The Resistance V

[Blitz]

I thought I finally agreed to sign up through IRC

if you don't need players, I would prefer being an IO (cause I suck at this game)

[Elieson]

That's exactly what you said though. I don't wanna force anyone, except eclipse, to join.

[Elieson]

Shinori confirmed in via iRC.

We have 6 players. If I can get a response from all 6, I'll start the game.

Waiting on a response from:

Scorri

Shinori

SlayerX

Marth

Proto

Tables

[Zanarkin]

I'm still available to play.

I'd be the biggest liar if i said i wasn't lol

[Elieson]

Just making sure that everyone is actually here.

Still waiting on: Marth, Proto, Tables. When I get replies from them in either PM or in here publically, I'll send out RolePMs, and announce in here that the game will begin.

[Elieson]

OK GUYS!

GAME ON!

[/size]

Edited June 26, 2012 by Elieson

[Bluedoom]

Let the game begin.

[Elieson]

Random.org had selected Leadership order as:

Bluedoom

Shinori

Tableskitty

SlayerX

scorri

Luster Purge

Meaning Bluedoom, you are up for the first proposal. You may start with any mission from 1-4. Please bold your proposal submission.

You have approximatly 24 hrs, so please post your team by June 27, 0900 EST.

Also, you have drawn the card No Confidence. Please turn this card to another player when submitting your proposal.

[Bluedoom]

Alright, with that done.

I'm thinking of doing mission 2 or three- which one do you guys think is good?

Also my apologies, but I'd like perhaps an extension by an hour or two, because getting online is a little tougher on weekdays.

[Elieson]

That is fine. I won't be that stern with deadlines, especially if you ask.

[Zanarkin]

I think a three man mission is possibly the best for info. A 2 man mission will net us a free score though.

[Zanarkin]

Oi, nevermind, you mean between a 3 and 4 man mission (eli could we have the missions elsewhere? like near the sign up list or something?)

Yeah 3 man mission is possibly the best, will help us narrow things down in case of a sabotage, and will give us 3 readily resistance in case of a score.

[Elieson]

Slayer, the second post has the missions.

[scorri]

I'd agree with it either being a 3 or 4 person mission. I'd personally say a 3 person mission because I think that will give us the most information, but also give us a good shot at passing the mission.

[Bluedoom]

Slayer, that's only true if we have a double sabotage for the three man mission, which is VERY unlikely this early in the game.

I would probably think of the 4 man mission to broaden ur options but eh, it'd be hard for us to catch the spies then.

[scorri]

I'd be fine with a four person team as well. It really is up to you I think.

[Zanarkin]

Early game is possibly the toughest to get anywhere

[Tables]

Alright, time to start playing my first ever game of Forum Resistance ^_^

I think the best choice is a 3 man mission, although I'm kinda on the fence (I started typing an argument for 4 man, and realised halfway through it wasn't very good). In 3 man, assuming you're resistance, the chance of picking out at least one spy is 70% - pretty bad odds, but it does either give us good information (partitioning the spies into two groups) OR pass a 3 man mission for us. Picking out both spies is a 10% chance. From my point of view, these odds are actually 82% and 6% respectively, as you have a 40% chance of being a spy.

We MUST however be extremely vigilant for anything that looks like a signal - if the spies can let each other know who should sabotage if both are on the mission, we're in trouble. If we pick it out, then we can nail a spy right there and get an idea about their partner.

Regarding this plot card... it's annoying for it to come out this early. It means we only have 4 proposals to work with, not 5, as if a spy receives this, he can null the last mission automatically. So considering that, we MUST accept Slayer's proposal at the latest for mission 1.

Regarding who to put on the mission, I think it best to avoid putting people directly after you on, at least at this point. There's very little benefit if they're resistance, and if they're spies they can sabotage, get a plot card, and start the next mission off. This only applies during mission 1, of course, when information is scarce.

[Kriemhild]

Everybody seems to be interested in 3-man or 4-man... I'm gonna be the odd one out and vote for a 2-man team.

The reason is simple. A 2-man team works best when it's done at the very beginning. Okay, if you send in two Resistance members, it'll be a success regardless of when the mission is executed. But what if you send in a Spy as well? Unlike a 3-man mission, the Spy has an incentive to cooperate, because the confirmation that one of two specific people is a Spy (while the Resistance suspect is 100% of one Spy's identity) is the best piece of info that you can acquire from any single mission alone. If the Spy chooses to cooperate, it's a free point for Resistance. If the Spy sabotages, we can learn quite a lot from it!

On the other hand, if you save the 2-man mission for later, the Spy has less incentive to cooperate. If the Spies already sabotaged one mission when the 2-man team is sent, they can be more confident about sabotaging it, since the info gained from it will not provide conclusive evidence of the sabotaging Spy's guilt, and we won't learn anything about the other Spy (unless we send both Spies and they BOTH sabotage for insta-loss, but lets not be super-optimistic), so the Spies still have a good chance of sabotaging a third time and winning. And, of course, if the 2-man team is sent AFTER two missions were sabotaged, the Spies have absolutely NO incentive to cooperate.

The logic that the 2-mission team should be saved until we have two cleared Townies doesn't work because it's not easy to 100% confirm a Resistance member, let alone two. Besides, starting with a 2-man mission already has a good chance of turning into a free point, not only from the chances of having no Spy, but also because a Spy may choose to cooperate anyways to avoid suspicion. I say we should go with the 2-man mission first.

Also, don't expect me to be the guy who writes giant walls of text containing objective analyses of the votes and missions anymore. Now that I eat tables is playing, he'll most likely beat me to it (and would handle it much better too!) since my internet connection is extremely horrible over here.

[Kriemhild]

And here I was hoping I could post a wall of text before I eat tables does, but noooooo, he apparently spent his last three non-Mafia years training to be a Master Ninja...

[Bluedoom]

I dunno Proto, I'd rather we go with a 3 man mission over a 2 man mission. We get more info from the 3 man over the two man mission, which is basically a guaranteed success anyway(like, In the Spotlight card can be used later to guarantee success anyway if we have at least ONE confirmed resistance, or even better, a double sabotage in the 4 man mission confirms two resistance members)

[Kriemhild]

How the heck is a 3-man mission a guaranteed success? A 2-man mission has a much higher chance of being successful and I'd rather have a free point than info (it's not like we can't use 3-man missions for info after we're done with the 2-man mission). And if we don't get a free point from the 2-man mission, then I'd say the info we gain from it is better than the info we'd gain from a 3-man mission. Unless it's a double sabotage or something, but again, don't base your judgments on very optimistic scenarios.

[Bluedoom]

I was actually referring to the two man mission for the success part, sorry if I didn't phrase it well.

[scorri]

Ooh, this is a good point. The Resistance DEFINITELY wants to save the 2 man mission for later, and at least one of the 3 man missions too, really. It takes some experience to get the hang of it, but Resistance should definitely be starting with a 3 or 4 man mission, while information is low and even a 2 man is likely to fail anyway. Later on, when the Resistance have a little more info on who to trust, they can take the 2 and 3 man missions. Of course, the Resistance needs to be careful, since sure you might get information by doing a 4 and 3 first, but then being 2-0 down is probably not worth it...

So, I was paying a decent amount of attention to the last Resistance game, and this is one of the things I picked up on. Proto: I can see your point, but I think that starting off with a 3 man mission, and then if it fails, moving on to a two man mission with two people who were not involved in the 3 man mission can give us probably the most information. Or something along those lines.

[Kriemhild]

So, I was paying a decent amount of attention to the last Resistance game, and this is one of the things I picked up on. Proto: I can see your point, but I think that starting off with a 3 man mission, and then if it fails, moving on to a two man mission with two people who were not involved in the 3 man mission can give us probably the most information. Or something along those lines.

Hmmm, I haven't seen that post before, but I'm not really convinced. Failing a 3, and then failing a 2, means the Spies lead 2-0, which means the only way the Resistance can win is if they win three more consecutive missions without failing again. Since they have a remaining 4-man mission, and can't use the 3-man mission for info, they must immediately figure out EXACTLY who the two Spies are, and that the Resistance members are ALL convinced about it (since the Spies will try to promote other theories) solely from the info from the two failed missions. Which will only confirm ONE Spy while the other Spy is one of three.

If the 2 succeeds, that's great, but again, you can't guarantee that a successful 2 means that there were no Spies in it. Spies will likely have safer opportunities to sabotage 3+ man missions later anyways and they can easily cooperate to avoid suspicion.

If the first 3 succeeds, that's probably the best situation, but the odds of that aren't very high and we have no previous mission results to go with.