Resistance 3

On December 24 2013 09:30 Blazinghand wrote:
/obs

this will be the first game of Resistance without me in it. I'm sorry I can't make this one, guys. Do well

On March 07 2012 00:07 prplhz wrote:

lol no

FROM NOW ON, IN EVERY FUTURE GAME, THE SPY RULE IS THAT THE FIRST ONE ON THE SUBMISSION ORDER DOES THE SABOTAGING

FUTURE SPY TEAMS CAN JUST SEND PEOPLE TO THIS THREAD AND THEY WILL KNOW

On December 24 2013 11:37 VisceraEyes wrote:
/in

The leader selecting 4 players on D3 and 4 is a mechanic of the game and must be included.

Edit: The idea is that it increases the risk of sending the same successful team throughout the game, forcing the leaders to consider other players that haven't been on successful missions.

On December 24 2013 11:45 FirmTofu wrote:

What do you suggest for day 5? I'm curious why the hosts of Resistance 2 did it differently from the Wikipedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Resistance_(game), which recommends 3,4,4,5,5 for each consecutive day, respectively.

On December 24 2013 12:38 raynpelikoneet wrote:
/in <3

This game is fucking awesome!

On December 24 2013 14:44 Blazinghand wrote:
3 4 4 5(2) 5 is optimal imo

On December 27 2013 10:25 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Picking a team that will get 100% downvoted (if that includes yourself) does not serve any purpose.

On December 27 2013 10:33 Hopeless1der wrote:

Lets suppose at least 1 of those 3 go on to fail a mission. Are you, as leader, culpable in the failure?

On December 27 2013 10:44 Hopeless1der wrote:

but now, you've coerced a player into doing "town's" bidding without having a clear view of his motive. I find that the vote mechanics serve to control how you view players much better than forcing the teams that people want to see.

Since we have up to 5 opportunities to get this done each round, I'd rather be confident in my read of the leader (and subsequently his selected companions) than have to second guess his motives down the road.

I'm not saying that each round is going to slam-dunk. I think that the consideration should FOLLOW the team being selected when people vote on it, and the leader should be playing to their optimal scenario.

On December 28 2013 00:50 Koshi wrote:

No. I don't like that.

You send the most townie people on Day 1. But because I doubt that anybody can prove himself 100% town I suggest that the most active people/most respected people go on the first mission. Reasons have been stated.

Why I do not want liabilities to go on a Mission 1. Let's say we send Chairman Ray/[UoN]Sentinel/Hopeless on Mission 1 and it fails. What will you do then? One of those is scum but all 3 will probably(?) not have the biggest filter and shit is hard when there are no flips. But then you have your townleaders with the biggest filters (aka rayn/VE/Koshi/...) that don't really know who to trust and what to do. It's not optimal.

Let's say that we send rayn/VE/Cora and mission succeeds. Then I know for a fact that 50% of all the post on Day 2 will be made by townies. For a fact. So easy. So nice.

On December 28 2013 01:14 VisceraEyes wrote:
Sending a liability is a bad idea because it allows strong playing spies (i.e., myself if I were a spy) to hide behind the liability and get on further missions. It's a much better idea to just try and send the towniest people of the day and find out if they're ACTUALLY TOWN with the mission.

We don't have to worry about whether someone will be "leading town" later on because there are no kills and everyone is in the game the whole time. If I'm not sent on any missions, you'll still be able to benefit from my posting regardless the whole game long.

On December 28 2013 15:31 Chairman Ray wrote:


Leaders should have to yay or nay their team. There's plenty good reason for a leader to reject his own team, and in this format, the order in which people yay/nay brings good information, so I think we should still require leaders to formally yay/nay as well.

On December 29 2013 04:02 Chairman Ray wrote:


From my experiences, leaders commonly reject their own team. The reason is not because of a lack of confidence, but because the most information and discussion comes from more rounds being played. Great information is gained through seeing other leaders' picks and people's voting patterns from round to round. If the leader feels that more information can be gained, then he would propose a team, and then reject it himself. Here's one such scenario that occurs often:

We are on the 5th round and the score is 2-2. We still don't know exactly who the mafia are, but we put our towniest 5 on the mission. The leader rejects the mission making the vote fail in a 4-5 vote. However, two people who were not on the mission yayed it. This confirms those two as mafia, and indicates a high likelihood that there is a spy that was sent on the mission. If the leader passed it, the game would have been lost right there.

Our voting format is a bit different than the real Resistance, but the concept is the same. I would expect that leaders would not yay/nay until the deciding vote. If new information arises that would indicate that the team is not good, then the leader would reject it.