EPT/in
Resistance 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
/in | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
1. In the voting thread, will there be any unvoting allowed, or do you only get a single chance to vote? 2. Is there to be no outside communication between spies? | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 24 2013 11:59 FirmTofu wrote: Thanks. I'll check it out. Do you have any suggestions for the # of people sent per day? In the official rules for number of players sent, it is 3,4,4,5(2),5 where 5(2) means that two fails must be required. From my experiences, this setup does work out with a fairly balanced winrate. This setup still has one major flaw in it, but it will be fine. I'm curious to see how the game changes with the voting thread though. Typically the game is played with everyone voting simultaneously, but having an open voting thread can really change the game strategically. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
Anyways, other than Koshi who wants to be in, are there any other suggestions on who should be sent on the first mission? Since it's the first one, I'm alright with any team that goes in. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 27 2013 13:19 raynpelikoneet wrote: So everybody is basically saying the same thing over and over again. There are 6 townies. If you exclude yourself there are 5 townies. Even the last missions require only max 5 people. You can select an all town team even if you exclude yourself. Therefore, in case you are considered not necessarily town and your team would be refused if you are in it, it's better to select other people. If you select a team which gets 8 nay votes, it tells us nothing. Voting patterns are the most important thing (obviously besides mission results) in this game because there are no flips. Anyone who refuses to cooperate in mission selection as a leader and pushes through a selection that is doomed to get a fuckton of nay votes should not go a mission. That's what i think. I think you are scum because of this. In 5 pl setup this works because it's actually better to pass the first mission as scum, in 9 pl setup this is different and not necessarily true. Seems to me like an attempt to stop the conversation before it even started. CR - Does Koshi seem town to you? Why? Why does not asserting for myself or a specific person to go on the first mission mean I'm scum? Is the logic that since scum will want to fail the first mission, then if I am town, I need to get into the mission to reduce the chances that there will be scum in there? | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 27 2013 15:02 raynpelikoneet wrote: You are supposed to suggest an all town team, for every mission. You don't seem to be giving any shits who goes onto a mission 1 and who doesn't. It's not only results and voting that wins the game, it's the discussion behind picks and people's responses on top of that. What you said was basically "just pick some people who want to go on a mission and let's get over with it". That's scummy. I don't agree with that, but we can revisit this subject on day 2 if you want. Anyway, we need to get some picks on the table. If Adam doesn't have any solid picks right now, we can throw some names on the table to discuss, and if Adam agrees, then he can put them up for a vote. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 28 2013 04:00 Grackaroni wrote: True, I am by far and away the best candidate for selection.  I'm thinking that Hopeless could be a better option because there is a pretty large disparity between his town play and scum play. I'm not sure a Rayn/Koshi/VE team would pass, and if it didn't, I could have a harder time discerning alignments off of it regardless of their activity. Hopeless wasn't a big fan of leaders not picking themselves, and I suppose this can also apply to people suggesting teams. If he's more comfortable with your picks if you were in it, would you say Adam/Grack/Hopeless would be a decent choice for the first mission? | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 28 2013 05:11 raynpelikoneet wrote: CR could you answer my question i asked you last night? I would prefer to discuss the matter on day 2 as it fits in quite well with the results and the voting of the mission. Are you keen on getting a read on me today? I don't have a strong preference of getting into the mission today. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 28 2013 06:16 raynpelikoneet wrote: omfg what? If I don't deliver something tangible on day 2, feel free to confirm me as mafia, or bad town, or whatever. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
You are supposed to suggest an all town team, for every mission. You don't seem to be giving any shits who goes onto a mission 1 and who doesn't. It's not only results and voting that wins the game, it's the discussion behind picks and people's responses on top of that. What you said was basically "just pick some people who want to go on a mission and let's get over with it". That's scummy. Green - I agree Red - I disagree Blue - We can throw that up to debate case by case | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 28 2013 12:04 FirmTofu wrote: I'll assume yay unless you type nay for whatever reason. 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. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
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. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 29 2013 00:30 VisceraEyes wrote: Well if the guy who picked the team isn't confident, why should I be? I don't even have to read to nay-vote the team. XD I'm reading anyway, you rascals. On the first mission, only spies would be confident in a team. This doesn't indicate whether or not the team is good team, so you have to make your own judgement. Everybody has their own set of information from their perspective, and knowing things that other people don't, you can sometimes be confident in a team that someone else isn't. For example, if you go on a mission with two other people and it gets sabotaged, as town, you know that at least one of the two other people is a spy. However people outside the mission only know that it's at least one of you three. From then on, you are playing the game with more information than others. You know that any mission that includes both the people you were with will have a spy. Other people don't know this, but they do know that if you yay the mission, it will confirm you as spy. As you narrow down who is a spy from your perspective, you can be more confident in a certain team than the leader who proposed it if that leader does not have the same set of information as you. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 29 2013 00:50 Corazon wrote: Is it typical for the first mission team to be approved mostly uncontested? Most the time, there are not many people who contest the first team. It all depends on who the spies are and where they are positioned. The main objective of the spies at this point of the game is to get on the second mission. If the spies are not on mission 2, then the game is very hard to win. Most the time, if the second mission passes, you send the same team for the third mission, and if that passes, add someone random for the fourth mission, and that's 3 missions passed right there. A lot of time, if the first mission passes, the next leader will just put himself in and the first three. This means that it is quite important for spies to make sure there is either a spy on the first team, or the next leader in line is a spy. One good opening on the first mission is to force spies to make the first move by playing passively and indifferently. Let the leader make their pick without any information on the board. At this time if a couple people are like "woah woah woah, I don't like this team", they could be spies disagreeing because there are no spies on the team. After all, nobody said anything so far so there is no other reason why you would not like a certain team. This is where the discussion begins to figure out where everyone stands. If there is no contest at all for the first team, there's a higher chance of a spy already being on the team or the next leader in line is a spy. There is also a lot of meta play that spies can do, like trying to contest a team that has a spy on it. I don't often see spies letting a team go if there are no spies on it, and the next leader in line is not a spy. This could be done as a meta play to see if a town would say "hey, there's no contest, something is up", but then it becomes a catch-22 where you are creating contest by contesting the team because it is uncontested. Anyway, none of this applies to this game, so whatever. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On December 29 2013 04:56 raynpelikoneet wrote: CR, why are you talking about spy strategies? There are some people who have not played resistance and in case there are spies amongst them they are more likely to slip. No need to tell people how to play if they are spies. This is the reason why I wanted to talk about this on day 2 originally since it's a lot of day 1 strategy for spy. Since this mission is going to go, none of this applies to this game anymore, and acts as a basis of discussion for the events that occurred on day 1 and the results of the mission. On the other days, I'm also going to be discussing what potential strategies the spies employed after the mission goes, and obviously not before. Thanks for pointing this out though. More of a town thing to do. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On January 03 2014 00:15 Alakaslam wrote: Night 1 Team: Koshi, Hopeless1der, raynpelikoneet Team 3 Current Leader: Koshi Current Vote Count: Corazon: Nay Hopeless1der: Yay Coagulation: Yay Chairman Ray: Yay Koshi: Yay [UoN]Sentinel: Yay VisceraEyes: Yay Raynpelikoneet: Yay Koshi, Hopeless1der, and Raynepelikoneet have been sent on a mission! If you have night actions to send in PM both of us please, this goes for the whole game, questions etc. Did Grack not vote? | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On January 03 2014 07:38 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm thinking it was Koshi all along. CR we are now in D2. Your thoughts on all of this? At work atm. Reading through Titanic I while code is compiling. Investigating the possibility of a Corazon/Hopeless scumteam. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
| ||
