Rexozord

Staff
  • Content count

    750
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Rexozord last won the day on October 13 2016

Rexozord had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Rexozord

  • Rank
    Precision Blade
  • Birthday 03/21/1990

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    Rexozord

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Donator
    Sparkbomb Supporter

Recent Profile Visitors

2,446 profile views
  1. My initial analysis was the same, Weee, but then I realized that any Mason roleclaim would have to be initiated by the traitor specifically. If the Wolf and Traitor claimed Mason, and the Masons trueclaimed, we could simply execute the two players who claimed last out of the four (one from each pair) and the game would end. Realistically, I think if you drop all the claims into a minimax analysis, you're going to get both villagers and the wolf and the traitor all claiming villager, with the Wolf attacking the remaining three and hoping not to hit the wolfsbane (not claiming or claiming Masons will result in the innocents winning at least 9/10 if the innocents play correctly).
  2. I didn't elaborate (it wasn't terribly relevant and no one asked at the time), but the thing that made me suspicious is not that you objected to my plan (you do that pretty regularly, and I think we approach Werewolf in different ways most of the time) but because the way you objected (the way you said what you said) made it feel like you had an idea of a different or better way to organize the hunt for baddies, but then you didn't suggest anything else. It also could have been a misread that got lucky. No way to tell for certain.
  3. Killing the wolf was the only way the innocents could have ended with victory, so yes. Not sure who the traitor was, though. It could have been NPM and if I had to choose one person I'd guess her, but I don't think that's more likely than any of the other living players combined.
  4. And more inactivity. Lovely. Welp, nothing for it but to Vote: Cel
  5. The issue with claiming is that NPM can no longer claim (that makes everything a lot murkier). If you have a villager role and have not claimed, you should claim immediately because two people have claimed villager roles.
  6. No Werewolf kill. This means that the Werewolf did not submit a list. I think it's incredibly likely that the Werewolf is Cel, Exile, or Lion (in that order of suspicion). I think Cel is by far the most likely since she checked in quite early and hasn't posted since. EDIT: After checking, Cel was not online for all of Wednesday (not online since shortly after her post timestamp). Also, to respond to NPM (on the assumption that she was not the traitor, which I suspect that she was) I do not assume that people who don't claim are innocent power roles. I assume that the people who do claim (villager) are not innocent power roles (i.e. the inverse). Unfortunately, my entire strategy relies on 1) the innocent villagers agreeing to true claim and 2) the innocent power roles agreeing to not false claim. And we know that 1) wasn't met, so the entire thing does not work.
  7. What do you think will likely happen, then? There's a pretty small number of variables involved. Randomly voting is a terrible idea. If we miss the first execution, we must execute the wolf or traitor Day 2 or we lose. You seem to misunderstand the concept. We will only vote for players who claim villager (including me) if four players claim villager. We will not vote for the unclaimed power roles because they will be, by necessity, innocent power roles. That being said, since blacjak has already claimed wolfsbane (assuming no counterclaim occurs), the masons might as well claim now, and we can narrow down the wolf and traitor to 2/3 people (or 2/4 if you want to assume that my head is still on the chopping block). No, we will only get 2 chances to execute unless we successfully execute the traitor, in which case we will get 3. If counterclaims occur, that is good because it narrows our focus. Why would you not want execution Day 1 unless you are a baddie? We lose an execution if no execution occurs on Day 1. (7->6 from wolf kill, 6->4 from kill and execution and wolf+traitor prevent innocent majority.) Currently, I am not suspicious at all of blacjak (unless he gets counter-claimed, but I doubt he will), I am leaning toward innocent on Lion, not certain on Cel and Exile, and leaning toward baddie on NPM and Zilary. I'm going to rest my vote on NPM at the moment, but I'll be monitoring things closely in case that needs to change. Vote: NPM
  8. Normally I'd agree, NPM, but I don't think the Masons are particularly useful other than they start out with better default information (two known innocent instead of one) and the Wolfsbane is only useful if actually killed by the Wolf. It would be insanely counterproductive for an innocent role to false claim in this game (especially because it would cast doubt on any counter claim they might choose to make later). If we get four villager claims and the wolf does choose to kill out of the three non-claiming roles, they may eat the wolfsbane (which gives us an extra execution if we execute the Traitor). If the wolf and traitor choose not to claim, and the innocent power roles agree to claim, then it's all over. If the innocents decide to act as a unit and have only villagers claim, the wolf and traitor must claim or they lose instantly. We're only going to have two executions unless we hit the traitor. There's no point in twiddling our thumbs. We're already in the end-game.
  9. Question: if the Werewolf is killed, does the Traitor inherit and the game continue, or is the game over at that point? Based on parity, we will effectively lose an execution if we choose not to execute Day 1 (with 7 we will lose after two bad executions, with 6 we will lose after one). There are also no investigative roles, so there is no reason not to execute Day 1. Also, I think we should do a staggered on thread force-claim. First, all villagers should claim (presumably, both Traitor and Wolf would claim). If we get four claims here, we execute purely out of the pool of "villagers". I've got some potential ideas for what we could do if we don't get 4 villager claims, but I will share them if a sufficient number of people think that the idea is good. To go ahead and show that I'm serious and kick things off, I'm going to go ahead and claim that I am a villager.
  10. I would love to try this idea out, but 6 people is definitely too low. I'm fine with swapping to a more generic game if that's what we need to do to get participants.
  11. I am 100% playing this. Also, I can play over Thanksgiving, but I'm also fine waiting until after,
  12. Not gonna lie, I was fishing for the rezzer when I killed UrG (I was pretty sure allowing Weee to be rezzed would doom our chances of winning). I think the evidence was completely reasonable. Of course, I also didn't think a protector existed in the set-up at that point (and I also happened to know NPM was a disabler), so you were my only reasonable suspect. I'd argue that in that situation, 7 or 8 out of ten times the accused would be the baddie. It just wasn't this time (also, if I wasn't baddie, I might have actually changed my vote after the claim, even with the weird plan to graverob the traitor... honestly, I thought that was less suspicious than other portrayed on thread). (Apparently, my team also new that you didn't have a lethal power thanks to blacjak's role, but I somehow skipped that result, so I honestly thought you were the OMT for most of the day.) But yeah, I did take the chance to distance myself from blacjak at that point (pretty ironic that you thought I was setting up the execution for the following day, though). It was "48" hours of protection because of when rezzing happened during the cycle. We could not try to preemptively target dead players to kill them the night after they were rezzed, and we could not kill them the night after that. Technically, given the order of events and if you didn't specifically disallow it (not sure if anyone asked), dead players could submit lists and execute their role immediately after being rezzed. In practice, it was bad because we had no way to disrupt cleared innocents (completely cleared, no chance of a rez-con or the wolves having a convert), so once rezzing happened, a full claim was inevitable. I guessed that having the tracker in the game would make it less likely the dreamer would be in the game. Honestly, the amount of investigation and psuedo-investigation (kill disruption) in this game was insane (Nerfed Dreamer, Tracker, Disabler, Scrambler, Jailer and Protector, that I know of). Our List Control tool was very powerful, but... all that on top of two rezzes is pretty nuts to try to chew through as a 3+1 baddie team, much less an OMT. Smile was killed Night 1 because she was on the list (fourth, I believe) and Exile scrambled me Night 1. Honestly, I should (well, easily could, if I couldn't talk my way free) have been executed Day 2, but no one mentioned the possibility that the role scrambler had hit the Wolf spokes, and I sure wasn't going to bring it up. But anyway, I think that if I was innocent, I would have at least given it a 50/50 chance of being intentionally randomized by the baddies or being scrambled by the list scrambler (probably weighted more toward the scrambler if I knew the role existed in the game). EDIT: Oh, one other thing on the subject of rez protection. I don't like it in general. If other protection mechanisms exist in the game (e.g. a protector), I don't think there's much call for rez-protection. I especially don't like the exact length of rez-protection being posted to thread, because that tells the protector exactly when the rezzed player becomes vulnerable (I think it's fine for the baddies and/or rezzer to know ahead of time if desired).
  13. Vote: Cel Well, you know my claim. It doesn't really matter to me the order in which you execute, though, cause it sounds like you've got the remaining wolves narrowed down that you can afford to be wrong once. I'll follow your call.
  14. Given that Exile has claimed and blacjak has not, I'm fine with voting blacjak for now. My suspicion of him from yesterday still stands. I'm assuming that Weee's vote indicates that blacjak has not claimed to her yet, which is a bad sign. I am slightly concerned about Ash given behavior, but it's hard to read someone who I haven't played with before. Rock is also more... placid?... than usual. I'm leaving soon, but I'll be back on before deadline to update my vote if necessary. Vote: blacjak
  15. I'm not saying that defending yourself is a tell of any sort. However, I do think it's quite odd that you went from two single post days (one containing nothing of consequence and the second containing a placeholder vote which you then didn't bother to change or explain why you weren't changing) to extensive posts not only defending yourself, but declaring your suspicions of every person who voted you and... no one else. I do think it makes it highly likely. Let's go through the other possibilities. First, the OMT could have been disabled Night 1. Second, the OMT could have chosen not to use their list for some strange strategy reason. I addressed the second in my original post. The first is possible, but unlikely because there was no public declaration that someone was jailed, and we know the jailer was inactive Night 1. Also, the fact that the Jailer is in the set-up makes it less likely that the disabler is in the set-up (as they fulfill similar roles). So ultimately I think it's unlikely that the OMT was Night 1 disabled given what we know. It's less of an assumption that the OMT was inactive and more of an educated guess. Lion, I would think that was a fair assessment, except we know that Inu is offering advice to players, and I seriously doubt he would neglect to advise a new OMT player that it's in their best interest to kill every night. (Also, I'll point out that Ash is new, and could theoretically fit your theory. He also did pull the classic new baddie tell of self-voting, so this might be a stronger argument than you think.) EDIT: Crossed with Zodiac. I'm willing to refocus depending on what Smile has to say.