Siergiej, on 26 April 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:
Quote
Hey Sierglej, you're naked. You should log out and then back in again with anonymous checked.
Thx & fix'd!
Okay, so I'm off work for today and have a moment before today's Champions League game, so time to post something of substance.
First, a very newbie question. I skimmed the 101 and saw it strongly advised to lynch on day 1:
Quote
In basic games, new players tend to place too much emphasis on certainty of innocence or guilt and consider minimizing the amount of casualties a town priority. This is generally characterized by an unwillingness to vote someone or considering a no-lynch a better option than the lynch of a town player. This is nowhere more pronounced than on day 1, when people are often voted out for the most ridiculous reasons by veterans and rookies are hesitant to vote or even prefer a no-lynch.<br style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">
The truth of the matter is that right until the end-game, both teams benefit from reducing the amount of players left in the game for a multitude of reasons.
This is EXACTLY how I feel right now :F So can someone elaborate on why townies benefit from reducing the number of players? Is it just the math of
with less player you have higher % of hitting scum or I am missing a more complex dynamic here? Because my initial feeling was:
- We lynch on day 1 and have ~12% of killing scum (2 people out of 17 players). I'm saying 12% because with so little data, the lynch isn't much better than random. So we have 88% chance of killing one of our own.
- Night 1 comes and scum kills a townie.
- Day 2 starts with first piece of solid information (who was killed by scum) but we're 88% sure we killed one of our own so have less time before scum prevails.
If we only speculate but don't kill on Day 1, we do still get information from the Night 1's kill, but lose one instead of two townies in the process. But since doing this was advised against in the 101, I imagine there is a bigger benefit from just reducing the number of players: I just didn't figure it out yet. So would be super grateful for a bit of advice/explanation here.
So, the general way of thinking for Day 1 posts is this:
1) Your maths are probably correct. Mathematically, not voting someone out on Day 1 DOES mean that there is a higher likeliness of one less townie dying during the Day 1 to Day 2 cycles.
BUT
2) Often what happens is that we get close to lynching someone on Day 1, usually for some stupid reason that only makes a little bit of sense, but because we don't end up getting the lynch, even with the kill info (and most killers will often kill someone completely unrelated to the Day 1 controversy for this very reason), more often than not, the kill has nothing to do, either directly or obliquely, with the cases people were pushing Day 1, let alone being a kill that may give us enough information to suss out who the killers are yet. Then we get to Day 2, and if, as is usually the case, nothing new has come up information-wise, we spend the entirety of another day cycle rehashing the exact same cases as during Day 1.
So, by not lynching on Day 1, we've now wasted 2 days arguing about the same cases.
If we lynch on Day 1, however, then we get information from that lynch - for example, who defended the person who was lynched, who may have been symping based on their reactions to votes on the lynched player. If we get lucky and find scum on Day 1 (which admittedly almost never happens), then we can draw even more conclusions from that.
It is the townie's lot to die in order to try to find the killers. If you're a townie, you shouldn't be afraid to be lynched - though you should definitely fight tooth and nail to get people to lynch someone else or to throw ensure your suspicions, at least, are on thread. That way once we know that you were a townie, we can take a closer look at YOUR suspicions for any validity, and look at how others reacted to your lynch.
Quote
Moving towards the meaty part, aka throwing accusations. There's a lot of meta play going on and the pace is very fast, so I'm struggling a bit, but my thinking so far is as follows. Andorion and Tatts seem the most vocal and it started with Tatts accusing Andorion of being scum because of him touching on mechanics very early. That sounds like grasping at straws very early in the game, but Tatts also puts a big mark on his back with going after someone this openly. That would be a risk of outing himself immediately. So I'm inclined to think he's not scum. I'm also not convinced by the Andorion mentioned mechanics therefore scum thinking, so I'm leaning towards suspecting one of the people who jumped on the lynching Andorion bandwagon, as an easy way to quickly kill off a townie. These people are:
Nom, HiddenOne, Kitsu
I'm not voting yet, because I want to understand better lynching on day 1. Then I'll add my vote, most likely for one of the three mentioned above.
Okay, Champions League time!
See, now the above, that's a better case for lynching than the current Tatts and Ando cases. You're right, we should definitely be keeping an eye on those that jumped on the Ando bandwagon, and I certainly find it interesting that Nom, who was already under scrutiny for other reasons, happens to be on your list here too!
Help
