TWG Turbo IV Post-Game

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by Charu

It's funny if you read the game now knowing that because it's downright hilarious

I saved the page. After some time I plan to re read it.


I really feel like this was my best game but I came up short. It's easy to just claim that Charu also played his best and better luck next time, but I can't shake off the feeling that had I payed attention to Haku sooner while Charu still looked bad, or just still kept riding Charu's ass D3, or noticed that the "....bruh..." comment mirrored Turbo 3 and was his wolftell or anything else We would have won.

I'm still kind of don't believe Charu was a wolf just based on D3 play through.

I don't know what is real

[Charu]

I'm real

[Hakulyte]

I feel like I could have invested my entire game trying to get Charu lynched and it would have never worked even knowing he's wolf 100%.

This win was staged against my will.

#ragequit

ps: I don't understand this "objectively speaking best lynch" mentality. I would just violently murder who's in control of the game if I'm having doubts.

It's not cool to do, but it's really the only way for me to lynch a player outplaying me. Otherwise, you're stuck self-destructing forever or chain-voting bad towns praying you're right.

I'm assuming the best players try to stay null to avoid falling down one way or the other.

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

ps: I don't understand this "objectively speaking best lynch" mentality. I would just violently murder who's in control of the game if I'm having doubts.

It's not cool to do, but it's really the only way for me to lynch a player outplaying me. Otherwise, you're stuck self-destructing forever or chain-voting bad towns praying you're right.

I'm assuming the best players try to stay null to avoid falling down one way or the other.

What does this even mean? All of it, but specifically the bolded part.

[Hakulyte]

I cannot picture weaker players not dying systematically every games the exact same way regardless of their alignment.

You can read players for their content.
You can read players for their intents.

I'm just saying that if the sum of the content + intents from one player is overall always superior to one of another player, that player will most likely nearly always win.

The only way to "normalize" this is to make players play a lot of games and create some data out of them so you have a better understanding of if you should let them live because of their play.

The problem is that in case of doubts, the logical answer is always going to be to lynch these players.

It's hard to make everyone question these votes and make them try something different out of a "gut feeling" by example.

Anyone who is good at playing around with content is going to have a much easier time than someone who's reading people well, but can't provide enough meat to make other players want to trust them.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I feel like it's restricting how we can play a lot because you would need a bunch of crazy players to agree to try something unreasonable when it's a lot easier to go for the "easy lynch".

tl;dr: I need to reevaluate how I play.

[YoshL]

or just stop complaining and get good

[Hakulyte]

Originally Posted by YoshL

or just stop complaining and get good

My feels have been hurt, please apologize.

jk, you're right.

Enough whining for today. Good game.

[thesunfan]

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

I cannot picture weaker players not dying systematically every games the exact same way regardless of their alignment.

You can read players for their content.
You can read players for their intents.

I'm just saying that if the sum of the content + intents from one player is overall always superior to one of another player, that player will most likely nearly always win.

The only way to "normalize" this is to make players play a lot of games and create some data out of them so you have a better understanding of if you should let them live because of their play.

The problem is that in case of doubts, the logical answer is always going to be to lynch these players.

It's hard to make everyone question these votes and make them try something different out of a "gut feeling" by example.

Anyone who is good at playing around with content is going to have a much easier time than someone who's reading people well, but can't provide enough meat to make other players want to trust them.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I feel like it's restricting how we can play a lot because you would need a bunch of crazy players to agree to try something unreasonable when it's a lot easier to go for the "easy lynch".

tl;dr: I need to reevaluate how I play.

I could probably write a lot in response to this, but the best advice I can give is to evaluate each player independently unless you have no choice but to do otherwise and don't make the mistake of killing someone just because they're not posting if you think there are better targets (barring something ridiculous)

[thesunfan]

Originally Posted by MixMasterLar

I saved the page. After some time I plan to re read it.

If I had to guess, I would assume that you would kick yourself for not being correct, and I don't think that's something you should do too much, but I fully encourage you to reread this game in order to realize your own mistakes.

Just, be aware that it is certainly not the case that you did everything wrong this game.

I think you had an excellent day 1 and day 2, for example.

On an unrelated note I'll be in Jacksonville the weekend of Nov 3rd for a friend's wedding, its unlikely but maybe I can swing by or meet somewhere and we can get lunch?

I'll have more figured out about it soon but is it something that could potentially happen?

[thesunfan]

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

I cannot picture weaker players not dying systematically every games the exact same way regardless of their alignment.

You can read players for their content.
You can read players for their intents.

I'm just saying that if the sum of the content + intents from one player is overall always superior to one of another player, that player will most likely nearly always win.

The only way to "normalize" this is to make players play a lot of games and create some data out of them so you have a better understanding of if you should let them live because of their play.

The problem is that in case of doubts, the logical answer is always going to be to lynch these players.

It's hard to make everyone question these votes and make them try something different out of a "gut feeling" by example.

Anyone who is good at playing around with content is going to have a much easier time than someone who's reading people well, but can't provide enough meat to make other players want to trust them.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I feel like it's restricting how we can play a lot because you would need a bunch of crazy players to agree to try something unreasonable when it's a lot easier to go for the "easy lynch".

tl;dr: I need to reevaluate how I play.

this post really makes me want to rant about the Halfway Theory (which is practiced on other sites, it used to be called the "Manti Rule" on FFR) and how much I like the fact that its not a thing on FFR

[ShadoWolfe]

Responses in bold:

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

I cannot picture weaker players not dying systematically every games the exact same way regardless of their alignment.

This doesn't happen, though, so your picture is already invalid. The reason for this is that town as a whole will generally try to vote people they think are being scummiest within the worlds still possible given the clues available at any given time. That's what a logical vote is, not just blindly lynching people who aren't providing "strong" content.

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

You can read players for their content.
You can read players for their intents.

True, which is why we're able to determine which players are scummy, and not just always lynch players providing weaker content.

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

I'm just saying that if the sum of the content + intents from one player is overall always superior to one of another player, that player will most likely nearly always win.

It's not always superior, so they don't always win. This is such an awfully fatalistic mindset, and I wholly disagree with it. Intent behind providing a lot of strong content can be derived and utilized to lynch a "strong" player D1.

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

The only way to "normalize" this is to make players play a lot of games and create some data out of them so you have a better understanding of if you should let them live because of their play.

This "better understanding of the player" is referred to as their Meta, and is used, but should not necessarily be relied upon.

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

The problem is that in case of doubts, the logical answer is always going to be to lynch these players.

By "these players", you refer to players you believe inherently "always" produce a lesser sum of content + intent. Problem with that is, these players don't exist. Cedolad survived til endgame in this turbo while providing very little content or justification. You got lynched before him, despite having provided more content. He was the "easy vote", and yet you were the more logical one because your scum-aligned intent was showing through.

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

It's hard to make everyone question these votes and make them try something different out of a "gut feeling" by example.

Almost every D0 lynch is based on gut. From there, the kills and lynches let you narrow down the possible worlds based on interactions and reactions. Whether you know it or not, that gut feeling is based on things the person has said and how you perceived them. Once you identify a gut feeling, you can usually figure out why you feel that way and build a case based on it, to be shared with the rest of the players. If you can't identify any rational reason why you want someone lynched, or even what posts seemed scummy to you, then you're most likely tunneling way too hard or are scum. Either way, re-evaluate and pick someone else.

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

Anyone who is good at playing around with content is going to have a much easier time than someone who's reading people well, but can't provide enough meat to make other players want to trust them.

Even if it's just gut, a town player continuously making good reads and calling them out will eventually be proven right or wrong. There's so many factors that play into this, and trust can be built simply by being genuine. Read Funnygurl's town-game last game. She didn't provide much content, and basically shared her gut responses throughout the game. Yet, despite this, she was universally town-read and was several people's strongest town. This is because GENUINE INTENTS SHINE THROUGH

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I feel like it's restricting how we can play a lot because you would need a bunch of crazy players to agree to try something unreasonable when it's a lot easier to go for the "easy lynch".

The "logical" lynch isn't necessarily the "easy lynch". You're interchanging the two as if they're the same thing. We, as human beings, have an innate ability to read the people we interact with. If they're putting on an act, or if they're lying, or if they're just not being genuine, there's always going to be little clues. In mafia, it's a little simpler because we can see a progression of reactions and interactions that paint a picture of why people behave in the way that they do in any given world. A "logical lynch" incorporates feelings, reads, and reactions, as well as the content of the posts the person has made and the perceived intent behind them, and fits all of that within the mechanics of the worlds still available. If it fits and makes sense, it's logical. If it doesn't, then it isn't, despite any desire to vote that way because it'd be "easier".

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

tl;dr: I need to reevaluate how I play.

Yes. Don't be so fatalistic/pessimistic. Everyone plays differently and there's no right approach.

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by thesunfan

I could probably write a lot in response to this, but the best advice I can give is to evaluate each player independently unless you have no choice but to do otherwise and don't make the mistake of killing someone just because they're not posting if you think there are better targets (barring something ridiculous)

Originally Posted by thesunfan

this post really makes me want to rant about the Halfway Theory (which is practiced on other sites, it used to be called the "Manti Rule" on FFR) and how much I like the fact that its not a thing on FFR

Don't trip, fam. I ranted on both our behalf.

[ShadoWolfe]

Sorry for excessive bolding. I was at first going to respond within your post, but then it became almost impossible to read, so I broke it up but forgot to remove the bold.

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by Charu

I'm real

You're a real pain!

Jk you re cool.

Originally Posted by thesunfan

If I had to guess, I would assume that you would kick yourself for not being correct, and I don't think that's something you should do too much, but I fully encourage you to reread this game in order to realize your own mistakes.

Just, be aware that it is certainly not the case that you did everything wrong this game.

I think you had an excellent day 1 and day 2, for example.

On an unrelated note I'll be in Jacksonville the weekend of Nov 3rd for a friend's wedding, its unlikely but maybe I can swing by or meet somewhere and we can get lunch?

I'll have more figured out about it soon but is it something that could potentially happen?

Thanks.

And P'cola is a bit out of the way I would think, but if you make it out here I'll definitely make time to hang out. My ride situation is garbage tho so sadly I can't meet you over there (which sucks because I actually have alot of friends out there and would make regular trips if I could)

[thesunfan]

I agree with almost everything Shado said. I think hes missing just a little thing about gutreads. I think a lack of a logical reason is not always reason to abandon a gutread, but I would give the post something like a 98/100.

[thesunfan]

Shame Lar, well get together sooner or later sometime

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by thesunfan

this post really makes me want to rant about the Halfway Theory (which is practiced on other sites, it used to be called the "Manti Rule" on FFR) and how much I like the fact that its not a thing on FFR

never heard of this

[Charu]

It already sounds gross, the half whatever thing, lmao

[thesunfan]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

never heard of this

Lynch strong players for being strong players regardless of all else if theyre still alive after half of the players are dead

[Charu]

EWWWWWW

That's so lame. I, too, am glad that's not a thing here. That's a horrible thing.