The Mafia Discussion Thread

[naiwf]

Everyone should lynch indies. I say that all the time but no one ever listens.

[Matt]

Everyone should lynch indies. I say that all the time but no one ever listens.

Because it's wrong. If indies have win conditions that involve having to kill scum or other indies and can win with the town, you should keep them alive. SKs should generally be killed but there are some cases when you can keep them alive for a short while (partly because the mafia will then be likely to kill them for you) if they're desperately trying to say that they're vigs. As for survivors, there's very little reason to lynch survivors unless you're in a situation where it's 5 vs. 1 scum vs. survivor, then you should probably kill him since they don't care about lynching the last scum and will hop on any bandwagon...

But yeah, killing indies just cos they're indies is dumb.

[-A-]

You should immediately kill the serial killer under almost any circumstances, I think. It's ridiculously dangerous to rely on the fact that the mafia and him will take each other out. Look at FF - scum have absolutely no incentive to take each other out unless they're in a ridiculously dominant position. Take out the person that's responsible for one kill a night on their own - if there's more than one mafia player left killing them is less significant than removing one kill a night.

If you have an unknown number of mafia players left and no solid leads, you can definitely make a case for lynching a Survivor since they don't actually help the town win in any way. If you're risking losing the game if you lynch a townie and you're not really confident on anyone else, then lynch the Survivor. If you're picking between mafia and a Survivor, pick the mafia because they have a kill and because you can end the game in fewer lynches that way. So basically - killing a Survivor over a mafia guy is a defensive play, killing the mafia guy over the Survivor is an attacking play.

This says nothing for the fact that serial killers throughout the ages have claimed to be Survivors since there's often no way to prove them wrong. The basic feeling tends to be 'if you have a kill you're a SK and if you don't you're a Survivor,' though you can't rely on that.

Edited April 20, 2009 by -A-

[naiwf]

Everyone should lynch indies. I say that all the time but no one ever listens.

Because it's wrong. If indies have win conditions that involve having to kill scum or other indies and can win with the town, you should keep them alive. SKs should generally be killed but there are some cases when you can keep them alive for a short while (partly because the mafia will then be likely to kill them for you) if they're desperately trying to say that they're vigs. As for survivors, there's very little reason to lynch survivors unless you're in a situation where it's 5 vs. 1 scum vs. survivor, then you should probably kill him since they don't care about lynching the last scum and will hop on any bandwagon...

But yeah, killing indies just cos they're indies is dumb.

A bunch of games that recently ended had an indy kill multiple townies and/or emerge victorious as the sole survivor at the end because people were so consumed with finding the last mafia member. Off of the top of my head Arrested Development, Inquisition, Golden City & Web Comic IV offer me enough reasons to kill indies. Anyone who isn't aligned with me should die. That's pretty much how I look at it. I also was one of the winners in Final Fantasy because I claimed indy. If I get lynched, Forker goes down soon too, the cult gets eradicated and the town wins that game too.

The problem with your stance is that you're taking an indy at his word that they can win both ways because no indy player is ever going to admit to being the SK and live.

Edited April 20, 2009 by naiwf

[Matt]

You should immediately kill the serial killer under almost any circumstances, I think. It's ridiculously dangerous to rely on the fact that the mafia and him will take each other out. Look at FF - scum have absolutely no incentive to take each other out unless they're in a ridiculously dominant position.

If you have an unknown number of mafia players left and no solid leads, you can definitely make a case for lynching a Survivor since they don't actually help the town win in any way. If you're risking losing the game if you lynch a townie and you're not really confident on anyone else, then lynch the Survivor. If you're picking between mafia and a Survivor, pick the mafia because they have a kill and because you can end the game in fewer lynches that way. So basically - killing a Survivor over a mafia guy is a defensive play, killing the mafia guy over the Survivor is an attacking play.

This says nothing for the fact that serial killers throughout the ages have claimed to be Survivors since there's often no way to prove them wrong. The basic feeling tends to be 'if you have a kill you're a SK and if you don't you're a Survivor,' though you can't rely on that.

I think at times there's no reason to kill of an SK if they're claiming vig. You force them to kill who you want them to, and if they don't do it. Kill them. Obviously this only applies to the beginning of a large game and as a general rule you probably should take out the SK straight away.

[theburninator77]

Ah it's over... I think I did pretty well as a rookie mafia don.

[C-MIL]

I think at times there's no reason to kill of an SK if they're claiming vig. You force them to kill who you want them to, and if they don't do it. Kill them.

That's really dumb. No offense.

[-A-]

But that's not what we're talking about. Your statement is based on a situation where there's some doubt over whether someone is indy or not. That's not the situation in GCR or in AD where someone openly claimed Survivor and the town had to decide whether to lynch them or not. Obviously if you've got serious reason to think someone's the vig you have to decide whether to lynch them or not.

Edited April 20, 2009 by -A-

[naiwf]

I think at times there's no reason to kill of an SK if they're claiming vig. You force them to kill who you want them to, and if they don't do it. Kill them. Obviously this only applies to the beginning of a large game and as a general rule you probably should take out the SK straight away.

So, you must like losing huh? If the SK kills all of the people you ask him to you're basically ensuring his safety from anything but a mafia night kill. He doesn't give a shit who dies as long as it's not him, and if he's not targeting mafia players you're guaranteeing two townies die every night. By the time you realize he's the SK instead of a vig, you've already lost the game.

[Matt]

Everyone should lynch indies. I say that all the time but no one ever listens.

Because it's wrong. If indies have win conditions that involve having to kill scum or other indies and can win with the town, you should keep them alive. SKs should generally be killed but there are some cases when you can keep them alive for a short while (partly because the mafia will then be likely to kill them for you) if they're desperately trying to say that they're vigs. As for survivors, there's very little reason to lynch survivors unless you're in a situation where it's 5 vs. 1 scum vs. survivor, then you should probably kill him since they don't care about lynching the last scum and will hop on any bandwagon...

But yeah, killing indies just cos they're indies is dumb.

A bunch of games that recently ended had an indy kill multiple townies and/or emerge victorious as the sole survivor at the end because people were so consumed with finding the last mafia member. Off of the top of my head Arrested Development, Inquisition, Golden City & Web Comic IV offer me enough reasons to kill indies. Anyone who isn't aligned with me should die. That's pretty much how I look at it. I also was one of the winners in Final Fantasy because I claimed indy. If I get lynched, Forker goes down soon too, the cult gets eradicated and the town wins that game too.

The problem with your stance is that you're taking an indy at his word that they can win both ways because no indy player is ever going to admit to being the SK and live.

That there's the only reason to kill a survivor outside of the one I mentioned earlier, but if it's evident there's no kill other than scum kill, why kill off someone who doesn't matter and grant the scum an additional night kill? If there's a good chance they're lying then yeah, kill em, but if they're almost certainly telling the truth, I'd rather go for a threat.

And whilst your bringing up specific examples, think of QB mafia when myself and Ruki had seek and kill roles, if we'd survived to say the last 5 and there was 1 threat left (and we weren't threats as indies) and you knew I was indie and you lynched me, you'd have converted Ruki to the scum and lost the game.

Edit: The post you quoted missed out 4 key words that I forgot to include in that post (but had in previous ones) "for a short time", obviously you have to part ways with a suspected SK before too long, but if there are other decent leads, keep them alive and make them act as a vig for a bit, whether they are or not.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Footjob Fever

[-A-]

But yeah, is there a good reason why we should have lynched someone who might be a SK (but only killed once) over the last mafia guy? I don't think there is. We had no reason to assume there was a stupid win condition in play and there never will be again because it's game-breakingly bad.

[naiwf]

But yeah, is there a good reason why we should have lynched someone who might be a SK (but only killed once) over the last mafia guy? I don't think there is. We had no reason to assume there was a stupid win condition in play and there never will be again because it's game-breakingly bad.

MPH was lying through his teeth. That was why I would have tried to lynch him. I didn't think you would lose the game at the end, but I'm just not a fan of letting someone who doesn't care who lives or dies make it to the end when there's the possibility they could be sandbagging with kills, or be a superpowered killer bunny/rabbit who ends up going all Hannibal Lecter on you at endgame.

[-A-]

Wait ... what game are we talking about? I was talking about MEG in GCR. If you're talking about Gotham, they had no reason to think there was another mafia guy after Hajj died.

[naiwf]

Wait ... what game are we talking about? I was talking about MEG in GCR. If you're talking about Gotham, they had no reason to think there was another mafia guy after Hajj died.

I meant MEG. Right game, wrong three letter guy starting with an 'M'.

[Matt]

You're all confusing the shit out of me, my feelings are thus:

SKs should be killed most of the time, but sometimes you can manipulate them into doing your dirty work for a night phase or two first, especially if you can get them to target the right people because then the scum might decide it best to nightkill them instead.

Goal-specific indies should probably be left alone, depending on what their goal is.

Survivors who aren't a threat should be kept alive until you're in a situation where they're likely to cause harm with jumping on bandwagons (i.e. low numbers).

Edit: And before naiwf says anything, this is assuming that you can take a reasonable guess as to which of these categories they fall into.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Footjob Fever

[-A-]

Ah right. Well it was basically a case of MEG being a SK at worst, a Survivor at best. Burninator was definitely scum, so excluding the broken win condition, these are the possibilities:

1) Lynch burninator first. The game ends with minimal town losses.

2) Lynch burninator first. The game doesn't end, MEG manages to kill a townie and we get him tomorrow. We've lost one extra townie.

3) Lynch MEG first. No matter what, the game goes on another day and we probably lose a townie that burninator kills.

So basically, the only difference at that point was that killing MEG first would have lost us a townie and lynching burninator first gave us the chance to end the game immediately and lose no more townies. We can't plan for the win condition that was there because it makes no sense and should never feature in another game. If we seriously considered it we'd end up losing an extra townie almost every time that situation came up.

EDIT:

SKs should be killed most of the time, but sometimes you can manipulate them into doing your dirty work for a night phase or two first, especially if you can get them to target the right people because then the scum might decide it best to nightkill them instead.

Goal-specific indies should probably be left alone, depending on what their goal is.

1) When has the SK-controlling ever worked on EWB? I can't think of a single time. It's usually a method we use to confirm someone as vig.

2) How on earth are you ever going to decide what their win condition is? How are you ever going to have information that helps you make this decision? You aren't, all you know is their alignment at the best of times.

Edited April 20, 2009 by -A-

[Josh]

You'd think THIS was a mafia game.

*sticks Canadian flag up his nose*

[Pesci]

Yeah, this argument is boring

[naiwf]

http://www.ewbattleground.com/forum/index....showtopic=64991

There's something more interesting for you to read Pesci.

[R.W.]

This has not been a good week in Mafia for me.