Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer
So based on your analysis, I think it would be better to go with a group of three then it would be to go with a group of two.
|
Only if we are talking about probability alone. That is only one piece of the picture though.. The other piece is what do you learn from the info?
Lets say PurdueBrad is lynched and ends up being a villager.. what do we learn? Ok.. well maybe Mccollins or EagleFan or both are wolves.. so we then lynch one of them.. or do we go after both and spend three days on what might be just three villagers.. if PurdueBrad is a wolf, what do we learn about the others? Well not much about mccollins or Eaglefan as of yet.. we feel a bit better about Render, but thats it..
If we go with the two approach, and lynch one and they are a wolf, what have we learned? It makes a bunch of people as possible next suspects.. if one of them is a villager, then it doesn't really clear Render, but it helps drop some of the suspicion he may have otherwise.. You have to consider other people with roles also, who will they target for their actions tonight based on what we find out.. etc...
Don't get me wrong, I've brought a third person into lynch situations myself but there were subtle differences that I mentioned earlier.. such as why hasn't mccollins or Eaglefan voted for self preservation earlier? Why was a third candidate brought into the picture suddenly out of the blue with two quick votes? It feels just like when purduebrad and Hoops were both wolves previously and hesitant to vote for each other.. they ended up getting out of that without a lynch.. It just feels alot like that scenerio happening again here.. Just too many other issues that just seem off so far about this vote.
I think as of right now I'm sticking with my vote here as this most recent action makes me feel good about where I am.