Category 5 Hurricane

Yep. Inactivity killed this game. When a cop mark can't get you a lynch, you can't win. I want to suggest two things for future games to see if people like them. 1) Mandatory voting each phase: If you have not placed a vote when day ends, you earn a permanent extra "penalty-vote" on your head the next day. It will take one less vote to hammer you. This penalty-vote goes away if you vote the next phase. The penalty may stack if you go multiple day phases without voting.(Does not count for early hammers) 2) 48 hour phases instead of 24, especially after Day 1. By the way, excellent game, Voe and Chaos. You both had me fooled until it was too late to stop you. Oh, and one more thing. Mafia docs closed during the day.

"[Death_Kitty] stood for a long time in one spot. It's part of a game. He likes to see how long he can go without dying." "So far, he's doing excellent, and if he just stays right where he is, I'm sure he'll keep up that good momentum. Let's observe the genius at work." "[Death_Kitty] just stood there doing nothing at all. He seems to think I have nothing better to do with my time than to sit around and describe every fascinating little detail of his inability to do anything." "This is why [Death_Kitty] and I are on such good terms." Seriously, this hasn't been a very fun game due to the lack of participation. Just shoot me.

I'm trying to lynch the player who the cop role marked as scum. The argument can't get any more basic than that. I can't elaborate as I must return to work now (actually one minute ago) but my previous arguments will have to do.

Chaos, this can't be a bus scenario. I thought about that before. Voe confirmed he was tracked, and OWA confirmed he marked Voe. There can't be a bus inbetween, as far as I understand the role to work. If there was a bussing, Voe would have recieved any action that the other player would have, thus not get the result of OWAs action. I don't understand what Killing_You is doing. I still find him a suspect but his sudden switch to sort of my side during combat today is kinda interesting. Wonder if Voe knows he is screwed and is getting Killing_You to go after him as well, buddy up with me because I'm a sucker like that, and get by the rest of the game off of that. I'd totally buy that Killing_You is a vehicle, though. If you are an AT soldlier as you say, someone has to be.

Actually, I think only Voe, Killing_You, Mojoman and myself are playing. Frankly, the rest haven't been doing much. Yes, that includes you. I have noticed that the only person involved in this firefight who might be an Allied Spy is Mojoman. Since I doubt this game lacks a vanilla mafia role (which the Spy effectively is) that means I'm off track a bit as neither Voe nor Killing_You can be one. Voe: The only way to check sanity is lynching, if we even accept the idea that sanity is a problem for OWAs role. We also haven't had a cop counter-claim, which we might have expected to see back when you were the first person to catch OWA as the dog and posted twice about it before anyone else did. If there was an insane cop, there should be another cop role. Frankly, if you were town, I think you'd come up with a better argument to stand on if you claimed OWA wasn't trying to mark you but was saying something else like a general disagreement with you. But you didn't do that, which I think marks you as a mafia player who has been boxed in, not a town player who doesn't know why OWA marked him. Also attacking a relatively clear town role doesn't help.

Oh, sorry. I didn't think this was a Star Wars mafia.

Are we stormtroopers or something? ##vote Voe

Generally actions like this are resolved one at a time, so don't start the party just yet.

Puppy! No! ##SHOOT VOE

Ok. So we're worried about town deaths but we're going to start attacking the player that Voe said will explode on death. Sounds good. What do you plan to do tonight, then?

No, I didn't forget to unvote. I tried to get the people who were online around hammer to switch to Killing_You, but I didn't want to switch votes and leave Mojoman and Issac as the lynch targets when I found you more suspicious. I put myself in a bad position. I keep waiting to see what you were going to do as I was sure you would reply to that. I waited too long to propose the switch. If OWA really has a night-only, dog actions only, post restriction, that sucks. It's really unfortunate when we wound up with a game that has so relatively little participation, that a player might have been forced to not participate. However, unless he's faking it, he just handed us the keys to victory. He's calling Voe scum, which should make him the obvious target going forward. Furthermore, it sure sounded to me like Voe just claimed to have a rolecop role and was concerned about a role that explodes when killed, which would be a problem for scum as they have to lynch him to remove him safely. I still think Killing_You is scum and he happens to be someone Voe has suddenly switched into thinking isn't scummy even though he once said (paraphrased) "KY is threatening town". Seriously, I don't know how anyone with a protection role would think they should protect themselves when they also think they are a lynch target. I don't buy it. He's also spending a lot of time thinking about how many people die before we lose. Lastly, as we had another tie, the same voting analysis applies. There probably was not a mafia player amongst the three tied players. Obviously we know one of them is town as he flipped, and my two scum suspects both voted on the remaining two. In my opinion, chances are INCREDIBLY HIGH that there was no mafia player in the Day 2 vote. Voe's counter-argument against this is solid and I agree that it has it's flaws. However, I'm using post-game analysis on votes, not meta. Even though there are plenty of reasons not to break ties as that risks being obvious, they just do. It's easy to come up with any number of excuses for the vote and most scum members don't want to take a 25% or 33% chance risk of being lynched when there are so few of them to begin with. They'll take the chance that they might get lynched later over the idea that they might get lynched now. Now, if I combine that with my Day 1 analysis, one thing comes up as an potential problem of my analysis. There are only two players who have not received a day-end vote: Voe and Killing_You. Oh, look at that, those two names again! And I have been saying that I don't think that mafia have been receiving votes in these ties. But that leaves us a player short. Given an expected 25%+1 scum rate, we should have 3. But it's ok, I think I know what happened here. Voe claimed to find a role that explodes when killed, which would certainly be risky for mafia but also for town players who might use weapons. We may have a anti-town 3rd party instead of a 3rd mafia member, and that person is Mojoman. ...post was made while I was making this... Killing_You, did you just threaten to use an unstoppable kill on Mojoman?

Ok, meanwhile... Voe, you were previously a tank, correct? Could that role protect itself? I'm not sure why Killing_You would need to defend himself given that. as he himself put it, was such a likely lynch target. Scum don't normally go after potential lynches. Nodlied's night kill also didn't make sense to me because I thought he was the second most likely. This leads me to believe he was killed by visting someone who set a trap for him while Allied Spies disguised themselves and who is the only person who said that he targeted himself? Infact, that person went ahead and said it right away after you poked at him because he probably got an action result that mentioned being watched. Indeed, Killing_You protected himself because he knew town roles would be going after him and he can only use it once (Engineer). Double Post Edit: *Nodlied was the second most likely lynch target Alright, I don't really want to vote FRAYDO, I just wanted to see what he would do. He isn't here any more, so I want to vote Killing_You. However, I'm less suspicious of Issac and Mojoman than I am FRAYDO. If someone switches to Killing_You, I will too.

I think FRAYDO is trying to lynch an inactive scum mate. ##vote FRAYDO

Sorry guys, I've been sick and as a result haven't taken time to post yet. I've been reading but I couldn't make much sense of it with my brain being kinda mushy. However, I called in sick from work, so I will actually be here from now until hammer. I need to reread what has happened to day, but I want to say now that I'm fairly sure nothing happened to me and I'm completely bewildered by the night kill result. More will come later.

I'm not removing anyone from my suspect list. I'm removing pairs of people from my suspect lists. So to rephrase, if OWA or Chaos_Knight is scum, then FRAYDO isn't. If neither are, FRAYDO still could be. If Nodlied is scum, Chaos, OWA, Death_Kitty and myself are most likely not. If he is not, we still could be. Although I will say that I still think that it's reasonably likely that none of the votes were on scum players as a tie involving one probably would have been broken, we can't know that yet. We can use that to narrow our focus for now, but still keep everyone in mind.

Oh look at this! A day 1 where nobody was lynched, yet we gained a lot of potentially useful information! Naturally you've learned that I was not able to be lynched. What that means, you can't be certain, and I won't tell you more about it except that I picked this role specifically since I figured that being the winner last game (...sort of) would make me a quick target this game. Didn't think it would be used this fast...but whatever! Then there's a bit more that we can be reasonably sure is true based on voting patterns. FRAYDO did not pick to vote for either OWA or Chaos_Knight when he could easily have voted for one of them to save the other, and passed it off easily for any reason. It's a decent bet that FRAYDO is not on a scum team with OWA or Chaos_Knight Chaos_Knight similarly did not vote for OWA or Death_Kitty to save himself. Unless all three are scum and only Chaos_Knight's vote was on town, it is unlikely Chaos_Knight is on a scum team with OWA or Death_Kitty. (That odd scenario might have some merit, though....) Nodlied is not on a scum team with OWA, Chaos_Knight, Death_Kitty, or myself. He didn't vote at all and any vote with 2 minutes to go would have been justifiable and certainly save his mate(s). These should all hold true as long as potential scum players do not have lynch protection. Or something stupid like inactive scum players. (Which was a problem last game, if I recall...) My previous post-mortems of mafia voting patterns suggest that when a group of people are tied for a vote and nobody breaks it, it is because none of the people who received votes were scum. A scum team can usually break any tie if it needs to. It could be that a scum member was on the list and no other scum player came online to vote for anybody to help. However, given the specific voting pattern we have here, it doesn't seem like any vote was to save one person or another. My suspected scum team before the vote was Killing You, Chaos_Knight, and Nodlied (expecting a similar number of scum team to last game, which had the same number of players). I don't blame you for the counter-vote, Chaos. I sat there deliberating for a while before deciding on you instead of Nodlied. I suspected you because you said nothing of consequence, even though you were clearly around. I know you are a great player, so the fact that you didn't comment on Killing You's behavior at all made me think you were hoping people wouldn't notice. I'm less suspicious of you now, but only a bit. I also suspected Nodlied for the same reason as you, though he did at least have one comment about it and he hadn't replied to the answer Killing You gave his question. Given what happened after I returned to work, I wish I could have switched to Nodlied. Nodlied started the game with one of my favorite scum-tells of mass image posting. (Not a very reliable tell, mind you, however mass image posting fits the behavior of relaxed and experienced scum players who don't have much to worry about at the start of the game. Catalyst was the best example of this, in my opinion.) He may have also led Killing You to go after Voe as a "joke", or perhaps Voe's attractive personality did that on it's own. Furthermore, he soft-claimed as a unit for no reason at all. (Also a potential scum-tell.) Then when the game actually started, he turned into a tiny parrot who could say a lot of little lines that other people said but didn't follow up any of them with anything. He could have voted to essentially pick who to kill, and he himself had already laid out enough reason to vote for two people. To decide not to do so seems to me to be an indication of an unwillingness to make that decision and have a record for it and earn the label: Nodlied: The guy who picked the Day 1 town lynch and also risk the implications of that where people might claim he voted to save someone. Of course, if he was town and wanted to avoid that, he could also have voted for FRAYDO and just added to the vote roulette. After the failed lynch, his first concern was about what my role is, not alignment. Also used "INB4" which he might have to do right away if he planned to try to attack me now. So, for people who read that text brick, (Yes, you, Chaos.) Thanks. For the rest: New targets! Killing You, Nodlied, TBA? Mojoman? Again? I don't fucking know.

Actually, no, I won't. If I'm going to test Killing You's alignment without being a dick by lynching a newbie day 1, I'm going to go after the guys who I think should be catching on to what I (and possibly Voe) are catching on to, but aren't doing so. However, given that activity has been so low and players have suggested this was a bad start time, should we propose an extension to Day 1? Alright, I'm off to work so I'll just put out a vote and say that I'd be ok with a Day 1 extension if it happens. ##vote Chaos_Knight

You'll need to do some thought about how we can learn things and what we need to learn. Right now your actions lead me to believe you are not town, but I'm going to give you some newbie credit and not go after you...yet. Meanwhile, I'm interested to hear what OWA and Chaos_Knight think so far. If nothing comes up before I return to work in about 30 minutes, I will vote OWA.

Yes, basically as Voe said, the few things you have said and done so far have flagged my attention enough that if you were not new to this, I would going after you for a lynch target right now. However, those "flags" also fit what a new player might do, thus the question.

Killing You, is this the first time you have played a game similar to this? Also same question for Isaac The Madd and Death_Kitty.

KILLER MINE LAYER!

Two screens or windowed mode, or even multiple devices. Even if not, you only need to see the name once.

You only need to see the nametag in the stream. Which you will see either by him viewing his own character in 3rd person, or from his scoreboard which highlights his name. Also whenever the game ends.

If a streamer is successful at drawing a crowd to watch, people playing the game will eventually know there is a streamer and who it is. I believe the whole point being proposed is to have streamers join to cause others to play, afterall. And then, yes, you're right. They do deal with the problems. The solution is to not livestream these types of games. I've actually watched a livestreamer go through this process himself. He played a game that had a team vs team structure similar to APB, and he liked streaming it because he had a big channel and his presence would dramatically improve the player count while he was there. However, eventually the stream-sniping and trolling got so bad that it was no longer suitable for anybody. There were too many people who knew who he was and when he was streaming, and it was causing problems for everybody, He now records the footage and picks ones to upload later, and only streams games that are coop or where his opponents are likely to be "randoms". Since it isn't streamed, he can't be stream-sniped, and because it is only uploaded if it's good, people trying to troll will be just wasting their time as he won't publish it. Recording random sessions and then cutting the footage down to just the "good stuff" would probably have the best effect for everyone involved.

I knew someone would say that. However, as you already alluded to, a delay also lowers some of the appeal of the stream, as it's no longer live. It also still does not impact what the streamer's own team might do to get on camera, no matter how long the delay. And sometimes there are still things an opposing team can learn from a delayed stream. I admit that at the max delay, there are very few things I can think of and many wouldn't matter much. It might reveal a long-term spy, for example, but how often does a spy remain under cover for 30 minutes? moonsense, that is interesting as the numbers are bigger than I'd expect, though you have a logical problem in that. If every day you have 40% new visitors, what happened to the new visitors from the day before? Brand new players are always a thing. Getting them to stick around to play for more than a week is another. To have growth, some new players must become old players. Are you seeing bigger numbers of players over time?