expectation needs to be adjusted throughout the game as more of the distribution gets known. Because it's still perfectly possible to have all the mafia in one group, but it is less likely from the outset.
Yeah, I didn't get there til Day 4 or so.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
The past two games, I finally am starting to feel like I have a grasp of how to play a little less blindly and with purpose.
That said, I'm much more comfortable working out the odds/strategy when the numbers dwindle towards the end.
I'm still have so much work to do to figure out how you all soft network so well. I can never decide whether to send random PMs or not, and as you saw, when I tired this time, I ended up with two Sabbat and a Neutral....
To be fair, that network actually could have done some decent damage if we hadn't started dropping like flies and decided to work together!
Yeah, amusingly enough, Austin and I found out we were each neutrals, and were trying to decide whose win condition to support.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Ok that makes more sense. And nothing I could have done about it. thank you.
Yeah, it was kind of out of your hands. I was prepared for that to be the point at which my theory - which looked pretty good up to that point - was proved wrong.
That theory was what lost the village the last V:TM phalla.
Overall, a normal distribution pattern across multiple groups is likely to have most groups with similar numbers of bad people in them.
But you're usually going to wind up, if there is one bad person for each group of equal people, having some groups with 2-3 mafia, and others with zero.
And this sort of expectation needs to be adjusted throughout the game as more of the distribution gets known. Because it's still perfectly possible to have all the mafia in one group, but it is less likely from the outset.
Yeah, I didn't get there til Day 4 or so.
Now that I think about it, the expectation that there is on average one person in each group mafia shouldn't help guide your voting at all.
Whilst it's most likely at the beginning, after some players' alignments are known the law of priors kicks in and makes all possible remaining scenarios more likely.
That is, all remaining players will always have the same chance at being mafia if the players have roles distributed to them randomly.
Even if the last player in a group of dead villagers is still alive, that doesn't mean that they are a mafia, and they have the same chance at being a mafia as anyone else in the other groups.
This is of course invalid if there's some reason why the roles might not be distributed randomly, such as the host putting mafia into the specific clans because of lore.
But first, cj actually has to do this (as he did in this game) and second, the players have to realise the linkage might exist.
In this case, killing the mafia aligned groups is always going to be better than the non-mafia aligned groups.
But if either those conditions do not occur, so either the host does RNG, or the players don't realise there is a likely weighting, then there is no logical reason to believe the mafia are weighted in this way, and there is no way for the players to infer if this weighting has occurred.
The RNG might have produced any mafia spread at all, and so the players should always look anywhere else (behaviour/abilities/targets/etc) to determine who the next mafia should be.
No one attacked kime until the last night, which blew my mind repeatedly.
Gizzy also did not use her kill as a (admittedly clever) ploy to appear as the Anarch target. Had she done so, I think she would have won.
Also, the aforementioned mistake was my sending Preda an incorrect result of chamberlain's disciplines, for which I deeply apologize.
Wait, so was there really not a guard the entire game?
It sounds like no one took whatever power would count as one?
Fortitude 2 was an "extra life" you could use as a guard. It seemed worth saving since nobody was targeting kime.
I died to the Eye because I guarded Preda due to a misunderstanding about whether I'd still be OK if he wasn't hit, in fact!
I don't know what Fortitude 3 did. I don't think anyone took it.
Someone did: Baidol. It pretty much stopped ANY attack shy of the Prince/Vote. No one targeted him when he invoked it.
"Hm my goal is to survive which of these is the best option probably the one that makes me harder to kill"
Posts
Yeah, it was kind of out of your hands. I was prepared for that to be the point at which my theory - which looked pretty good up to that point - was proved wrong.
The counterpoint to those - which are fine ideas - is that the game actually ought to be solve-able to some extent with available information so that we're not totally dependent on voting + luck with ability targeting.
I mean, it would be just like a normal Phalla game, where you have to use voting records, posting style, etc. to find mafia. Having the clans help point the way is extra.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Even in those you need, for example, "the mafia is probably 20% of the player base" and "we probably have X specials" as known data to play with. I'm remembering what I think was GG's first time hosting, where we had a cult and nobody had any idea for days because we were expecting a regular mafia.
This game was a little too obvious once the pattern started to be clear, but it helps a lot if there's something you can throw your brain at besides the voting, especially in a game with two mafias.
I liked the idea, and I thought it worked out well. The Vig was just the worst shot and trusted the Necromancer.
I didn't divide the clans up exactly, and the mafia clans were RNG, so I had hoped there was enough leeway to not make the role distribution plain and simple.
Thanks for playing with me guys!
My main criticism with myself is that I adhered too much to my villager playstyle.
If I had been chatty with more folk early on, I might have gotten out of being voted.
Normally though, I'm lazy as a villager, or spend more time exploring crazy ideas via spreadsheets, than talk to a bunch of folk.
I thought Austin P played really well, and I really thought your reaction to my vote on you was cool.
You still gotta work on avoiding the suspicion of players,
but other than that, I think you played your neutral role really well.
This was YOUR WIN, more than anyone else's! Good Game!
That theory was what lost the village the last V:TM phalla.
Overall, a normal distribution pattern across multiple groups is likely to have most groups with similar numbers of bad people in them.
But you're usually going to wind up, if there is one bad person for each group of equal people, having some groups with 2-3 mafia, and others with zero.
And this sort of expectation needs to be adjusted throughout the game as more of the distribution gets known. Because it's still perfectly possible to have all the mafia in one group, but it is less likely from the outset.
The past two games, I finally am starting to feel like I have a grasp of how to play a little less blindly and with purpose.
That said, I'm much more comfortable working out the odds/strategy when the numbers dwindle towards the end.
I'm still have so much work to do to figure out how you all soft network so well. I can never decide whether to send random PMs or not, and as you saw, when I tried this time, I ended up with two Sabbat and a Neutral....
that was fun
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
To be fair, that network actually could have done some decent damage if we hadn't started dropping like flies and decided to work together!
Yeah, I didn't get there til Day 4 or so.
Yeah, amusingly enough, Austin and I found out we were each neutrals, and were trying to decide whose win condition to support.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Now that I think about it, the expectation that there is on average one person in each group mafia shouldn't help guide your voting at all.
Whilst it's most likely at the beginning, after some players' alignments are known the law of priors kicks in and makes all possible remaining scenarios more likely.
That is, all remaining players will always have the same chance at being mafia if the players have roles distributed to them randomly.
Even if the last player in a group of dead villagers is still alive, that doesn't mean that they are a mafia, and they have the same chance at being a mafia as anyone else in the other groups.
This is of course invalid if there's some reason why the roles might not be distributed randomly, such as the host putting mafia into the specific clans because of lore.
But first, cj actually has to do this (as he did in this game) and second, the players have to realise the linkage might exist.
In this case, killing the mafia aligned groups is always going to be better than the non-mafia aligned groups.
But if either those conditions do not occur, so either the host does RNG, or the players don't realise there is a likely weighting, then there is no logical reason to believe the mafia are weighted in this way, and there is no way for the players to infer if this weighting has occurred.
The RNG might have produced any mafia spread at all, and so the players should always look anywhere else (behaviour/abilities/targets/etc) to determine who the next mafia should be.
"Hm my goal is to survive which of these is the best option probably the one that makes me harder to kill"
That's a grudgin' Virgil!