The Resistance IV

[Kriemhild]

Oh, boy, I might have to make several posts for this.

The problem with 1.1 as a two-man mission of the first round is that the votes are almost impossible to decipher. I'm not saying those votes have no meaning, but mission 1.1 is a mission where any player can vote anything they want and can have a good excuse to back that up. You can try to analyze them and guess the intentions but the odds of your conclusions being spot-on are incredibly low. However, it can be useful when considering 1.1's results in conjunction with future missions e.g. Marth's change of vote between 1.1 and 2.1 makes him look much more suspicious than Kay. In any case, it's better to focus on the missions that come after that.

Now, with regards to the missions, I think we should go with the 4-man mission first. As to why, well, consider what would happen if went for the 3-man mission first. If it fails, then we'll be forced to move on the 4-man mission. Since the Spies already got two points, they'll sabotage this one if they ever get the opportunity, even if two Spies get sent in. The only way to succeed is to figure out exactly who the two Spies are, and to get the every single Resistance member to agree on it and vote Yes. If we fail there, we lose the game, but if we succeed that, we'll auto-win the last round for a Resistance victory. To sum it up, we have to select ALL FOUR Resistance members and get ALL FOUR of them to agree with it, using info gained from a 2-man mission and two 3-man missions. This is the worst case from all the possible outcomes.

That looks pretty grim, but what if our current mission is 3-man and succeeds? Then we'll move on to the 4-man mission. This time, the Resistance will only need to succeed once to win the game, so the Spies will try to prevent that. If we can figure out both the Spies and get all the Resistance to agree on it, we win. There's a possibility that Resistance might get lucky and succeed if two Spies are sent in and they both cooperate, but the possibility of that is incredibly low and is better described as "Spies being super dumb". When the 4-man mission fails, we'll still have another chance to win at the final 3-man mission, which should be easier than the 4-man mission because less people+more info. This seems like a pretty good situation, but it relies on us succeeding on a 3-man mission using info gained only from a 2-man and a 3-man mission and then requires us to succeed on a 3-man mission with info from all four past missions.

Going with a 4-man mission right now. It will likely fail, but we can utilize the new info we gained by trying to succeed in the next 3-man mission. If we can do that, all we have to do is succeed on the final 3-man mission as well in order to win the game. This requires us to first succeed on a 3-man mission using info gained from a 2-man, 3-man, and a 4-man mission, and then succeed on a 3-man mission with info from all four past missions. This is better than the second case, since our next victory utilizes info from three previous missions, and not only two, while the conditions for the final victory are the same as the second case. Furthermore, the 4-man mission can be utilized purely for seeking info.

And if we succeed on the 4-man mission, I don't think anybody can deny that a 4-man success is the best thing that can happen to us right now. So even the worst outcome of going with 4 first is better than the best outcome of going with 3 first. And having a 3-man mission fail right now would put us in a REALLY bad position. In fact, I think we should have gone for 4-man straight away and saved the 2-man for Round 5, but it's a little too late for that right now.

[riariadne]

I'm going to use my extension request thingy.

[Kay]

I think it would be better to go for the 4-man mission, since there's a decent chance of there being two spies in it, and it's better to get that over with so they would be taking a risk with a double sabotage, instead of being able to both sabotage automatically if we botch the 3-man mission first.

I'd prefer if the team was Rein, BBM, Proto, and myself. Marth's "whatever" votes were mad suspicious, and I'm voting no to anything he's in. Eli is meh.

[BBM]

I think it would be better to go for the 4-man mission, since there's a decent chance of there being two spies in it, and it's better to get that over with so they would be taking a risk with a double sabotage, instead of being able to both sabotage automatically if we botch the 3-man mission first.

I'd prefer if the team was Rein, BBM, Proto, and myself. Marth's "whatever" votes were mad suspicious, and I'm voting no to anything he's in. Eli is meh.

What? You say that you want to do the 4-man mission for a chance at a double sabotage, but you also say that you don't want Marth, a person who you feel seems scummy, to be in on the mission? That... doesn't make sense. In fact, if I didn't know that either Rein, Elieson, or me had to be a spy, I'd think it was you and Marth from this post.

I would also request the next mission proposal not to include me. I've been in on both of them so far, while neither Kay nor Marth have been part of a proposal.

[Bluedoom]

What? You say that you want to do the 4-man mission for a chance at a double sabotage, but you also say that you don't want Marth, a person who you feel seems scummy, to be in on the mission? That... doesn't make sense. In fact, if I didn't know that either Rein, Elieson, or me had to be a spy, I'd think it was you and Marth from this post.

I would also request the next mission proposal not to include me. I've been in on both of them so far, while neither Kay nor Marth have been part of a proposal.

Uh, sorry? Why do we want a scum in our team if he's gonna sabotage the mission? You crazy? The 4-man mission's purpose may be for info-gathering, but that doesn't mean we should go with a 'known' disadvantage. Optimal choosing is still better.

Interestingly enough, if I were to propose a team, it'd be what Kay said, except replace Kay with Marth.

[BBM]

Uh, sorry? Why do we want a scum in our team if he's gonna sabotage the mission? You crazy? The 4-man mission's purpose may be for info-gathering, but that doesn't mean we should go with a 'known' disadvantage. Optimal choosing is still better.

Interestingly enough, if I were to propose a team, it'd be what Kay said, except replace Kay with Marth.

Read his post. He says that a 4-man mission would be best because we have the best shot at catching both spies in the mission. If that is the case, and he finds you suspicious, why wouldn't he have you in his mission?

"Optimal" choosing goes 4 resistance > 2 resistance, 2 spies > 3 resistance, 1 spy. If our mission is sabotaged by only one spy, we have a much smaller chance of figuring out who that spy is than if it is sabotaged by two spies.

[Elieson]

Either way, if mission one was essentially guaranteed a success, what difference does it make if i selected it to be first or last?

[Elieson]

I think it would be better to go for the 4-man mission, since there's a decent chance of there being two spies in it, and it's better to get that over with so they would be taking a risk with a double sabotage, instead of being able to both sabotage automatically if we botch the 3-man mission first.

I'd prefer if the team was Rein, BBM, Proto, and myself. Marth's "whatever" votes were mad suspicious, and I'm voting no to anything he's in. Eli is meh.

And how is my position different from Rein, when we have been on a single mission?

[riariadne]

Propose AA, Marth, Proto, BBM

Let's see how this goes,

[Kay]

What? You say that you want to do the 4-man mission for a chance at a double sabotage, but you also say that you don't want Marth, a person who you feel seems scummy, to be in on the mission? That... doesn't make sense. In fact, if I didn't know that either Rein, Elieson, or me had to be a spy, I'd think it was you and Marth from this post.

I would also request the next mission proposal not to include me. I've been in on both of them so far, while neither Kay nor Marth have been part of a proposal.

I'm saying that if the mission fails, the 4-man mission gives us a better chance of learning more from it. Ideally the mission would succeed, and that's still what we should be aiming for. I'm not saying that we should try to fail.

Look, if the mission succeeds with either 3 or 4 people, great. If it fails with 3 people, the spies will be able to double sabotage afterward, making the larger missions a lot harder. If it fails with 4 people, there's a decent chance that both spies will have sabotaged, and that would be pretty good too, because we'd get two clears.

Anyone think I should use my card on this mission? I'd rather save it for sometime it's more important, but just holding onto it all game would be silly.

[Kay]

And how is my position different from Rein, when we have been on a single mission?

Rein's been discussing things more. That's all.

[Elieson]

Been limited to using my phone, while at either one of my 2 jobs, for the majority of this game, so please forgive me for not being as active as I should be.

Tbh, we know that at least one of the spies could be Me, BBM, or Rein. Meaning that if we fail this mission to a double sabotage, then we have reason to believe that Rein/BBM would be one (or potentially, both) of the spies, and one of Proto/Marth being a spy (or plausibly, both resistance).

A single sabotage from this selection doesn't give us much, if any, information, as it would present potentially any of the 4 mission candidates to be equally likely to be a spy, leaving us pretty much at a blank for information.

This of course, means that if both spies don't sabotage the mission, we get a point, (2 - 1), but it's that much more confusing. It would essentially nominate myself and Kay as the spies, with no serious backing evidence, other than a hard-to-recover-from score deficit.

I dunno exactly what to vote for. The possibility of a single sabotage concerns me more than anything else, as we'd walk away from a loss learning....very little.

[Tables]

Round 3.1: Mission 3.

Team: BigBangMeteor, apocalypseArisen, Luster Purge, Marth

I have some votes already, everyone else, send them in. Kay, if you want to ItT someone on this mission if it passes, let me know via PM along with your vote. Proto, if you want to No Confidence this if it's approved, let me know via PM along with your vote.

[BBM]

If this goes through, I'd say use your card Kay. It's useless if the spies get 2 points, because then they can sabotage and it wouldnt matter that we'd know that they'd done it.

[Elieson]

At what point are votes required to be in? I'm just curious to when we will learn the status of the mission (so I can be sure to log in and see)

[Elieson]

If this goes through, I'd say use your card Kay. It's useless if the spies get 2 points, because then they can sabotage and it wouldnt matter that we'd know that they'd done it.

And how is this useless. If the spies win through a double sabotage, we learn 2 who are 100% not spies.

[BBM]

And how is this useless. If the spies win through a double sabotage, we learn 2 who are 100% not spies.

No, I didn't mean if the both the spies are on the team. I meant, if the next mission goes through, the spies will have 2/3 points they need to win. Then, on the mission after, it doesn't matter if we hit a spy with the In the Spotlight card, they'll still sabotage and we won't be able to do anything about it.

[Tables]

I believe the deadline I set was 24 hours from the mission being proposed. Deadlines for me are more prodlines, harderprodlines, and youregettingreplacedlines, so don't worry too much, especially as it's only been 7 hours so far.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Tableskitty

[Tables]

Round 3.1: Mission 3.

Team: BigBangMeteor, apocalypseArisen, Luster Purge, Marth,

Yes: Elieson, apocalypseArisen, Marth,

No: BigBangMeteor, Kay, Luster Purge,

Result: Yes - 3, No - 3

Proposal Fails

Leadership passes to Kay.

Kay: Please propose a mission to target and a team of 3 or 4 (as relevant) to go on that mission

[Elieson]

I'm just super anxious is all

[Elieson]

I'm thinking about it, and the more I think about it, the more I think I should've just voted "no" anyway. I'm not sure what to think of Marth yet, at this point. but as far as the voting goes, it leads me to some considerations, and I'm confident that it would've been a serious sabotage had it passed.

[BBM]

Like I said earlier, I want to see what people think of a mission with Kay and Marth in it. Marth got proposed, Kay did not, so I voted no. If the next mission proposal does not have Kay in it, I will most likely vote no again.

I can see why Marth might have voted yes for that mission; he's in it. I can see why Kay voted no, he didn't want Marth in the mission.

But I find it suspicious that Rein voted yes for the first mission proposal of Round 3 after all he said about getting information about voting trends. It can't be because he was in it, because he specifically said how me and Elieson were new, so it made sense for us to vote yes for a mission we were in. Seeing as he is not a new player, that clearly does not apply to him. Besides, he voted no the last time he was in on a mission.

I'm not entirely sure why Proto voted no, but I'm guessing it was to get more voting trends to analyze.

As for Elieson... I don't entirely buy his story of saying he should have really voted no... Why didn't you the first time?

[Elieson]

Like I said earlier, I want to see what people think of a mission with Kay and Marth in it. Marth got proposed, Kay did not, so I voted no. If the next mission proposal does not have Kay in it, I will most likely vote no again.

I can see why Marth might have voted yes for that mission; he's in it. I can see why Kay voted no, he didn't want Marth in the mission.

But I find it suspicious that Rein voted yes for the first mission proposal of Round 3 after all he said about getting information about voting trends. It can't be because he was in it, because he specifically said how me and Elieson were new, so it made sense for us to vote yes for a mission we were in. Seeing as he is not a new player, that clearly does not apply to him. Besides, he voted no the last time he was in on a mission.

I'm not entirely sure why Proto voted no, but I'm guessing it was to get more voting trends to analyze.

As for Elieson... I don't entirely buy his story of saying he should have really voted no... Why didn't you the first time?

As for me voting yes and wanting to vote no. I voted yes, but after I voted I thought more about it and thought maybe I should vote no. I don't know if I'm allowed to change votes, and after reading Proto's epicly long post, it made me really teeter on the edge. In the end, I think it was a 51-49 decision, and here's why.

It's a mix of two reasons, but you can ask Tables. I've sent PMs to Tables about various things, (rules and such really), and haven't heard back about them yet. I'm not 100% sure of what I can and can't do. And quite honestly, I feel like I'd be a huge PITA if I sent in a request to change my vote as well as all these questions I sent. And as I said above, the thing that worries me most is a single sabotage.

I really don't think we would've experienced that though, with the currently proposed team, so I thought "Hey, if we know for sure 2 people who aren't spies, then sure we may be in a deficit, but we have better odds of pursuing a 3-man mission with 2 people that we clearly know aren't spies.

If we jump into a 3-man mission, and experience a double sabotage, then we'd be set with 3 safe people to tackle the last missions with, but we still have no idea who set off the bomb in the mission, leaving us with 3 people to question and 3 safe people. This would be ideal, however...

It's strange, but I feel like we are better off with a single sabotage from a 3-man mission than a 4-man mission. Although I guess if we're stuck with a single sabotage in any situation, then we're all still left confused as to who is a spy that supported the mission.

If this didn't make sense, I'm sorry. I can try to re-word it, but I bolded my main reason.

**Edit** After I typed this out, I thought that maybe learning 3 safe people from a successful (or double-failed) 3-man mission might be a better goal to shoot for. It leaves us with a 1/3 chance of pulling the saboteur on the 2 remaining 4-man missions. If we find 2 safe people, then we have a 1/2 chance of succeeding because it leaves us guessing at 2 out of 4 people for a mission, or two missions (worse case scenario).

Gah, I dunno, I reeeeeealy just don't want to see a failure, but I interpreted Proto's post as in we learn more from a serious failure than a serious success, and I'm thinking maybe we should go by that. Especially since the last mission only gave us 1 clue; that at least one of the 3 in the mission sabotaged it, leaving 1 or 0 of the other 3 to be Resistance.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Elieson

[Tables]

Since I never did state them exactly (I mostly expected people to be familiar with standard mafia rules, and never updated the rules when this game had new players in it), consider these to be the rules on what you can say for this game:

You are allowed to say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't contradict any of the exceptions below.

Do not break any of Serenes Forest's rules that apply inside Far from the Forest (i.e. most of them except double posting).

Do not quote anything said to you in your role PM unless explicitly told you may (this may be e.g. in answer to a rules question). Do not screenshot your role PM or try to use the time your role PM was sent to make deductions (I said what time role PMs were sent in the first post anyway). Paraphasing things is fine.

Do not edit your posts, except within a few minutes of posting to correct typos. If you wish to change or clarify what you've already said, post again. (I'm not going to apply this retroactively to those who have edited your posts. Just don't do it from now on)

Do not talk in code or use cryptography to send messages

Do not send PMs to other players.

Do not intentionally lie about the rules or attempt to coerce other players into breaking the rules.

Other than that, use your common sense. Be dishonest in the context of the game if you're a spy, but be honest about and respect the rules.

(Also, changing votes is okay. Please don't edit out old PMs - they don't show as being edited and don't give a notification, so I'm VERY unlikely to notice - plus it's not like you have to lie to me anyway)

Edited May 18, 2012 by Tableskitty

[Bluedoom]

I know I've been silent, but that's mainly because I wanna see how Round 3 pans out. I'm kinda agreeing with Proto on the 4-man mission being first atm, but we'll see how this goes.