So yeah, Aekiel seems suspicious because he is posting too much and trying to steer the town. Also I have no idea why but his avatar is seriously creeping me out.

---------- Post automerged at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------

@jwlk- I don't think so. A mis-lynch only occur if the town lynch the wrong person.

 

Meh, I'm not exactly breaking new ground with what I'm posting, but it still has to be said. The Priest is the most important role, there are more scum in this game, we've got to lynch on the first day, etc.

And my avatar is :awesome.

---------- Post automerged at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

The Kingslayer info says that he gets to vigilante kill if two successive mis-lynches occur on two consecutive days, so I would assume that as long as someone is lynched (and are innocent) it takes one off the count.

 

I assume you're referring to The Lady of Winterfell.

She is immune to NKs, regardless of if she is protected by Kingsguard or not. However, should the Kingsguard choose to protect her, he will still die to save her. She does not lose immunity- it's not a oneshot protection.

And that's a thought I've been having all day to include in A Hunt of Thrones 2: A Storm of Swords.

Wrong image? Fuck that!

 

So let me get this straight.

The martyr can die to 'save' someone who would not have died from them being targeted by a kill?

lol poor martyr

 

I will clarify to say that the Kingsguard can choose to die and save somebody who has been targeted for death by either Winterfell or Dragonstone, regardless of Protection or role survival ability- this also applies to Convert Kills.

If (s)he dies to save a target of the Convert Kill, the Kingsguard will still die. The Convert Kill's special ability steal will only apply if they were also Converted beforehand. If the Kingsguard was not Converted, the Convert Kill will have been used up, for all intents and purposes, as a regular Night Kill.

 

Once again: metagaming like this is fucking retarded. It's also how you killed Kai before. It's also just genuinely bad considering it looks like you just highlighted the [r] section of the list and bolded it. Then selected anyone who played the game remotely well in the past. If we collectively decide that this is a valid method of play, then the whole 'mafia on DLP' thing is going to die out fast because of 'regulars' who are 'too dangerous' getting killed early for no fucking reason.

Trust me, if anyone knows anything about retarded metagaming, it's me.

 

Tbh, we've been metagaming since the second game. :|

And it's worked out for us often... I don't know - most of the "dangerous" players survive for quite a while...

 

Agree with Fiat that this is a rather dumb way of doing this but on the other hand, there are undeniably people who are obviously more skilled at this game. Doesn't mean those should be killed off first though.

Look at what happened at the current warlock game, most of the "power-players" are dead and the game is considerably less fun because of it.

 

I like that. Oi scum, here that?

You should leave me alive so that there is more fun for everyone.

---------- Post automerged at 02:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

edit by double post:

hear.

=\

It's 2 am so whatever

 

Just a point; From watching the current Warlock Hunt it looks like the most fun one yet, with the craziest stuff going on, a Warlock still in power despite being outed days ago. I don't like all the +ev -ev talk, if I wanted to get a super srs number crunching game, I'd go to a gaming forum where they play this stuff very seriously. I have my fun from mafia from watching crazy shit go down, when people randomly do stuff that might not necessarily be the most correct in a vacuum, but things that make for exciting games.

 

I don't think anybody was really advocating killing off the strong players. For one, it's annoying to play that way, for everybody involved. For another, the most dangerous scum would also be the best townies, especially since they could, if smart enough, make the best of pretty much any role.

Also, Aziraphale makes a very good point. We should certainly not just do crazy random shit, but just leaving aside the numbers and playing this as a game is what a lot of us joined up for. Not that we shouldn't be serious about it, but there's not much fun to going overboard on that.

 

Okay, been reading this on my phone all day, now finally get to post

Some thoughts:

1. Due to both multiple factions and Sacrifice, uncertainty favours the town more than it does traitors to the Boy King. King's Landing should seek to maintain uncertainty, not uncover it.

2. Long days mean we should always avoid rush-lynches, which are easily manipulated by scum.

3. The statistics are pretty good for King's Landing regarding random lynching.

Not certain of a day 1 lynch target yet, but I do think there should be one.

 

Right now, other than Custer's post advocating for mass investigation of a group of people who played the game before, everyone seems to be playing cautiously - although one can understand his rationale. Since there are a lot more factions in this game, there'll be a lot of kills going around fairly quickly.

As such, I'm a little against the idea of killing based upon past exp. in one of these games, simply because the dynamics can be so different. Granted, it's not as if one's intelligence increases one way or another between games, but it's still better to be cautious.

 

I never said killing of pro players, just investigating. KaiBaby had said in SW2:

or something to that effect. Which is great, because he's a very vocal and strong player. It's not that I don't trust y'all, it's just that I don't trust y'all. Except Lungs, because he's a bro.

 

I just remember my first couple of games with Fiat. He posted like crazy and accused nearly everyone at one point or another, thus leading me to think he was guilty as hell, only for him to have been a townie. Then, I start ignoring my suspicions about him in a later game and he's a witch. Sometimes it's just annoyingly hard to tell who is who, especially in the beginning.

The only person to slightly ping on my radar was Kang, who posted last night that he's suspicious of people who post vague statements or start bandwagons. That's not enough of a reason to actually vote for him yet, but to me it seemed like he was whining that some people post too vague or post too specific.

 

Lungs: I get that we've been metagaming for a while - it's hard to argue that we haven't being. If I was feeling like a dirty hipster, I'd say I was metagaming back when I was reading through DE1 and judging guilt based on recognizable differences in post-style and tone. There's a difference between being Meta, and I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym. Custer's advocating 'everyone who has played more often (or, if less often, significantly better) than Custer is suspect.'

Too Meta. I oppose it on principle because it spells the end of DLP Mafia - a bloody death, full of games based entirely on 'if you've played more than once, you're dangerous. Kill everyone who's dangerous.'

 

Good thing we've all played more than one game then, isn't it? Still, this is an unrelated point. We've got other things to talk about than the meta situation at the moment.

Like for instance who has come off as the most suspicious so far. Two have voiced their opinions for me, and I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but I find Custer to be suspicious, though it's based on a technique from one of the earlier games:

This tactic was used extensively by scum in the early games of Mafia (especially in the first Death Eaters game), and Custer wasn't playing back then so there's a good chance he hadn't picked up on the technique already having been used. It just reeks of scum to me, and on top of his attempts to steer the Hand to investigate players it just seems to me that he's inexperienced in the role of scum and is trying all the old tactics the rest of us got acclimated to in the early games.

 

Oh yeah, same here. Every game I see where Fiat plays he feels suspicious to me; due probably to being simply very vocal and able to steer the bandwagon. I don't remember watching a game where he was actually scum so far. Unless he was in lesstiny? Can't quite remember.

As to metagaming: well, it's unavoidable, really. Finding differences in play styles is a huge indicator - and while it's not the most fair it's hard to eliminate it as an aspect in gameplay.

 

I really am genuinely confused by this whole thread right now. 5 pages of basic conversation and a lot of it is repeats of earlier statements. Now I'm sifting through and trying to determine if any of those who are repeating statements seem suspicious or if the original post is suspicious. There's a lot of "oh this is a very cautious crowd" going around. But I can't tell if originated with scum trying to stir up trouble or just plain statements. I say for the sake of actually putting something out there, that we should focus on those who have posted the least so far (including myself if we must). I think we may find more answers there.

 

I was whining about people being vague to the point of lurking. Then people dont vote for them because they havent seen enough.

Then they turn out to be scum.