Live Action Mafia

A game of sneakiness and paranoia
It is currently Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:07 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:46 pm 

WE REALLY REALLY WANT THE DAY 1 INCIDENT TO HAPPEN! In the early loops, that is. If the day 1 incident happens, then psychiatrists can use their questions to ask, "If player X had one more paranoia, which incidents would happen?" The answer will then let them narrow down the day 3 / day 4 culprits.

I think we specifically want the conspiracy theorists to boo SIX DIFFERENT PEOPLE, so that we can do this with day 4, in addition to getting a one-shot binary search on day 3.

For example, let's say the conspiracy theorists boo players 1-6 and trigger the day 1 incident. Let's call the day 1 dead and lynched players player 14 and player 15. We're pretty sure key people can't be day 3/4 culprits, so let's call them players 12 and 13. The 4 psychiatrists who get goodwill ask about players 1-4 getting an extra paranoia. We then find out with very high confidence (due to 4 psychologists saying it) whether the day 3 culprit is among players 1-6 or 7-11. We also get 4 people asking questions of the form, "Is player X the day 4 culprit?" We can do similar things on future days / on future loops, but this is most important for n=1, because there aren't many good counting-based n=1 questions.

As I posted in the Strategy thread, killing the day 3 and 4 culprits is probably necessary to win (mafia can always trigger incident 3 and 4 if they have a DA and a CT). So finding the culprits is a top priority, and that's hard to do without triggering the day 1 incident.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:56 pm 
Didn't I already suggest this? I feel like it got shot down. Maybe I only suggested it in a conversation with Isaac about how to use psychiatrist questions.

Anyway, I totally agree that this will be really helpful for finding D3C and D4C.

Note the constraints that (1) we can't trust everything psychiatrists tell us because most are probably mafia and (2) this requires making sure we are giving all the goodwill to psychiatrists.

Also, what are you going to do in the (probable) case that booing 6 out of 15 players doesn't trigger the D1C?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:07 pm 
Maybe you did; I'm not sure. If you did, good job. Anyway though, I at least hadn't considered it because I hadn't realized the relative importance of finding day 3 and day 4 culprits.

The scenario where the incident doesn't happen is at least as good as our previously proposed scenario of trying to avoid the day 1 incident altogether, in order to prevent the day 3 incident. We never boo enough people to trigger the day 3 incident, which forces mafia to either make a kill (probably outing a killer), make an obviously mafia-aligned boo (getting someone to 3 paranoia, which outs a mafia CT), or reveal whether the day 3 culprit is mafia (because mafia could secretly trigger a mafia day 3 culprit).

PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:09 pm 
Giving goodwill to psychiatrists should be easy; anyone who doesn't vote in an approved pattern reveals as mafia. Info from psychiatrists is probably less of "this is true!" and more of "psychiatrist X said this is true."

PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:24 pm 
Okay, agreed.

Yeah, I'm not saying it'll be hard to give goodwill to psychiatrists (especially since mafia votes don't count for goodwill) but I'm wondering how well this interfaces with the goodwill-giving scheme discussed yesterday?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:05 pm 
I still advocate "everyone vote for a random psychiatrist." We'll have all the goodwill winners be psychiatrists, and we get info by seeing how many votes people actually got vs. who claims to have gotten goodwill. We'll probably catch people in situations where someone gets quite a few votes and doesn't get goodwill.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:55 pm 
At the very least, we want to be sure to give your banana bread target goodwill though, right aok? Otherwise it would be wasted.

Aok, could you suggest a plausible voting distribution that would give more information than my plan of voting such that you and the CTs vote for some psychiatrists 1-4, psychiatrists 1-4 vote for you and the CTs, and everyone else self-votes? Because that definitely gives 4 alignment checks, which seems pretty good.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:30 pm 
I think we'll probably get 1-2 beefs from your scheme. I'm not really sure because it's hard to think about.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group