April 4th, 2019, 10:21 PM
Scenario 1:
If I were the unlucky sheriff, I would probably claim Sheriff, give my full lw, and explain to the town that my role is possible in this setup. I would also check the log for other players who have not given a full role/lw, and I would tell town to inno me and get a claim from someone else. If the town lynches me anyway, then that's a shame. You win some, you lose some.
If I were reviewing a replay in which the unlucky sheriff chose to appear as a Jester, I would need to analyze the full situation to consider whether the person threw the game. If there was no remaining space in the setup for a Jester, then appearing as a Jester would certainly be an irresponsible choice. Is the unlucky sheriff a well-respected player? Or does the unlucky sheriff have a history of trolling and claiming random roles for no reason?
Scenario 2:
I don't think I would be witty enough to claim Vigilante publicly before I shoot. It's a risk I usually wouldn't take. If I wanted to confirm myself as vigi, I would probably shoot someone who was lurking, or someone who made a suspicious role claim.
When I review situations like this, I focus on [I]actions[/I], rather than [I]threats.[/I] I would not pay much attention to the threat that the Vigilante made, and I would focus on who the Vigilante actually shot. If the Vigilante didn't shoot the trustworthy townie, then there would be no misconduct at all. If the Vigilante shot the trustworthy townie, it would be tougher to decide. If the townie was 100% confirmed, the Vigilante would be throwing. If the Vigilante did not claim to have killed the townie, it would be throwing since the Vigilante is surrendering his confirmed status.
Scenario 2.5:
I usually don't attempt to lynch my Mafia/Triad teammates. It's a risk that I find to be unnecessary and frequently counterproductive.
If I see a Mafia player lynch a teammate, I check to make sure the Mafia player did it strategically, rather than out of rage. "sheriff here, 15 is mafia" is ok; "15 is mafia, he's a shit player, fuck him" is gamethrowing.
Scenario 3:
I agree with your logic and I don't really have much to say. This is a risky play with significant potential benefits. I am glad when I see people utilize this strategy.
Scenario 4:
I'm a longtime player with all role wins and almost 40k points, so I'm not too focused on ensuring that I win. Recently, I haven't asked to be culted. When I'm Mafia/Triad/NK, I like to let neutral evil roles win with me.
Every player's first priority should be to ensure that their team wins. (Neutral roles except for cult are considered to be "on their own team") If it's clear that your team cannot win, then you can be a bit more loose. But you should really be trying your best for your own team to win.
Scenario 1:
If I were the unlucky sheriff, I would probably claim Sheriff, give my full lw, and explain to the town that my role is possible in this setup. I would also check the log for other players who have not given a full role/lw, and I would tell town to inno me and get a claim from someone else. If the town lynches me anyway, then that's a shame. You win some, you lose some.
If I were reviewing a replay in which the unlucky sheriff chose to appear as a Jester, I would need to analyze the full situation to consider whether the person threw the game. If there was no remaining space in the setup for a Jester, then appearing as a Jester would certainly be an irresponsible choice. Is the unlucky sheriff a well-respected player? Or does the unlucky sheriff have a history of trolling and claiming random roles for no reason?
Scenario 2:
I don't think I would be witty enough to claim Vigilante publicly before I shoot. It's a risk I usually wouldn't take. If I wanted to confirm myself as vigi, I would probably shoot someone who was lurking, or someone who made a suspicious role claim.
When I review situations like this, I focus on actions, rather than threats. I would not pay much attention to the threat that the Vigilante made, and I would focus on who the Vigilante actually shot. If the Vigilante didn't shoot the trustworthy townie, then there would be no misconduct at all. If the Vigilante shot the trustworthy townie, it would be tougher to decide. If the townie was 100% confirmed, the Vigilante would be throwing. If the Vigilante did not claim to have killed the townie, it would be throwing since the Vigilante is surrendering his confirmed status.
Scenario 2.5:
I usually don't attempt to lynch my Mafia/Triad teammates. It's a risk that I find to be unnecessary and frequently counterproductive.
If I see a Mafia player lynch a teammate, I check to make sure the Mafia player did it strategically, rather than out of rage. "sheriff here, 15 is mafia" is ok; "15 is mafia, he's a shit player, fuck him" is gamethrowing.
Scenario 3:
I agree with your logic and I don't really have much to say. This is a risky play with significant potential benefits. I am glad when I see people utilize this strategy.
Scenario 4:
I'm a longtime player with all role wins and almost 40k points, so I'm not too focused on ensuring that I win. Recently, I haven't asked to be culted. When I'm Mafia/Triad/NK, I like to let neutral evil roles win with me.
Every player's first priority should be to ensure that their team wins. (Neutral roles except for cult are considered to be "on their own team") If it's clear that your team cannot win, then you can be a bit more loose. But you should really be trying your best for your own team to win.
Reply With Quote