-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
That strategy is controversial.
That’s how a douse checker foolishly meets their end.
Unless needed too, I don't think the douse checker should out themselves.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
Unless needed too, I don't think the douse checker should out themselves.
And by need, I mean you're at L-1 or slightly before
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
Unless needed too, I don't think the douse checker should out themselves.
I completely agree with your conclusion.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
I completely agree with your conclusion.
I thought Caustic of all people would be the most open to increasing our chances in a process of elimination.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
I thought Caustic of all people would be the most open to increasing our chances in a process of elimination.
But you are simply allowing the Parasite to eliminate it’s biggest threat.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
But you are simply allowing the Parasite to eliminate it’s biggest threat.
That implies the Arsonist has doused the Douse checker. If the douse checker finds who is doused, we're ahead and have two confirmed players.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
That implies the Arsonist has doused the Douse checker. If the douse checker finds who is doused, we're ahead and have two confirmed players.
Luck. An important factor in many games.
Relying on such things is Incriminating.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
Who's math is off here
My math wouldn't be off, N0 douse, N1 douse N2 douse+ douse checker lynch N3 burn
4 people dead
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
Luck. An important factor in many games.
Relying on such things is Incriminating.
Probability. And we have a better probability.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Varcron
My math wouldn't be off, N0 douse, N1 douse N2 douse+ douse checker lynch N3 burn
4 people dead
Then doesn't it work better for us if we no-lynch?
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
That implies the Arsonist has doused the Douse checker. If the douse checker finds who is doused, we're ahead and have two confirmed players.
Yes, but why must the information be shared with the rest of us? If the douse checker sees that someone is doused they can mostly conclude they are town and leave them in their top town reads. Thus if they somehow find themselves dead, we can just go back.
Heavily relying on the one power role in-game isn't the best strategy. Reads reads reads.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
Probability. And we have a better probability.
Probability implies it’s a miraculous solution.
I consider this a risky Decision.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
The Outcome of you method is Foolish.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
Yes, but why must the information be shared with the rest of us? If the douse checker sees that someone is doused they can mostly conclude they are town and leave them in their top town reads. Thus if they somehow find themselves dead, we can just go back.
Heavily relying on the one power role in-game isn't the best strategy. Reads reads reads.
Because that person is immediately cleared from the process of elimination along with the checker themselves. And if the Douse checker is not doused (which is likely upon a doused check tomorrow) we gain a clear with an additional day of another streamlined PoE. No?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
The Outcome of you method is Foolish.
It's not. It's a sound plan, but if you'd prefer something else feel free to suggest it.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Or we just lynch the arsonist today and banana is sad
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stealthbomber16
I miss pathfinder
I WAS GONNA SAY THAT EARLIER, FRIEND
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
Because that person is immediately cleared from the process of elimination along with the checker themselves. And if the Douse checker is not doused (which is likely upon a doused check tomorrow) we gain a clear with an additional day of another streamlined PoE. No?
The only person who needs to know is the douse checker. There is absolutely zero point in outting so early. As long as the douse checker knows who is clear and communicates it properly in reads, that's fine. Unless the douse checker is at risk of being lynched or knows they're going to die, there's no need to out themselves.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
The only person who needs to know is the douse checker. There is absolutely zero point in outting so early. As long as the douse checker knows who is clear and communicates it properly in reads, that's fine. Unless the douse checker is at risk of being lynched or knows they're going to die, there's no need to out themselves.
wait is role reveal on?
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
I can't find anything on that.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Already started? :D
To those asking early what our strategy is, it's to scumhunt, guys. We cannot rely on the Douse Checker for "free clears". Plus, this is a 24/24 game, so we need to get into it quickly.
-vote Caustic
You are forced to give content this game. We do not have time for cryptic "variable analysis". As Kerrigan says, I have no time for games.
Also, I see Toad and Toadette... Do these mushrooms have something with eachother? Hmm...
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
The only person who needs to know is the douse checker. There is absolutely zero point in outting so early. As long as the douse checker knows who is clear and communicates it properly in reads, that's fine. Unless the douse checker is at risk of being lynched or knows they're going to die, there's no need to out themselves.
I don't know what your experience with Mafia is, but you seem to be quite enlightened. This is literally what should happen.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
The Douse Checker needs to breadcrumb his checks in reads, i.e. to leave clues that aren't directly understandable without his flip, but that will indicate us who he checked and what the result was upon checking. That would be preferably done in a list of reads, which means that E V E R Y O N E should give a list of reads tomorrow, WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION. Please color it so that we can see it easily.
And for the love of the Cat Empress, do not claim ANYTHING unless you are the Douse Checked and are on the verge of being lynched. Any claim that does not meet those conditions IS ANTI-TOWN, because it either creates confusion about roles, which detracts from the point of the game (lynching scum), or it tells the Arsonist who to douse.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
wait is role reveal on?
Uh, why wouldn't it be?
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Already started? :D
To those asking early what our strategy is, it's to scumhunt, guys. We cannot rely on the Douse Checker for "free clears". Plus, this is a 24/24 game, so we need to get into it quickly.
-vote Caustic
You are forced to give content this game. We do not have time for cryptic "variable analysis". As Kerrigan says,
I have no time for games.
Also, I see Toad and Toadette... Do these mushrooms have something with eachother? Hmm...
I like this MM. I wish you were more aggressive more often. I get bored of shitposting fast.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Uh, why wouldn't it be?
Because it isnt listed and we just played a game without role reveal?
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
I like this MM. I wish you were more aggressive more often. I get bored of shitposting fast.
Not to be rude, but in the previous game you said I was, and I'm quoting you here, "stupidly aggressive". :gun:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
Because it isnt listed and we just played a game without role reveal?
Hm? We weren't forbidden from revealing roles, it was a hidden setup, that's all. Have you seen the setup? I don't understand your point.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Not to be rude, but in the previous game you said I was, and I'm quoting you here, "stupidly aggressive". :gun:
Hm? We weren't forbidden from revealing roles, it was a hidden setup, that's all. Have you seen the setup? I don't understand your point.
Actually, last game, you were town. The more I think about it, the more I think you may be pocketing me because you're saying the opposite of what you said last game (even though you were wrong last game).
Also... who's Kevin in the sign list lol
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Not to be rude, but in the previous game you said I was, and I'm quoting you here, "stupidly aggressive". :gun:
Hm? We weren't forbidden from revealing roles, it was a hidden setup, that's all. Have you seen the setup? I don't understand your point.
I disagree with your take on our previous game and I dont follow how you tunneled on me so hard. But that's not really the matter because it taught me something. Perhaps at some point we need to reread our town reads.
I've seen open setups with no reveal was my concern.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Actually, last game, you were town. The more I think about it, the more I think you may be pocketing me because you're saying the opposite of what you said last game (even though you were wrong last game).
Also... who's Kevin in the sign list lol
To be honest I do weird shit.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
To be honest I do weird shit.
Not Magoroth weird though.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
I disagree with your take on our previous game and I dont follow how you tunneled on me so hard. But that's not really the matter because it taught me something. Perhaps at some point we need to reread our town reads.
I've seen open setups with no reveal was my concern.
well I disagree with you too lol you legit ignored me and you saying that proves my point but whatever :P
Same *looks at Gyrlander*. I still note your strong mindset difference, maybe it's your town game evolving positively (imo at least, without wanting to be condescending), maybe it's just that you're scum.
Oh, ok, setups with forbidden roleclaiming like IRL werewolf games. I thought you knew, but this isn't the site's meta; if the ability to claim is not specifically removed, claiming is allowed.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
Because that person is immediately cleared from the process of elimination along with the checker themselves. And if the Douse checker is not doused (which is likely upon a doused check tomorrow) we gain a clear with an additional day of another streamlined PoE. No?
It's not. It's a sound plan, but if you'd prefer something else feel free to suggest it.
I admire your generosity.
Allow me to enlighten you.
We all Evaluate others statements and watch for any Behaviour they may show.
Then find the best result to satisfy a proper solution to others judgement.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
I admire your generosity.
Allow me to enlighten you.
We all Evaluate others statements and watch for any Behaviour they may show.
Then find the best result to satisfy a proper solution to others judgement.
What is the content in that post? Did you just basically say "we need to check what people do if we want to have reads"? Because if so, it's not sooo useful...
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Already started? :D
To those asking early what our strategy is, it's to scumhunt, guys. We cannot rely on the Douse Checker for "free clears". Plus, this is a 24/24 game, so we need to get into it quickly.
-vote Caustic
You are forced to give content this game. We do not have time for cryptic "variable analysis". As Kerrigan says,
I have no time for games.
Also, I see Toad and Toadette... Do these mushrooms have something with eachother? Hmm...
You made an attempt on my life. Brave perhaps, but Ill conceived.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
What is the content in that post? Did you just basically say "we need to check what people do if we want to have reads"? Because if so, it's not sooo useful...
There are many factors on determining the whereabouts of a Parasite.
Hence, the behaviour of a Parasite takes a Significant factor.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
By the way, just to clarify my playstyle, when I ask questions or pressure people, it's really nothing personal. Questions are questions, not necessarily attacks. We should all be questioning others instead of going in circles about roleclaiming in such a setup, especially with our short deadlines.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Everything becomes clear due time.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
You made an attempt on my life. Brave perhaps, but Ill conceived.
Not really, it's just pressure, not an attempt on anyone's life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
There are many factors on determining the whereabouts of a Parasite.
Hence, the behaviour of a Parasite takes a Significant factor.
I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was so obvious it didn't have to be said. It's obvious even for a first-time Mafia player :P
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
By the way, just to clarify my playstyle, when I ask questions or pressure people, it's really nothing personal. Questions are questions, not necessarily attacks. We should all be questioning others instead of going in circles about roleclaiming in such a setup, especially with our short deadlines.
I find nothing wrong with your approach towards the process.
I respect your determination.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
I'm not too sure what you mean by role reveal being on, or off. However, the Arsonist cannot douse themselves therefore if someone is doused it is safe to conclude they are a vanilla.
Not too sure if the douse checker can check themselves.
Like I said, and the Marshall seconded, the best thing to do here is to rely on our daily reads and work off the content that is given to us. Instead of the douse checker outting themselves, best 'bread crumb' their results.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Not really, it's just pressure, not an attempt on anyone's life.
I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was so obvious it didn't have to be said. It's obvious even for a first-time Mafia player :P
I was requested to suggest a plan.
At this point and time, the process is at its early stages.
So I came to the conclusion that I must explain how to solve the process in the simplest of terms.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
By the way, I find Toad quite towny here. Of course, it's only early D1, so my read might change, but he's doing exactly what I'd expect a townie to do. To some extent, Frinckles is, too, it's just that I disagree with his plan, but that's probably just a theory disagreement, and therefore NAI.
:town:
Toad
Frinckles
Maybe Caustic?
Also, -vote Kovath
I think Caustic doesn't need pressure, as long as he contributes constantly.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Well, I say "constantly" but that's relative of course, you're not expected to be contributing 24/7 xD
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
I was requested to suggest a plan.
At this point and time, the process is at its early stages.
So I came to the conclusion that I must explain how to solve the process in the simplest of terms.
The simplest of terms? You really don't have more simple terms than that? Can I doubt that lol
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Well, I say "constantly" but that's relative of course, you're not expected to be contributing 24/7 xD
The simplest of terms? You really don't have more simple terms than that? Can I doubt that lol
If you wish to doubt my assumption.
That’s Understandable.
However, don’t treat me as a incompetent variable if that’s where you were going with it.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
If you wish to doubt my assumption.
That’s Understandable.
However, don’t treat me as a incompetent variable if that’s where you were going with it.
You're not incompetent at all (as you have showed last game), which is why I want you to produce meaningful content. The post I quoted was not meaningful, because it stated something very obvious. That's all I meant.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
I think Caustic doesn't need pressure, as long as he contributes constantly.
I like Caustic, they were challenging Frinckles strategy for the game in a way that aligns with my thought process.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
I like Caustic, they were challenging Frinckles strategy for the game in a way that aligns with my thought process.
I see your point and partially share it; it doesn't necessarily means that he's town, though, which is why I put a "maybe Caustic" in my town list.
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Also, WAKE UP GUYS. We will have discussed literally nothing by the time the day ends, or at least by the time I have to go. :(
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
I see your point and partially share it; it doesn't necessarily means that he's town, though, which is why I put a "maybe Caustic" in my town list.
I didnt say he was a confirm top read for me. I just said I like the man
-
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Sorry, it's 2020. I forgot I can't assume people's gender.