Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Jester in a closed setup is just a really bad role that you might as well lynch in pretty much all cases.  It can sortof work in an open setup, particularly the mime variant (that's where there are a team of two people who win when they are both lynched).

[Mephansteras]

Jesters in general are hard to balance in a game. Getting lynched is easy, so it ends up being pretty boring. A few people might try to avoid an obvious jester, but in general they tend to get lynched early on when people don't have much evidence about who the actual scum are, so they don't have a big effect on the game except to reduce the chances that scum will get lynched early.

Even worse is when the Jester's lynch ends the game, since then you have everyone paranoid about lynching anyone who seems too scummy, which pushes the game even more towards a town loss.

Overall, a jester claiming mafia is safe only if the mafia have no incentive to NK the jester.

[Toaster]

Jesters in general are hard to balance in a game. Getting lynched is easy, so it ends up being pretty boring. A few people might try to avoid an obvious jester, but in general they tend to get lynched early on when people don't have much evidence about who the actual scum are, so they don't have a big effect on the game except to reduce the chances that scum will get lynched early.

Even worse is when the Jester's lynch ends the game, since then you have everyone paranoid about lynching anyone who seems too scummy, which pushes the game even more towards a town loss.

Overall, a jester claiming mafia is safe only if the mafia have no incentive to NK the jester.

...which they rarely do, given that Jesters are so anti-town in the first place.  A twist may be giving the scum team a (small) buff if they nightkill the jester, like making the next factional kill unblock/track/protectable or some such.

[ToonyMan]

Oh right I wanted to say this:

NQT made this post during WC3 and while the ultimate conclusion was wrong it was mostly accurate.  Lenglon and myself were most certainly town, and Hapah was the last witch which was one of the people NQT put under the "scum" list.  So while it wasn't a correct analysis it read who was town with 100% accuracy.

And what was the leading factor that made a player town you ask?  Why, simply suspecting many people!

Having a wide-spread of targets is a pro-town sign (as you genuinely suspect everyone), and NQT, Leafsnail, Toonyman and Vector all have 5+ attack targets (Leafsnail had 10, I've voted or FOS'd everyone, Toony and Vector have 5). Deathsword and IronyOwl have 4. Birdy, Solifuge, Hapah, Tiruin, Dariush and Toaster all had 3 or less targets. Birdy/Ottofar, strikingly, has only voted for me once and no one else.

Not sure where Lenglon went on this list, but Dariush, Toaster, and Hapah were the scum and look where they are on the list.  The only actual town player who had less than four suspects was Birdy.

[Leafsnail]

Oh right, I do appreciate NQT's vote analysis posts, even if not having hammers weakens their strength.  I think it's best to colour code players with known alignments in the VCA to make it easier to read, though.

[Imp]

Oh right I wanted to say this:

NQT made this post during WC3 and while the ultimate conclusion was wrong it was mostly accurate.  Lenglon and myself were most certainly town, and Hapah was the last witch which was one of the people NQT put under the "scum" list.  So while it wasn't a correct analysis it read who was town with 100% accuracy.

And what was the leading factor that made a player town you ask?  Why, simply suspecting many people!

Having a wide-spread of targets is a pro-town sign (as you genuinely suspect everyone), and NQT, Leafsnail, Toonyman and Vector all have 5+ attack targets (Leafsnail had 10, I've voted or FOS'd everyone, Toony and Vector have 5). Deathsword and IronyOwl have 4. Birdy, Solifuge, Hapah, Tiruin, Dariush and Toaster all had 3 or less targets. Birdy/Ottofar, strikingly, has only voted for me once and no one else.

Not sure where Lenglon went on this list, but Dariush, Toaster, and Hapah were the scum and look where they are on the list.  The only actual town player who had less than four suspects was Birdy.

It would be interesting to see a table made for this showing each persons's attacks by each day's end, to compare totals of people able to continue to attack more properly against people for whom death stopped their ability to attack.

Two players were active throughout D1 and D2, but were dead (and stayed dead) by D3:

Tiruin, and Dariush.  Does that offer an alternate explanation for their 3 or fewer targets?

I suspect not, because the thread had about 515 posts between start of play and the start of D3 across almost a full month of playtime - that's a heck of a lot of space and time to only find three people scummy enough to attack.

None the less, I'd find the theory, "And what was the leading factor that made a player town you ask?  Why, simply suspecting many people!" more valid if the 'when you left play' variable was adjusted for.

Edited to add, those statistics also do not include the vote patterns for two of the players:  Not only is Lenglon not included on the list, but zombie urist isn't there either.  And I'm not sure where NQT said "Deathsword and IronyOwl have 4" -  Ironyowl replaced Deathsword, so NQT may have meant Deathsword/IronyOwl have 4, or they have 8.

[notquitethere]

Here's the WC3 spreadsheet (not fully updated). Toony is absolutely right: the biggest town-tell is if the player appears to suspect everyone, and this is clearly reflected in their spread of votes. So Lenglon also voted for a large spread of people in WC3. Birdy/Ottofar was an outlier, but Ottofar said that he didn't think he was particularly good at hunting scum, and Birdy didn't believe in using his vote aggressively. Not sure what Deathsword/Irony Owl's excuse was. This is a much stronger method for finding town than definitely finding scum!

Oh right, I do appreciate NQT's vote analysis posts, even if not having hammers weakens their strength.  I think it's best to colour code players with known alignments in the VCA to make it easier to read, though.

I'm pleased someone appreciates it  . I colour code in my own sheets, so maybe I should start doing that when I put up my analysis posts.

It would be interesting to see a table made for this showing each persons's attacks by each day's end, to compare totals of people able to continue to attack more properly against people for whom death stopped their ability to attack.

The reason why I didn't bother doing any such thing in the WC3 is because usually dead players no longer matter because you now know their alignment for certain.

Edited to add, those statistics also do not include the vote patterns for two of the players:  Not only is Lenglon not included on the list, but zombie urist isn't there either.  And I'm not sure where NQT said "Deathsword and IronyOwl have 4" -  Ironyowl replaced Deathsword, so NQT may have meant Deathsword/IronyOwl have 4, or they have 8.

Not sure why I omitted Lenglon, but she'd voted 6 targets and FOS'd a few more. Deathsword/Ironyowl collectivelyhad four targets. ZU was 'dead' at this stage so I ignored him, but he'd voted four people.

[Toaster]

This one is interesting- if a scum player tries to counteract it by suspecting more, it actually puts them more in the spotlight and gives them more material to be up for review.  Better scum players will be able to pull this off, but lesser scum player may be lynched.




But hey, rewarding skill and punishing lack of it?  That is in no way a bad thing. 

[Leafsnail]

I use the tell a lot.  Mafia members are way more reluctant to clearly state who they suspect.

[Mephansteras]

Which is precisely why a very strong scum tactic is to 'forget' during the day they you're scum. If you're thinking like town during the day you're going to be acting town, and much less likely to drop any tells.

[birdy51]

Perhaps it's a valid scum tactic to be actively seeking out cultists under the guise of scumhunting, as opposed to suspending the idea that they are not scum.

[Toaster]

Perhaps it's a valid scum tactic to be actively seeking out cultists under the guise of scumhunting, as opposed to suspending the idea that they are not scum.

This is true, but only if it's not obvious.  Inexperienced scum are often caught out on being too focused on finding third parties.

[Tiruin]

Here's the WC3 spreadsheet (not fully updated). Toony is absolutely right: the biggest town-tell is if the player appears to suspect everyone, and this is clearly reflected in their spread of votes. So Lenglon also voted for a large spread of people in WC3. Birdy/Ottofar was an outlier, but Ottofar said that he didn't think he was particularly good at hunting scum, and Birdy didn't believe in using his vote aggressively. Not sure what Deathsword/Irony Owl's excuse was. This is a much stronger method for finding town than definitely finding scum!

I think the towntell is suspecting against the crowd and pushing that notion, until people question what they follow.

I mean, I did the usual suspect everyone note back then, and it garnered...nearly nothing in return.

...And WC3 is a real different game when you handle third-parties. >_>

I use the tell a lot.  Mafia members are way more reluctant to clearly state who they suspect.

I don't quite follow the reluctancy + stating who they suspect = absolute tell! formula.

[ToonyMan]

If a mafia member clearly states who they suspect then if they die and flip, people can go back and see who a confirmed mafia player suspected, which could be good or bad news depending on how crafty they are.

[Mephansteras]

I use the tell a lot.  Mafia members are way more reluctant to clearly state who they suspect.

I don't quite follow the reluctancy + stating who they suspect = absolute tell! formula.

It's not an absolute tell, but it is a tell. Mafia, especially newer mafia players, have problems with saying who they suspect because they don't actually suspect anyone. They know who's mafia, and they know that whoever they're voting is almost certainly town (at at least not mafia). This means they know that any of their suspicions are nonsense, and this makes them much less...confident when pressed about their reasons.

Town suspects who they suspect because that person might be mafia. Mafia suspects who they suspect because...they are an easy target/they made a mistake and are an easy lynch/are someone the mafia wants to get out of the way/whatever.

A good suspicion, town or mafia, has a clear reason why that person could be scum. They don't have to be scum, the reason just has to be valid. If you're not actually voting with a valid reason, you're much more reluctant to spell those reasons out and it shows.

Therefore, reluctance to clearly spell out why you suspect someone is a tell.