I mean, I'd like my team to win, but I like winning too.
I mean, I'd like my team to win, but I like winning too.
I like both but I really like personal wins a lot. It really dosen't happen often for me at all. I always at least try to pull off a win while helping my faction.
@Buoy; But my goals are usually the same as the teams goals, so I don't see what the big deal is.
If I'm mafia, I play mainly for the team and myself obviously. When I'm town, I have no problem sacrificing myself for the sake of my fellow townies(such as self destructing, riving then dying, etc.) I love to be an independent though, playing to win for myself. Although I love to win either way, helping my team and playing to help myself.
I agree with Buoy there. It's always nice to survive to endgame as town and all, but it's much more important to keep the fact that it's a team game in mind. Staying on the side and not getting involved just because you don't want someone to put pressure on you or doing your best to clear yourself instead of scumhunting is what the mafia is supposed to do, not the town. Quiet townies are not really helpful to their side, unless they're trying to lay low because they're an important power role like cop or doctor. (But even then it's always better to get involved in the game.)
Yes, I agree vote patterns can be used to find suspicious people. However, the main thing is that they're not the only things that can be used. Speech patterns, buddying, whether they're actually actively scumhunting or just doing "Yup", "Uh-huh", "I agree" and not contributing. Also, if you're only voting for "information", then okay, vote and have everything that goes on, but then you can still no lynch, and that information will still be there. The information when the victim is dead will only put pressure on the town to use it well - however, if the person is alive, it puts pressure on the mafia.
Let's assume Player A is the cop, and was part of a bandwagon to get information. Situations:
1) Player A is lynched. The town is worse off, and the mafia rejoice. All they can do is look to see who voted, but even then, the fact is was a Day 1 lynch means no-one can really be incriminated for it since no-one, not even the mafia, would've known he was a cop. < THAT IS THE KEY POINT.
2) The town unvote and no lynch instead. Now, if a lot of the mafia voted, they'll be hesitant to kill Player A. Why? He's a 'suspicious' person, why kill him when the town will vote instead? So they leave Player A alone (in the most logical scenario). Now let's say they discover he's the cop from a Night 1 action. The town tries to lynch Player A, but then someone saves it with their Day action. NOW, if the mafia kill Player A, it could be incriminating for themselves because it's not a Day 1 lynch.
My point? You can only really get 'information' from people lynched after people have information to base their lynches off. Real, solid, factual information.
This probably just sounds muddled and disorganised, but I'm rushing typing it, so meh.
PichuBoy my scenario had the person want the day 1 lynch. It would be a completely different scenario if they didn't.
Generally if you want a day 1 lynch, you really can't be surprised or angry if it's you. People should be prepared to face the consequences of their own strategy.
I'm a team-first kind of a gal as well. I used to care a lot about personal victories, but I rarely ever survive till endgame too. There's a reason why my personal endgame victory % is so small but my endgame faction victory is pretty even - a little over 50%.
Mafia games are a team effort, and I think people that concentrate their efforts towards helping their teammates wind up the most successful.
I don't really give two shits about personal wins in mafia games (unless, of course, my win condition is to survive to endgame). I don't understand the mindset of personal survival over the good of the team. Few things give me more enjoyment than seeing my team emerge victorious after having done everything I could to help - whether I'm dead or alive at that point is inconsequential.
Massclaiming isn't terrible for the mafia - see Hetalia Mafia. I managed to gain a confirmed innocent's tentative trust and the mafia won without losing a single member.
I don't really like mass claims, personally, because I feel like it makes the game too easy for the town and too hard for the mafia, since they have to prepare a fake role claim, or at least a fake name claim and that's not always easy. Plus if they don't claim a role that is sure to be town, chances are that they will be lynched anyway because the other roles are much more believable. And that's without mentioning how it puts the fate of the town into the hands of only one person (or a handful) instead of letting everyone participate.
My biggest reason for disliking massclaims isn't even the disadvantage they inherently force upon the mafia, it's that they're just so...boring. A lot of the secretive nature is gone from the game after a mass-claim to a confirmed townie. I realize I've only played a handful of games here, but those are just my thoughts.
Oh, and I don't have any philosophy. That's above my play level. I have found that I'm overly distrusting though. Which is probably another reason why I dislike massclaims.
My issue with massclaims is that you have one person (or very few people) in charge of evaluating the claims and dictating, according to their views, which claims are most suspicious. It's giving far too much power to one person, and power that may be misguided, as other people looking at the same information could come to very different conclusions.
That's what I wanted to demonstrate with Hetalia mafia... The very early massclaim, handled primarily by just one person (though shared in some capacity with their mason partner), resulted in misplaced trust by that one person's judgments, and ultimately spelled out a devastating loss for the town.