Games [Game Over] The July Crisis Mafia

[Jeod]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

It's a strange calculus.  We really have no way of knowing who's trustworthy, we just have meta reputations. Ironically, one way to pick who goes to the locker is to find someone who we think would be too incompetent to cause harm if they actually are a baddy.

It's less of a risk today because no evidence exists. The only risk is having to rely on a player's word the following day.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Jeod said:

It's less of a risk today because no evidence exists. The only risk is having to rely on a player's word the following day.

There's a decent chance whoever we investigate will drop evidence too, though, and the nominated person will have access to that.

[Jeod]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

There's a decent chance whoever we investigate will drop evidence too, though, and the nominated person will have access to that.

Then since I'm the one being chosen to be investigated, apparently, I propose that I also be the nominee to visit the vault. I have no evidence, and to clear your conscience, I can be investigated the following day if you suspect I took anything that did happen to be submitted to the vault. However, as I'm innocent, you have nothing to fear. I simply want information.

[TheIrishman]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

It's a strange calculus.  We really have no way of knowing who's trustworthy, we just have meta reputations. Ironically, one way to pick who goes to the locker is to find someone who we think would be too incompetent to cause harm if they actually are a baddy.

Huh, due to that logic, I'd probably nominate FRAYDO. He seems to always die before he can do anything (praise be to RNGesus) and I've never seen him act scummy before. 

2 minutes ago, Jeod said:

It's less of a risk today because no evidence exists. The only risk is having to rely on a player's word the following day.

You say that no evidence exists, but how do you know that? The evidence meter is already at 10%, so there could be evidence in there initially.

[Jeod]

Just now, TheIrishman said:

Huh, due to that logic, I'd probably nominate FRAYDO. He seems to always die before he can do anything (praise be to RNGesus) and I've never seen him act scummy before. 

You say that no evidence exists, but how do you know that? The evidence meter is already at 10%, so there could be evidence in there initially.

Oh, I didn't catch that. Very well, in that case I suggest we select our investigation target the following day--only if they turn out to be trustworthy, of course.

My point remains on Killing You, and I'd like second opinions on the matter.

[Chaos_Knight]

Oops, I almost forgot to check if the game started.

So investigations reveals current status but not alignment. Question is, how exactly is current status calculated? I kinda doubt that scum would be straight up guilty and all the townies are straight up innocent, otherwise it would be counterproductive to the very mechanic itself.

1 minute ago, TheIrishman said:

You say that no evidence exists, but how do you know that? The evidence meter is already at 10%, so there could be evidence in there initially.

While you have mistaken world tensions with evidence count (10% is the tensions), a good question as to why evidence doesn't exist. Since there already was a murder story-wise, there has to be something. But it hasn't been discovered yet.

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, Jeod said:

Then since I'm the one being chosen to be investigated, apparently, I propose that I also be the nominee to visit the vault. I have no evidence, and to clear your conscience, I can be investigated the following day if you suspect I took anything that did happen to be submitted to the vault. However, as I'm innocent, you have nothing to fear. I simply want information.

Can we do both? But objectively speaking, and don't take this the wrong way, I don't think you have enough clout to really be trusted with that. I'm willing to entertain the idea you're innocent, but I'd prefer the investigation first, nominate later.

Just now, TheIrishman said:

Huh, due to that logic, I'd probably nominate FRAYDO. He seems to always die before he can do anything (praise be to RNGesus) and I've never seen him act scummy before. 

You say that no evidence exists, but how do you know that? The evidence meter is already at 10%, so there could be evidence in there initially.

That's the world tension meter, not the evidence meter. That said, there could still be stuff in there already maybe, but those are two separate things just so you know.

[TheIrishman]

I accidentally looked at the first example post instead of the actual post >.> My bad. The example says 10% evidence.

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, Jeod said:

Oh, I didn't catch that. Very well, in that case I suggest we select our investigation target the following day--only if they turn out to be trustworthy, of course.

My point remains on Killing You, and I'd like second opinions on the matter.

I think you're reading too much into what KY was saying.  I was *eventually* able to see your point, but there are several other differences in viewpoints that aren't scum-town related that could be causing the disconnect you're picking up. For example, if we see this as a traditional game or not.  I'd argue it's not, and this might be some game more akin to the Death Note Mafia in structure.  If others are thinking that way, but you're not, that could cause some disconnect not related to scum-town calculations.

Just now, Chaos_Knight said:

Oops, I almost forgot to check if the game started.

So investigations reveals current status but not alignment. Question is, how exactly is current status calculated? I kinda doubt that scum would be straight up guilty and all the townies are straight up innocent, otherwise it would be counterproductive to the very mechanic itself.

While you have mistaken world tensions with evidence count (10% is the tensions), a good question as to why evidence doesn't exist. Since there already was a murder story-wise, there has to be something. But it hasn't been discovered yet.

I suspect even if we nail a scum, they're just "suspicious" as the first post notes.  Similarly, some town are probably suspicious as well, because suspicious =/= guilty. I do, however, suspect we have several people who are 100% clean, and those are the people we can trust with the investigation.

[OrangeP47]

Also I just now learned how to do multi-quote

[Jeod]

Hrm...that's true, it does all depend on what differences this game has from the traditional. It was still something that caught my eye. If you want to theorize on the structure of this game, I'll throw in my two cents on the perspective that this is more RPG-style:

We have one 100% warmongerer right now. This player is the one who shot the Duke. His objective is to cause WWI, and through his actions, he can create more warmongers (i.e. turn suspicious players into warmongerers, forming the Axis powers). The scum structure aside, we also have Task Force players and Town (innocent) players. This theory means there's a possibility that we can win on Day 1, which isn't something I agree with balance-wise. I suspect there is a missing link somewhere.

[TheIrishman]

On 7/25/2017 at 6:48 PM, Nodlied said:

Do you mean warmongers and town or just going from ''Innocent'' all the way to ''Hostile''? The latter only changes by pretty much your own actions while the former doesn't happen, as the role alignments are set in stone.

So from that I gather Nodlied is basing our current status - Innocent, Suspicious, and Guilty - by a standard of our actual in-game actions or based on how they are perceived. I think he's more likely to base them in the first one though, since the latter is too subjective. So if either scum or a vigilante kills someone, they could become suspicious, or if we have a protector, that protects a guilty player, they could become suspicious. Those are my thoughts at least.

1 minute ago, Jeod said:

Hrm...that's true, it does all depend on what differences this game has from the traditional. It was still something that caught my eye. If you want to theorize on the structure of this game, I'll throw in my two cents on the perspective that this is more RPG-style:

We have one 100% warmongerer right now. This player is the one who shot the Duke. His objective is to cause WWI, and through his actions, he can create more warmongers (i.e. turn suspicious players into warmongerers, forming the Axis powers). The scum structure aside, we also have Task Force players and Town (innocent) players. This theory means there's a possibility that we can win on Day 1, which isn't something I agree with balance-wise. I suspect there is a missing link somewhere.

And no, Jeod, "alignments are set in stone."

[OrangeP47]

We don't get lethal lynches until 60% world tension or something, though.  If this was cultist style, that'd be an awful lot of 'cover' time period for spread to happen. Maybe if we kept locking up said singular player again and again each night we could delay indefinitely, but I'd put money on there being more than one hostile (though not necessarily 'hostile' as the mechanics page describes) party out there.

It could also be a case of people having secondary objectives that conflict, even if the primary objective is the same or something, and when conflict occurs world tension goes up or something.  There's really no way to say until we get some dynamic action like with a night phase.

[Jeod]

1 minute ago, TheIrishman said:

So from that I gather Nodlied is basing our current status - Innocent, Suspicious, and Guilty - by a standard of our actual in-game actions or based on how they are perceived. I think he's more likely to base them in the first one though, since the latter is too subjective. So if either scum or a vigilante kills someone, they could become suspicious, or if we have a protector, that protects a guilty player, they could become suspicious. Those are my thoughts at least.

And no, Jeod, "alignments are set in stone."

True, however I still believe that suspicious players can have victory conditions that require them to be warmongers, so their alignments can be set in stone. The 'suspicious' status in that case would be temporary--until tension reaches a certain point.

[TheIrishman]

Just now, Jeod said:

True, however I still believe that suspicious players can have victory conditions that require them to be warmongers, so their alignments can be set in stone. The 'suspicious' status in that case would be temporary--until tension reaches a certain point.

I'm confused by the whole "requiring them to be warmongers" part. They would either start as warmongers or town. There should be at most 3 scum in this game and at least 2, imo. And I also believe the statuses can be changed through evidence. Both true and false evidence, since one of our goals is to place the evidence in the correct box. Meaning their has to be falsified evidence and it could potentially mislead us to believe a Warmonger to be innocent or a Town member to be Scum.

[OrangeP47]

If all suspicious were warmongers, it'd kind of defeat the purpose of the mechanic of holding them for a day then letting them go back into the wild and do their things, unless this is all some exercise in teaching us the importance of the rule of law and a fair trial, rather than mafia

[Jeod]

Just now, TheIrishman said:

I'm confused by the whole "requiring them to be warmongers" part. They would either start as warmongers or town. There should be at most 3 scum in this game and at least 2, imo. And I also believe the statuses can be changed through evidence. Both true and false evidence, since one of our goals is to place the evidence in the correct box. Meaning their has to be falsified evidence and it could potentially mislead us to believe a Warmonger to be innocent or a Town member to be Scum.

Think "dormant scum". If investigated, they'd be suspicious but not a threat. After a specific tension threshold, they become active. They have the same victory condition before and after, so their goal while 'dormant' is to raise world tension enough to become 'active'. The night phase will tell us more, since an absence of night kills would lend credence to this theory.

[TheIrishman]

Just now, Jeod said:

Think "dormant scum". If investigated, they'd be suspicious but not a threat. After a specific tension threshold, they become active. They have the same victory condition before and after, so their goal while 'dormant' is to raise world tension enough to become 'active'. The night phase will tell us more, since an absence of night kills would lend credence to this theory.

That is a possibility. But I don't agree with the conversion of players (the way you worded it initially made it sound more cult-y). And I don't think we'll come up with a guilty member, no matter their alignment, until we get more evidence, either through investigations or evidence submitted directly to the vault. Because, like Orange said, that'd be too easy. Here's what I'd take from your hypothesis. There could be one 100% guilty player right now, the one who shot the archduke, plus 1 or 2 suspicious or innocent players who are also warmongers, but until they do something or we uncover the right evidence, they'll stay as they are in status. Although I do want to clarify that there might be some suspicious players who are Town, either through false evidence or that might be their starting status.

[Jeod]

I'm guessing your Side is town but your Status is suspicious. I can't think of any other reason you'd bring up the possibility.

[Mojoman]

Whoa boy the game concepts are already going  over my head.

[TheIrishman]

1 minute ago, Jeod said:

I'm guessing your Side is town but your Status is suspicious. I can't think of any other reason you'd bring up the possibility.

Nope, I'm innocent, I just said it because I like everyone to be aware of all possibilities rather than be confined in their own self imposed rules. Think about it though, if a person was suspicious and that meant the same thing as being scum, then we'd automatically know to lynch them as soon as we could. It would be almost pointless for there to be innocent, suspicious, and guilty statuses if suspicious meant pretty much the same thing as guilty. And based on the rules, this game seems more focused on building the evidence towards figuring out the events rather than killing scum ASAP.

[TheIrishman]

10 minutes ago, Mojoman said:

Whoa boy the game concepts are already going  over my head.

Give it your best shot :b More participation is better.

[Mojoman]

Is this good participation

[Category 5 Hurricane]

 "Innocent players will be freed immediately but will leave behind any evidence they might unknowingly carry."

Does this mean we have to investigate innocent players to get certain pieces of evidence, or would this be a result of someone passing an item to someone else?

[OrangeP47]

That's actually a really good observation.  Items hidden from even the person carrying them, perhaps?

[Category 5 Hurricane]

Is that a claim of nationality, Mojoman?

[TheIrishman]

12 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

That's actually a really good observation.  Items hidden from even the person carrying them, perhaps?

My guess is that if scum can't nightkill until 60%, perhaps they can plant evidence on others without them knowing.

[Category 5 Hurricane]

I think that might make sense, as I think it is possible for the investigation to be taken off track. On the other hand, planting evidence just means it can be found, and one of our win conditions is to find all evidence.

[Category 5 Hurricane]

Of course, you could plant evidence on someone you think won't be investigated, and therefore it can't be found. That's probably the right way to think about it.

[TheIrishman]

Just now, Category 5 Hurricane said:

I think that might make sense, as I think it is possible for the investigation to be taken off track. On the other hand, planting evidence just means it can be found, and one of our win conditions is to find all evidence.

It's to find all the evidence and put it in the correct box. If we put false evidence in our "true box" it may cause our secondary objective to fail.