|
On January 05 2012 08:53 Blazinghand wrote:
Oh, I want to be picked for a night team because the chance of scum for an N1 mission goes from like enormous to small. But something felt off about the way Radfield made his post. If you think the guy who's picking you is scum, IF YOU REALLY THINK THAT, are you still gonna vote yay?
Obviously if I am unsure I will vote nay. But I thought he was scum. There IS information D1, and that's how Radfield picked me. He read me as town. I read him as scum, and so I tried to "unpick" him by voting nay and passing leadership to the next leader.
You did not have a valid reason to think Radfield was scum!
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Look if every townsperson just yay-votes their own team, then a scum player could easily pick two townies to go with him and get a free sabotage N1, right? That's terrible. People should use the time to talk, form reads, and have rounds of nay-votes. Like, ok here's the other thing-- everyone else just yay-voted the team without much discussion. that was also a problem.
|
On January 05 2012 08:50 VisceraEyes wrote:
Blaze your reason for suspecting Rad was ludicrous. It was the determining factor in my suspicion of you. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll start improving your play.
First of all, there's no information in D1. As a townie, you should be PRAYING to be picked for the night team. PRAYING TO WHATEVER GOD YOU BELIEVE IN. Why? Because as you so accurately (and repeatedly) pointed out: there's a 35% chance of picking a scum for the N1 mission. And if the leader picks you, that number goes down DRASTICALLY, right? To something like 12%? I don't know the math, I'm not a scientist. What I do know is that you nay-voted a team that included you and that was bad. BAD Blaze.
That might seem logical to you, but in actual Resistance play, it's very high-level to down-vote a team that you are on. The important thing is to gain information. The more teams that are declined, the more you reveal about the other players. You'll be able to discern voting patterns and that is key from the beginning.
You guys were too hasty this game. He did the right thing. It should have been CLEAR that he was Town. Everyone should have rallied behind him for the rest of the game.
|
This game is impossible to win as town.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:54 Jackal58 wrote:
This game is impossible to win as town.
Strong disagree. Town only needs to win one of the first 3 missions, and mission 4 is free for them.
Even near the end, if we had won N3, we'd also win N4 and have decent odds going into N5.
I don't think we lost by a huge amount, honestly, despite the 3-0 score.
|
On January 05 2012 08:52 Palmar wrote:
Zona was wrong quite a bit this game, and no, until you can prove that something about his teammaking was weird, you don't have a valid reason to oppose it.
This is wrong too. Down-voting teams IS IN ITSELF a valid reason. You gain information about the other players and who THEY support.
|
On January 05 2012 08:54 Jackal58 wrote:
This game is impossible to win as inactive town.
FTFY 
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:56 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:52 Palmar wrote:
Zona was wrong quite a bit this game, and no, until you can prove that something about his teammaking was weird, you don't have a valid reason to oppose it. This is wrong too. Down-voting teams IS IN ITSELF a valid reason. You gain information about the other players and who THEY support.
I agree with KJ. Ideally, we'd all be super active and everyone would have to propose a team D1 and people would vote, etc, and lots of info would get recorded, then a team would pass and we'd have several pages of votes and evidence to look through.
|
On January 05 2012 08:56 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:52 Palmar wrote:
Zona was wrong quite a bit this game, and no, until you can prove that something about his teammaking was weird, you don't have a valid reason to oppose it. This is wrong too. Down-voting teams IS IN ITSELF a valid reason. You gain information about the other players and who THEY support.
No, you always need a reason to downvote, because if you do it without reason, scum can do the same randomly if they're smart, and suddenly the voting patterns become useless. If you want to use voting patterns, they have to mean something. Randomly downvoting teams for the simple reason of downvoting them actually destroys evidence, instead of providing it.
|
I'm not opposing the idea of downvoting teams, but it must always be done in a commital way with valid reasoning.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:59 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:56 kingjames01 wrote:On January 05 2012 08:52 Palmar wrote:
Zona was wrong quite a bit this game, and no, until you can prove that something about his teammaking was weird, you don't have a valid reason to oppose it. This is wrong too. Down-voting teams IS IN ITSELF a valid reason. You gain information about the other players and who THEY support. No, you always need a reason to downvote, because if you do it without reason, scum can do the same randomly if they're smart, and suddenly the voting patterns become useless. If you want to use voting patterns, they have to mean something. Randomly downvoting teams for the simple reason of downvoting them actually destroys evidence, instead of providing it.
See, this is a fair statement, but on day 1 we didn't have any voting patterns-- the first team passed. If I voted yay, it'd have passed unanimously, and then where would we be?
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Did anyone read through these sweet games?
Look what happens in say, the second link. Guy proposes the first team and instead of everyone blind yayvoting, there's discussion, and tons of people vote nay, and it establishes a body of evidence, and the game goes on.
|
On January 05 2012 09:00 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:59 Palmar wrote:On January 05 2012 08:56 kingjames01 wrote:On January 05 2012 08:52 Palmar wrote:
Zona was wrong quite a bit this game, and no, until you can prove that something about his teammaking was weird, you don't have a valid reason to oppose it. This is wrong too. Down-voting teams IS IN ITSELF a valid reason. You gain information about the other players and who THEY support. No, you always need a reason to downvote, because if you do it without reason, scum can do the same randomly if they're smart, and suddenly the voting patterns become useless. If you want to use voting patterns, they have to mean something. Randomly downvoting teams for the simple reason of downvoting them actually destroys evidence, instead of providing it. See, this is a fair statement, but on day 1 we didn't have any voting patterns-- the first team passed. If I voted yay, it'd have passed unanimously, and then where would we be?
In exactly the same situation.
Problem is, you didn't achieve anything by nayvoting it, other than painting a target on your ass. If you had actually given valid and strong reasons for voting the way you did, then it'd have been a completely different story. It's now what you did (nayvote), it's how (without valid reasons) you did it that's important.
|
On January 05 2012 08:59 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:56 kingjames01 wrote:On January 05 2012 08:52 Palmar wrote:
Zona was wrong quite a bit this game, and no, until you can prove that something about his teammaking was weird, you don't have a valid reason to oppose it. This is wrong too. Down-voting teams IS IN ITSELF a valid reason. You gain information about the other players and who THEY support. No, you always need a reason to downvote, because if you do it without reason, scum can do the same randomly if they're smart, and suddenly the voting patterns become useless. If you want to use voting patterns, they have to mean something. Randomly downvoting teams for the simple reason of downvoting them actually destroys evidence, instead of providing it.
This is STILL wrong. Players who first start out seem to BELIEVE that it is scum-like to down-vote and stay away from it. In fact, there's more benefit to down-voting teams that to okay them. Consider this: in any random selection, it is much more likely to include at least 1 spy in the first mission than it is to not include a spy.
Anyway, I don't want to argue with you, since this is your chance to discuss the game that you just played. However, I just wanted to stop the incorrect information being spouted here.
If you want to see "The Power of No" in action and you like the Resistance, go out and buy it. It costs about $15 here in North America and it's been localized across many regions in the world. Then come back and we can have this discussion properly.
|
On January 05 2012 09:05 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:59 Palmar wrote:On January 05 2012 08:56 kingjames01 wrote:On January 05 2012 08:52 Palmar wrote:
Zona was wrong quite a bit this game, and no, until you can prove that something about his teammaking was weird, you don't have a valid reason to oppose it. This is wrong too. Down-voting teams IS IN ITSELF a valid reason. You gain information about the other players and who THEY support. No, you always need a reason to downvote, because if you do it without reason, scum can do the same randomly if they're smart, and suddenly the voting patterns become useless. If you want to use voting patterns, they have to mean something. Randomly downvoting teams for the simple reason of downvoting them actually destroys evidence, instead of providing it. This is STILL wrong. Players who first start out seem to BELIEVE that it is scum-like to down-vote and stay away from it. In fact, there's more benefit to down-voting teams that to okay them. Consider this: in any random selection, it is much more likely to include at least 1 spy in the first mission than it is to not include a spy. Anyway, I don't want to argue with you, since this is your chance to discuss the game that you just played. However, I just wanted to stop the incorrect information being spouted here. If you want to see "The Power of No" in action and you like the Resistance, go out and buy it. It costs about $15 here in North America and it's been localized across many regions in the world. Then come back and we can have this discussion properly.
You can't just tell me I'm wrong without backing it up.
It's not scummy at all to say nay to a team, all I'm proposing is you need very valid reasons to do it, especially if you are on the said team yourself. Randomly nayvoting doesn't generate any evidence at all, because mafia can just roll a dice and vote no or yes, which is what I would do. Like if I saw townies just killing off teams with no reason, I'd literally roll a dice to see if I supported the next team.
Without people committing to their ideas voting patterns mean nothing. Town had an excellent opportunity to scrutinize Radfield's team, but they failed to capitalize on it. That doesn't mean that people should start nay-voting teams without any kind of solid reasoning at all, because that invites mafia to do the same.
The same actually goes with yes-votes, I never mentioned it this game (I vaguely hinted at it in my "we must find townies" rants), but its equally important to give solid reasoning when you're yayvoting.
In a game where voting patterns are important, it's even more important to make damn sure the votes actually mean something, so your evidence is worth looking at.
|
On January 05 2012 09:05 kingjames01 wrote:
Players who first start out seem to BELIEVE that it is scum-like to down-vote and stay away from it.
Anyone who actually knows me, also knows that I'm the biggest proponent of things like this being bullshit, I never look at what people do, only how they do it. There is no such thing as a scumtell.
|
On January 05 2012 09:05 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:59 Palmar wrote:On January 05 2012 08:56 kingjames01 wrote:On January 05 2012 08:52 Palmar wrote:
Zona was wrong quite a bit this game, and no, until you can prove that something about his teammaking was weird, you don't have a valid reason to oppose it. This is wrong too. Down-voting teams IS IN ITSELF a valid reason. You gain information about the other players and who THEY support. No, you always need a reason to downvote, because if you do it without reason, scum can do the same randomly if they're smart, and suddenly the voting patterns become useless. If you want to use voting patterns, they have to mean something. Randomly downvoting teams for the simple reason of downvoting them actually destroys evidence, instead of providing it. This is STILL wrong. Players who first start out seem to BELIEVE that it is scum-like to down-vote and stay away from it. In fact, there's more benefit to down-voting teams that to okay them. Consider this: in any random selection, it is much more likely to include at least 1 spy in the first mission than it is to not include a spy. Anyway, I don't want to argue with you, since this is your chance to discuss the game that you just played. However, I just wanted to stop the incorrect information being spouted here. If you want to see "The Power of No" in action and you like the Resistance, go out and buy it. It costs about $15 here in North America and it's been localized across many regions in the world. Then come back and we can have this discussion properly.
The difference between that game and this one is that everyone's posts are stored here in a text format for everyone to go back and reference. The table-top game is different in that no one is transcribing what happened and everything everyone said, so just blindly nay-voting is totally and completely asinine. You're right about the "power of no" in an IRL game, I won't dispute that...but in forum Resistance, you'd better damn well have a reason for EVERY action you take because people are going to look back and see WHY you made X decision or took Y action. EVERY TIME.
Palmar isn't wrong, you're just talking about two different games. It's essentially the same game, but with the different format comes different strategies.
|
meh, i was right on toad, but just half right on rad. VE was right when he said you could just swap him in
|
I'm still a little herpy, but on the whole I'd say my game has vastly improved.
|
by half right on rad i mean half right on palmar. I think my reads were screwed up because it seemed that most of the townies making sense all game just didn't care
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
