We've come full circlei feel like shooting bc you dislike someone is not the key to winning this game but maybe thats what the mafia wanted giving it to texas????????
Clearly the situation is that Texas is a scum and gave the gun to himself to make us think that he wants to shoot haruno and thus clearly qualify haruno as a scum and also bringing us to LYLO where if Texas doesn't shoot himself town loses. Glad we cleared this up.
plz do. put me in the fucking driver's seat mate. I'll get this shit solved asap.In tempted to shoot haruno just so I don't have to play with him
In the cases where town wins before it goes down to two then yeah that's better, but in order for mafia to win they have to go down to 2 town. I was under a false assumption on how the gunbearer would be selected but I was also saying that in that scenario we want to have our best people on the job in an abstract sense.Okay, I wish I could be surprised that this conversation didn't leave the same general loop as last I saw, but I *was* keeping tabs on the thread.
Anyway, going over it again, I noticed something odd - posts 62 and 63. Blazade's posts about policy lynching idlers and then saying someone is going to have to be a hero, but second best. The first time I saw that I didn't think much of it (in no small part due to having a Pathfinder game that was happening at that time), but now I think it might have been something else. It looks first like defeatism, saying we can't guess the mafia until it's 2 v mafia, but what if he's trying to direct us into that defeatism to make us not try as hard yet?
Granted, he (on the same page) said he misread the rules and thought a mislynch killed both and caused another choice. But EVEN THEN, it's not nearly guaranteed to go like that. And in post 112, he's in favor of shooting someone whenever to validate their reads, except idlers. Even if that made much sense (that way would be too easy for a gunbearer to misfire), it's a sharp turn from his line about policy lynching only being worth it on idlers.
I strongly FoS Blazade for that.
I agree completely with you idea, but are you sure that "Give texas a gun and he'll shoot haruno" is more complex than "give it to a stronk player so that they die early"? I feel like those are both equally reasonable ideas, and that one is not necessarily more complex than the other.As for the giving the gun to Texas debate, i believe the mafia simply wanted to give it to a stronger player first, and hope they miss-shoot to get rid of them early. I could be wrong and it could be more complex than that such as this "he'll shoot Haruno" idea, but i like to think the simpler solutions are more likely.
to clarify, I meant "shooting town that you think has a chance to be scum" and not "shooting super townreads"a key point about this game (town thinks its great, mafia not so much) is that when town is "killed", they don't die. They get to pick their choices for "kills" before they die. So there doesn't really seem to be a major disadvantage to shooting town. Obviously, that assumes we remove Living Winners.
:thonkang:the difference is twin doesn't get on people's nerves.
except every townie needs to get shot at some point for mafia to win so it's still definitely not safe to just merrily shoot someone who you soft town reada key point about this game (town thinks its great, mafia not so much) is that when town is "killed", they don't die. They get to pick their choices for "kills" before they die. So there doesn't really seem to be a major disadvantage to shooting town. Obviously, that assumes we remove Living Winners.
like?can we not flood this thread with mu/ms jargon and theories it becomes borderline unreadable when you dont know wtf all their slang means
thx, the management