The Darkest Dungeon

Spectrum said:
I read your "vote spreading" idea as one vote per person. A better idea might be to spread between several people, so that we're not doing a huge amount of damage to one, while hopefully masking a role's bonus attack power.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the same thing as what Bardothren mentioned in the other part of his post?

Bardothren said:
Then again, if we spread out our votes over five players, we could count up the total votes and check for irregularities - a hybrid strategy, sort of. This one has the same problems as the ones above, but it would allow for multiple group votes, which can be cross-referenced to find the irregular attack damage. This strategy is less likely to end up with ten villagers whose information is completely useless.
Click to expand...
 
Spectrum said:
Arsonist said:
should we random vote...?
Click to expand...
No. Ask questions and form some reads bro.


There is risk involved either way, and I'd rather people form some reads and ask questions of each other, but so far that doesn't seem like the MO here. As far as I'm concerned the very next best option would be to spread votes within suspect groups.
Click to expand...

I like your way of thinking.

This game is about the discussion. Actually I am on the fringe of saying let's go for Arsonist, because he's been trying to make this short.
 
Why am I doing this? This is too stressful help.


[ATTACK]Arsonist
Sorry but random voting shouldn't be a good strategy in this sort of format where you can't take back a vote.
 
everyone attacks the person after them on the player list, everyone's down by 1 HP if we all vote
 
Honestly I am more suspicious of the vote spreading idea than I am about anything else. Seems like it's silly to do that and scumhunt based on the damages done, that's not much better than random lynching since I suspect that an equal number of good and evil players do significant damage values.
 
I feel like if we endeavor to do a "spread damage" strategy -> Klippy will likely make the incoming night phase post obscure/vague so it'll be hard to decifer who did what to whom.

Now you guys might be like "Hey, I attacked user: 1234 for x amount of damage! In the role HP list I saw that role 5678 took x damage as well! Therefore user 1234 is role 5678!". But the danger is with running low-end damage values (I'm assuming values will range from 1-10???) and there being 30+ players, damage values during the day will overlap.

Also, if every player takes damage - I think this is an overall gain/advantage for the terrors. It might be risky, but we could always have 1 or 2 people Role Reveal early and have the MAA protect those 2 plus one other at random? Or 1 person RR and be protected, and the MAA will protect 2 at random?

Also thank you Abby for doing such an early attack. I'm kinda curious as to how responsive Klippy is with attack posts. Ie. Will the damage resolve as soon as he's able to update the game? Or does it resolve at the sametime as all other damage done during this day and it's all posted at the end? I'm heavily assuming it's the latter, but so many aspects in the game are in the air. So I'm being pretty open with my curiosities and questions.

edit: Another idea, that I admit I haven't thought through at all. But we could publicly roleclaim just our damage? Of course there is nothing to stop us from lying, but if we have enough people telling the truth, then perhaps we can decipher things more easily as a group. However, the more we rely on a group to solve things... the more opportunities we give to the terrors to mess with us. :x
 
I think Seth just meant randomly pick to spread the votes...? People are very quick to jump at throats here. lmao.

A potentially useful strategy would be for four people of different attack strengths to out themselves, they vote for individuals whilst the rest of the group all pile on one person. This would mean we could identify the damaged roles by the amount of health they lost (reasonably reliably) and only one person would be significantly damaged.
 
Syndrome said:
Did you just imply that your role has 1 atk because i'm positive that everyone won't do the same amount of damage
Click to expand...

for some reason I thought all attack votes do 1 hp damage and the attack stat is used for something else

though my attack stat isn't much higher than that lol
 
Mana said:
A potentially useful strategy would be for four people of different attack strengths to out themselves, they vote for individuals whilst the rest of the group all pile on one person. This would mean we could identify the damaged roles by the amount of health they lost (reasonably reliably) and only one person would be significantly damaged.
Click to expand...

^ I think Mana's idea is good. That way we can make a reasonable guess as to who has what role, which is very unclear at the moment.
Also how long do phases last? I don't want to lose 50% of my HP ;;
 
Mana said:
I think Seth just meant randomly pick to spread the votes...? People are very quick to jump at throats here. lmao.

A potentially useful strategy would be for four people of different attack strengths to out themselves, they vote for individuals whilst the rest of the group all pile on one person. This would mean we could identify the damaged roles by the amount of health they lost (reasonably reliably) and only one person would be significantly damaged.
Click to expand...

This sounds interesting... and I do have pretty decent health to be honest.
However I'm not sure I want to volunteer to have like forty plus people jump on me, I doubt I'd be surviving that.
 
Bacteriophage said:
What stops baddies from lying about their attack strength to completely throw us off?
Click to expand...

If they did that we'd know who had lied?

Like, if you said your attack value was 3 and you voted for a role, then nobody has been hurt 3 during that lynch, you'd be top of the suss list.

That's why its also key to have people with DIFFERENT attack values.
 
If we do a minimal number of volunteers (Mana said 4 people), they will be under scrutiny. If they say they'll hit a person for 4 damage, and we don't see anyone take 4 damage during the day, then they lied and we kill them.

And you may say "What if multiple instances of 4 damage occur?"
-> Irrelevant due to Mana's plan. Everyone sans those 4 (or however many people) will hit the same target - that target dies. Then the 4 other people hit in the night phase each will have unique values and we'll know who is lying. :3
This scheme, afaik, would punish anyone who volunteers but lies.
 
Bacteriophage said:
The point of this plan is to out bad people by attacking them with specific values? Isn't that risking outing an important good person? If that happens, they'll be dead by morning.
Click to expand...

Well the point is, they won't necessarily. We have at least one protection role, AND the bad guys are not technically linked up. Plus there's no insta kill power (that's been used so far...) so even if attacked by several bad guys a hero could live.

Whilst it could unveil someone important, it could equally reveal someone who is important to the other side. The bad guys don't even know one another, so they can't even avoid hitting their own kind XD.
 
Well we can spread the damage if you want, but that might still allow then to discover a power role if they have a specific attack value :P loselose
 
Yes, while Mana's plan seems good in theory I think it plays too much into the evil's hands in the long run. You could speculate that needing four non-evils with a different base atk will out at least three targets of interest for the evils (assuming one of the outs is a villager). It too easily sets them up for the future. Plus - let's be honest - no one with any sort of power role will willingly out themselves for the sake of day 1.

Day 1 in mafia is always bitter. You have to make commitments and hope for the best. We don't have much to go off just yet. Let's do our best to strike an evil. I think the community should concentrate their attacks on one or two individuals and see where it takes us. We can continue from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top