Mafiascum.net

Yeah, if I hit Claus on night 1 that just means it's the only ability he can get on night 1. Nothing's stopping him from getting anything else he's hit with on a night that I *don't* target him.

armlx wrote:

Because he's in Jail, no one can target him subsequently. See order of roles resolutions.

He can still absorb them at a later time though.

Yes just not on that night.

Note to self: Be careful with syntax while discussing setup.



I know nobody really wants to hear that King might be scum, but King might be scum. His backpedal on irrationally opposing No Lynches feels wonky. (In other words, I hate it when people tell me not to make a big deal of things)

Cyberbob wrote: As for role direction... yeah, I'm not too keen on it. Letting the scum know what's coming erases much of an ability's function (especially in the case of mine and Twomz's). With roles dropping every night and day we should be extracting as much benefit from them as we can.

I agree with this. Scum knowing who is target whom for what allows them to avoid detection and more easily pick targets who are not going to be protected.

shaft.ed wrote:Being that we have no Doc, he will be forced to play a more protective role for now. That is something they are likely to take advantage of.

That's a good point but I do have the ability to give someone a one-shot Doc or NK immune. I can only do this once so it's obviously limited, but it's something to keep in mind.

Pug89 wrote:

shaft.ed wrote:Being that we have no Doc, he will be forced to play a more protective role for now. That is something they are likely to take advantage of.

That's a good point but I do have the ability to give someone a one-shot Doc or NK immune. I can only do this once so it's obviously limited, but it's something to keep in mind.

Doh. I don't know how we overlooked that. Given the life expectancy of a Doc in this game I'd say you're pretty much an equivilant then.

NabakovNabakov wrote:His backpedal on irrationally opposing No Lynches feels wonky.

No, I can vouch for his meta claim. We both came from the same site (also Claus ^_^) - the issue of Day 1 No Lynches does crop up fairly often and he is usually the one to explain why they're a bad idea.

So I'm weighing the usefulness of motivating one of the investigative roles tonight. We might be able to protect more people if I hit the Jailkeeper, but I don't see how more information would be a bad thing.

Rishi wrote:So I'm weighing the usefulness of motivating one of the investigative roles tonight. We might be able to protect more people if I hit the Jailkeeper, but I don't see how more information would be a bad thing.

I like this. If a scum is motivated in this way, however, do they get an extra kill in addition to an extra investigation? If not, then even an extra scum investigation will help us catch the SK potentially and that would be a good idea. Also would make it harder to fake (as making one fake report is hard enough already, two would be nigh impossible).

Cyberbob wrote:

NabakovNabakov wrote:His backpedal on irrationally opposing No Lynches feels wonky.

No, I can vouch for his meta claim. We both came from the same site (also Claus ^_^) - the issue of Day 1 No Lynches does crop up fairly often and he is usually the one to explain why they're a bad idea.

So why hasn't he done any explaining here?

We smart

Claus wrote:We smart

?

The MS playerbase is more learned in the ways of mafia than that of our originating site, is what I believe he's saying.

So I'm weighing the usefulness of motivating one of the investigative roles tonight. We might be able to protect more people if I hit the Jailkeeper, but I don't see how more information would be a bad thing.

It is better if this line of discussion is not continued as killing one of said roles nullifies the information.

. There seems to be a lot of setup and nightchoice possibility discussion, and very little actual scumhunting. If I get a chance tomorrow or Sunday I'll take a more in depth look into the game so far (probably won't glean much but you never know).

Twomz wrote:

Unvote

. There seems to be a lot of setup and nightchoice possibility discussion, and very little actual scumhunting. If I get a chance tomorrow or Sunday I'll take a more in depth look into the game so far (probably won't glean much but you never know).

I haven't seen much opportunity for scumhunting. People are playing fairly close to the vest at the moment.

Cyberbob wrote:The MS playerbase is

considerably

more learned in the ways of mafia than that of our originating site, is what I believe he's saying.

Gotcha.

Why are you voting Claus again?

It's a leftover from the random phase.

Cyberbob wrote:It's a leftover from the random phase.

Unvote

Ah. So is mine, but I would like to reread how W!nt3r responded to his early pressure before I unvote…

. too touchy with the unvote IMO

shaft.ed wrote:

unvote, vote: CyberBob

. too touchy with the unvote IMO

Huh?

Uh, I would've removed it without Alabaska's input. I'd forgotten it was there; the votecount reminded me of it and I figured it was outdated.

Super-VLA: Luggage

shaft.ed wrote:

unvote, vote: CyberBob

. too touchy with the unvote IMO

. too touchy with the unvote IMO

Alabaska J wrote:

shaft.ed wrote:

unvote, vote: CyberBob

. too touchy with the unvote IMO

unvote, vote: shaft.ed

. too touchy with the unvote IMO

. too touchy with the unvote IMO