I'm acting just how people were to me in bird mafia.
-
Happy Earth Week! TBT is hosting a series of nature-based mini-events through April 28th. Breed flower hybrids by organizing your collectible lineup, enter our nature photography contest, purchase historically dated scenery collectibles, and earn bells around the site! Read more in the Earth Week and photography contest threads.
Mafia TBT Mafia XV: The Siren's Call (Game Over/Mafia & Third Party Win!)
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
I'm acting just how people were to me in bird mafia.
One thief will win nevertheless, no matter if they all die tonight. If their side-game is real, which I think it is.
Should focus on getting mafia killed, not the harmless thieves (once we figure out whether or not they're legit).
- - - Post Merge - - -
Anyways going going.
Should focus on getting mafia killed, not the harmless thieves (once we figure out whether or not they're legit).
- - - Post Merge - - -
Anyways going going.
Tsundere, playing a role equivalent of what the thief in this game seems to be, sided with town in Bird Mafia II. This was also the first time this specific type of third party role was used in tbt mafia. So the use of 'always' is wrong here.
I'm not talking about how people choose to play, because of course it's insane to say people will 'always' play a certain way.
I'm talking about how such roles are by their inherent design going to slightly anti-town. Think about it. At lylo, the survivor has the chance to end the game right there by quickhammering with scum. The nature of the survivor role means they don't want to prolong the game unnecessarily. Lynching scum at lylo prolongs the game. It's also easier to lynch town at lylo because you can spot start the quickhammer process on the most obvious town player, and sit back while scum finish the job.
Does that make sense?
- - - Post Merge - - -
Let me present a lylo scenario.
3 town, 3 scum, 1 survivor.
Survivor + scum should always win here. It's easier if the survivor has some solid reads so they know immediately who to quickhammer. Even if the survivor is completely oblivious and readless, he can experiment by switching votes and seeing how the other players react. Provided the scum team is reasonably active and coordinated, the moment the survivor votes a town, the game is over.
Yes but killing us right now is stupid when there are some people that are scummy, when at other times later in the game you may have no idea who scum is and then you can kill us if you still think we are scum.
And how is this relevant to this game?
I don't want a lategame "town" to consist of a majority of thieves, because we lose. Honestly, the thief role isn't good design. There's nothing really to punish them for claiming. I've played in games with 'contract killers', who are kinda similar to thieves. There are variations on what their objectives are, but more importantly is that they can kill. As in, kill other contract killers to steal their "treasure". This means they can't just open claim like they have in this game. It also means they can actually manipulate town and scum into killing off their rivals. Right now they're some sort of benign tumour that has the potential to go malign for town.
I don't want a lategame "town" to consist of a majority of thieves, because we lose. Honestly, the thief role isn't good design. There's nothing really to punish them for claiming. I've played in games with 'contract killers', who are kinda similar to thieves. There are variations on what their objectives are, but more importantly is that they can kill. As in, kill other contract killers to steal their "treasure". This means they can't just open claim like they have in this game. It also means they can actually manipulate town and scum into killing off their rivals. Right now they're some sort of benign tumour that has the potential to go malign for town.
I think the vig in this game is 1 shot. So you are saying that you would rather kill someone that you think is telling the truth, but you want to shoot them and then let the other 2 claims go scott free, or someone later in the game that you are almost certain is scum, but people don't agree with you so you are unable to lynch them?
The thieves as explained appear to be similar to the squids in the last Mini game. So it's not unprecedented for TBT Mafia.
god the party ur at must be ****
Yes, how many vigs are confident enough to hold their shot until night4+??? Vigs are good for cleanup, be it scummy players, lurkers or other anti-town players. It's a terrible idea to spend an entire day and a lynch on thieves, it's far better for a vig to do it.
Yes, kill one thief to confirm that the rest are telling the truth. There's no issue with letting the other 2 claims get off scot free, because they ARE cleared.
If you are almost certain someone is scum, but you can't persuade people to lynch them, then you suck. That's not what vig shots are for. You can't and don't need to rely on them to kill scum past mid-game, because you should have enough information there to start lynch your way to victory.
Oh I was back 10 minutes ago. Forgot to mention that. Will respond to rest of post soon.
wat
Who said anything about this being unprecedented?
You need to stop reading single posts.
Well I consider this as pressure on you, Trundle and Natty, which can only be a good thing for us.
- - - Post Merge - - -
Anyway gotta catch some z's
Goodnight. Sooooooo....
I think killing the thieves at this point is a bad idea and a complete waste of time. If you're really worried about it, we can wait until town numbers are dangerously close to losing majority. If the thieves do happen to be scum, we only need to lynch one and we will quickly find out that the rest of them are as well. But it's a bad move to attempt something like this at this stage in the game. Also, Karla, your general attitude is a distraction to our objective. Try cooperating with other players instead of acting smug all the time.
Similar threads
