In post 306, Dragon of the West wrote: In post 300, petapan wrote: In post 295, Dragon of the West wrote:I can't see how Dwlee disagreeing about strategy can generate such a strong reaction from you that you feel a "correct" argument is bogging things down? Like even if it's slightly pedantic, aren't those the exact discussions that should help town align on a strategy? Especially when someone is suggesting a strategy for the group to follow on one of the first pages of the game. AND you go on to say that you don't necessarily agree with DGB's strategy....then what's your suggestion? ignore making any semblance of a plan rather than determine a path forward and work to make town's plan better? It's weird to not take a stance on DGB's early suggestion, but then scum read someone for openly saying they disagree with it.
sigh. please refer to my question asking about how much mafia you have played because this site has been around a while and the meta for playing most setups is fairly well established: run someone up, ask for a claim, people decide if they believe the claim or not, if they believe it or don't want to kill it that day we move on to a new target. it's not like we need to get together and conference every game for deciding how we're going to play, i'm not sure why you would expect it to be that way? like this is going to be a real uphill battle if i'm gonna have to give you the mafia 101 crash course
the point dgb was making was that recently normal setups have been outright trollish in their design and people have lost town games by making bad assumptions about setup mechanics. "play the game as if it were mountainous is" is obviously an extreme suggestion but at the heart of it favoring dayplay over claims isn't bad. dwlee's retort to that post was pedantic, and i felt trying to drag things into the realm of pure theory scummy
So I understand there's going to be a meta and I'm not suggesting a conference as necessary; but if someone disagrees about DGB's suggestion I don't see the harm in openly disagreeing. Maybe that's because I tend to be a pedantic person myself, I see value in some minutia. But also, isn't DGB suggesting a strategy offhand early on just as derailing and promoting the "conference" you want to avoid? The meta is so established that nothing is worth discussing to you, so why bother
in a sense it could be disruptive, that's true, but i simply don't think it was ill-intentioned in the way dgb presented it. that sort of idea is much more likely to be met with hostility and rejection, which is not particularly beneficial for scum, where arguing a "common sense" approach against dgb's proposal is much less risky, because people will leap to his defense for saying the "right" thing about how to play, even though anyone can argue that. this is like how nero keeps trying to paint me as being against the idea of people claiming but that's not
really
what i'm trying to say.
i'm sorry but i don't think here's any way i'm gonna be able to get this argument across to you in a satisfactory way, i'm okay with that, i am not dead set on selling you specifically on dwlee scum. on day 1 especially i'm a player who plays off gut, and i don't think i'm going to be able to communicate that to you because we're not approaching the game from the same place (which is not a bad thing, to be clear)
also, sorry for traveling back in time, but i'm just catching up here so i'll be hopping back and forth
In post 274, Dragon of the West wrote:Okay, reading everything to catch up now. I'm at the end of page 5 and I'm not understanding the evolution of peta's argument. It started with scum reading Dwlee99 for being too pedantic when it just seemed like he was disagreeing with DGB's strategy. And now if anything peta's posts are just trying to twist anything they can to put the fire on other people over nothing. I really haven't played much mafia and I'm not familiar with petapan as a player, but their playstyle this game seems overly aggro.
Unofficial vote on peta here. gonna continue reading
is aggression scummy to you?