Timebomb Game Thread

[charlou]

From the rules thread OP

You may also recieve/lose points through night actions.

[Magicziggy]

Are you special hunting, Bolero?

No, I'm curious.

It's the first I've heard of the concept of subtracting points.

In a game like this, there will be some genuine fumbling in the dark. I'm certainly guilty of that.
But I don;t think it's scummy to debate the game mechanics or to even make assumptions and play them out.
I think the idea of subracting points is a reasonable one and one that I put forward a long time ago.

[Magicziggy]

OK, there'll come a point where we will have to vote.
I put forward the notion of spreading the vote.
My rationale:

Piling up the vote on one player to the point of being armed could benefit town. But it's like a lynch that normally goes wrong on day 1, and we get no information about bandwagons or the like.
Spreading the vote so that no one gets to 5 votes will surely hit scum and just raise the pressure on scum a little bit.
Here we have for the first time an opportunity as town not to put all out egges in one basket.
That's all I mean about spreading the vote. I don't think it's anti-town to suggest this.

[charlou]

Are you special hunting, Bolero?

No, I'm curious.

It's the first I've heard of the concept of subtracting points.

In a game like this, there will be some genuine fumbling in the dark. I'm certainly guilty of that.
But I don;t think it's scummy to debate the game mechanics or to even make assumptions and play them out.
I think the idea of subracting points is a reasonable one and one that I put forward a long time ago.

*AHEM*

From the rules thread OP

You may also recieve/lose points through night actions.

[Magicziggy]

I never saw that originally, but yours was a cross post with mine.

[charlou]

No worries .. just pointing it out as it is rather important.

[Bolero]

From the rules thread OP

You may also recieve/lose points through night actions.

Ah.

[Bolero]

OK, there'll come a point where we will have to vote.
I put forward the notion of spreading the vote.
My rationale:

Piling up the vote on one player to the point of being armed could benefit town. But it's like a lynch that normally goes wrong on day 1, and we get no information about bandwagons or the like.
Spreading the vote so that no one gets to 5 votes will surely hit scum and just raise the pressure on scum a little bit.
Here we have for the first time an opportunity as town not to put all out egges in one basket.
That's all I mean about spreading the vote. I don't think it's anti-town to suggest this.

The flip side of that is that if we do pile the votes on one person, and there is someone who can subtract votes, then that "lynched" person may end up getting saved if later cleared.

[Magicziggy]

There's no real answer to that.
I've suggested the only real way to lynch someone is by over killing them. Maybe 7 votes would be enough to ensure they are dead. Maybe more. If we WANT someone dead, then there should be 7 or 8 people willing to pile on. If it's Day 1 faffing around in the dark, we can opt not to vote, OR we can spread the vote, so that we hit some scum and get them jumpy, maybe wasting some protective measures on themselves.

[Gonzo]

vote charlou

I trust her and am confident in her gameplay. She's been very helpful in making this game make sense and I don't think scum would have gone out of their way to do that. I have the same vibe from MZ, but not as strong.

Feck could be doing the same, but his frustration verges on flail sometimes. It seems too soon to be so sure about anyone. There is no reason to get frantic and jump to conclusions, even if you have substancial reason to be suspicious.

[divagreen]

There's no real answer to that.
I've suggested the only real way to lynch someone is by over killing them. Maybe 7 votes would be enough to ensure they are dead. Maybe more. If we WANT someone dead, then there should be 7 or 8 people willing to pile on. If it's Day 1 faffing around in the dark, we can opt not to vote, OR we can spread the vote, so that we hit some scum and get them jumpy, maybe wasting some protective measures on themselves.

It doesn't matter if we want them dead or not, they can still play. Why isn't anybody factoring revenge voting?

This game is different in that even if you think someone is scum, even if you out a scum, even if everyone KNOWS they are scum, you still have to face them in the morning. And they can vote against you.

[Magicziggy]

There's no real answer to that.
I've suggested the only real way to lynch someone is by over killing them. Maybe 7 votes would be enough to ensure they are dead. Maybe more. If we WANT someone dead, then there should be 7 or 8 people willing to pile on. If it's Day 1 faffing around in the dark, we can opt not to vote, OR we can spread the vote, so that we hit some scum and get them jumpy, maybe wasting some protective measures on themselves.

It doesn't matter if we want them dead or not, they can still play. Why isn't anybody factoring revenge voting?

This game is different in that even if you think someone is scum, even if you out a scum, even if everyone KNOWS they are scum, you still have to face them in the morning. And they can vote against you.

If they want to out themselves and reveal themselves as dead scum that would be counter productive imo. They will surely then vote for town players or look to bus a team mate. This would be risky.
No I think logically, dead/dying scum would still lie low and claim town because they still have a job to do to steer the vote away from team mates.

[Bolero]

vote charlou

She seems well-intentioned to me.

[divagreen]

I am not so sure about a mayor.

That gives one person an awful lot of power (two votes). For an entire game. They may be town but can still be persuaded to vote for another town.

[Magicziggy]

Interesting mayor bandwagon forming on Charlou. Bolero is the player I'm most suspicious of, but I haven't yet read pages 3-10 so I'm still a bit in the dark about the Aza thing.
I won;t get a chance to read now until later. But I will.