The Resistance V

[Tables]

Shinori - remember to leave a standing order with your vote to use ITS on someone, on every vote this round. Who you choose is irrelevant if we go for the two person mission, of course.

[Elieson]

I will edit accordingly in the a.m.

Also, please submit your votes for Tableskitty's:

Proposal 2.1:

Mission 1

Bluedoom, Tableskitty

Edited June 29, 2012 by Elieson

[Elieson]

All posts, including both OPs, editted with up to date information. Also, Rein has been added as an Informed Observer, but has not been added to your Role PMs.

Please carry on.

[Zanarkin]

I'm not entirely sure why but I have this massive gut feeling that scum team is Proto/Tables. Something really doesn't sit right with me between the two. I should stop being lazy and read it up. I will have to do that, however that being said IET is next lead so he could technically pick something that is helpful for them being scum team, while looking town.

What a coincidence, because thats the reason i voted no. They seem to be the opposite of each other, but i feel at the sametime that they know being the opposite at all times seems odd (eventhough at all times here seems rather exaggerated because they have agreed on a few things). Also, Proto's support of having him and IET in different missions seems odd as well. In other news, i'm feeling relatively positive about Scorri, being rather popular among team selections, but this doesn't really say much (I just get good vibes from him). I would rather have scorri in the 2 man mission along with myself.

[scorri]

While I wouldn't mind being on the mission since I would then know that at least one of the members was for sure Resistance, I'm not going to insist on it here since I had said that one of the groups I'd support would be two people that hadn't been on a mission yet. If this mission fails, I still think we should stick with a two man mission, but I'd be up for changing around who's in it.

[Zanarkin]

While I wouldn't mind being on the mission since I would then know that at least one of the members was for sure Resistance, I'm not going to insist on it here since I had said that one of the groups I'd support would be two people that hadn't been on a mission yet. If this mission fails, I still think we should stick with a two man mission, but I'd be up for changing around who's in it.

Its possibly not the best course of action too... I feel in a pickle, because it feels anyway we go we get a 0-2... Unless we use the spotlight correctly... Which is not easy at all and we might have a team of 2 resistance, but in the spotlight would not give us that opportunity to know that... Assuming that if the spy that gets spotlight, doesn't sabotage.

[scorri]

Right, so if Shinori doesn't use ITS, he's going to have some explaining to do. Besides that, with a two man mission, if it's sab'd and the person who had ITS played on them isn't the person that sab'd it, then we know it was the other. Yes, if we pass the mission, we don't really learn anything, but we make some progress. It will let us figure some things out and move on from there. And it will mean that we're tied with the spies, which is nice.

[Tables]

I feel the best thing to do here is to choose mission one with of any two of {Tables, Slayer, Bluedoom} and ITS it. If that's sabotaged, we GUARANTEE two cleared townies and one spy, which, while being at 0-2 is bad, gives us enough information to have a fighting chance. If we went with two people from the first mission, we might well learn that there's at least one spy on the mission... but we can't guarantee the other two are townies. It's very likely (like, I'd put both at a 90%+ chance just from the mission results alone), but not guaranteed.

[Zanarkin]

I feel the best thing to do here is to choose mission one with of any two of {Tables, Slayer, Bluedoom} and ITS it. If that's sabotaged, we GUARANTEE two cleared townies and one spy, which, while being at 0-2 is bad, gives us enough information to have a fighting chance. If we went with two people from the first mission, we might well learn that there's at least one spy on the mission... but we can't guarantee the other two are townies. It's very likely (like, I'd put both at a 90%+ chance just from the mission results alone), but not guaranteed.

Yes but if the spy sabotages under ITS it would take a lot of freaking luck for town to win as well. The next mission we might do all right, but then we have 2 4-man missions. With 3 people and 1 spy its still going to take some slip up, or some damn good link between the known spy and the other one.

[Shinori]

Well as I stated i would decline any missions currently with Tables or proto on them. However if the mission passes I will still use the ITS card as needed.

[Shinori]

That's the whole point if spies sab it then we are at a 0-2 scenario and spies only need one more point and it's gg. Therefore I'm being careful of who I trust at the moment.

[Zanarkin]

That's the whole point if spies sab it then we are at a 0-2 scenario and spies only need one more point and it's gg. Therefore I'm being careful of who I trust at the moment.

I was kind of arguing against tables point saying something against why we should just ITS and hope that spy sabotages. It would still be too easy for the spies to win.

[Kriemhild]

Ok, I'm back, and I see our first mission failed. Info gained- One of Shinori, Proto and Scorri is a spy. Or well, there could be two of them in that mission as well.

I dunno which is more important now, but for info sake I'm leaning on the four man mission- with two from the last mission and two new players into the proposal. I'd want to be in the proposal, but eh.

If we want to tie the scores, we kinda can right now. I think its very unlikely the spies are going to sabotage the two man mission since they'd be giving away their identity this early, so yeah.

Seriously? How the heck could the four man mission be of any help right now? There is a ridiculously high chance that the 4-man mission gets sabotaged and even if it does, we don't learn much from it unless we ITS the Spy. If we ITS a Resistance, we only end up clearing one Resistance member while the Spy remains one of three people. Of course, combined with info from the previous mission, we might figure some more stuff out, but there's no way it can provide more info than the 2-man mission, which clears 2 Resistance and confirms a Spy if it fails, and has a much higher chance of succeeding (since there's a possibility of the Spy not being chosen)

It is also very likely for Spies to sabotage the two man mission. This may be early, but if they sabotage, they get their second point. They expose one Spy, but the other Spy remains hidden in a group of three. Once the Spies get two points, we can't afford to fail any more missions. And we MUST figure out who the final Spy is, because two of the remaining missions involve a 4-man group, which has to include everyone except the Spies.

Seriously, guys, I'm finding Blues to be really scummy from just this post alone...

[Tables]

I was kind of arguing against tables point saying something against why we should just ITS and hope that spy sabotages. It would still be too easy for the spies to win.

Seriously? When did I EVER say anything like that? I seem to distinctly recall saying passing the mission was the better outcome. In fact, I think I might have said it twice. Where are you getting that I want a sabotage from?

Yes but if the spy sabotages under ITS it would take a lot of freaking luck for town to win as well. The next mission we might do all right, but then we have 2 4-man missions. With 3 people and 1 spy its still going to take some slip up, or some damn good link between the known spy and the other one.

We'd narrow the game down to what's similar to a 2v1 situation in Mafia, except there would also be TWO confirmed Resistance helping analyse everything going on, plus plot cards. It's not the best situation to be in, but it's really NOT that bad. At worst having a 2v1 is a 1/3 chance of winning. Plot cards and scumhunting, especially with confirmed resistance, and we're definitely still heading towards 50%. Considering our first mission was sabotaged, that's not terrible odds to salvage from the WORST case scenario.

Seriously? How the heck could the four man mission be of any help right now? There is a ridiculously high chance that the 4-man mission gets sabotaged and even if it does, we don't learn much from it unless we ITS the Spy. If we ITS a Resistance, we only end up clearing one Resistance member while the Spy remains one of three people. Of course, combined with info from the previous mission, we might figure some more stuff out, but there's no way it can provide more info than the 2-man mission, which clears 2 Resistance and confirms a Spy if it fails, and has a much higher chance of succeeding (since there's a possibility of the Spy not being chosen)

It is also very likely for Spies to sabotage the two man mission. This may be early, but if they sabotage, they get their second point. They expose one Spy, but the other Spy remains hidden in a group of three. Once the Spies get two points, we can't afford to fail any more missions. And we MUST figure out who the final Spy is, because two of the remaining missions involve a 4-man group, which has to include everyone except the Spies.

Seriously, guys, I'm finding Blues to be really scummy from just this post alone...

I would agree with you, except for two things: 1) Blue is a beginner at Resistance, and wasn't considered all that helpful during Mafia IV (no offence to him), as Resistance. Considering that, I'm willing to cut him a LOT more slack, especially in the suggestions department, than I would, for example, you, whose experienced and good at mafia in general. 2) While I definitely disagree with his reasoning, it seems resistance sided. He wants to get information, and keep an easier mission for later. Both good things, even if he's overlooked a fair number of problems. I'm certainly not certain Blue is Resistance, but I'm more confident in him than I am in Slayer.

You, however... making a wall of text at a newer player (i.e. an easier target) for making a suggestion - albeit a bad one, and finding him scummy just from that post... Hmm. I fear my very first read of the game may have been incorrect at this point.

[Kriemhild]

Most of the wall of text was involved with explaining why a 4-man mission would be a bad idea, since we can only guarantee its success when we figure out the identities of both Spies. Stuff that other players should also know.

Newbie, or not, I still think Blues looks worse than Slayer. Actually, I don't see what makes Slayer scummy at all, I seem to be getting a very neutral read on him so far.

Kinda unrelated: I realized that the Resistance game I enjoyed the most was the second one, where there were a lot of players (and four Spies?), because of there being a large amount of proposals and votals for me to compile and analyze. I very much prefer working with objective data rather than trying to get a read on players from their posts. Is there any chance of us having more bigger Resistance games?

[Elieson]

Round Prop [2.1]: Mission [1] by [Tableskitty]

Team: Bluedoom, Tableskitty

Yes: Bluedoom, scorri, Tableskitty

No: SlayerX, Shinori, Luster Purge

Result: Yes - 3, No - 3

Proposal [Fails]

Leadership passes to SlayerX

Edited June 30, 2012 by Elieson

[Tables]

I don't have much of a read on either Blue or Slayer. But I can say with 90% certainty that (exactly) one of them is a spy. Bluedoom as spy giving a plot card to a non-spy feels slightly unexpected, and nothing Blue's said makes me suspicious of him, while what Slayer recently said... does.

I also like having votes to analyse, but there's two sides to this game. Votes can be analysed, and that's useful. Posts can also be analysed, so why throw away half of our potential arsenal?

Slayer, and Proto... I want to know why each of you declined this mission. I have a pretty strong guess for you both, but I'd like you to actually state it explicitly. I voted yes because I think it's the best chance of success, and obviously because I proposed it.

[Zanarkin]

I feel the best thing to do here is to choose mission one with of any two of {Tables, Slayer, Bluedoom} and ITS it. If that's sabotaged, we GUARANTEE two cleared townies and one spy, which, while being at 0-2 is bad, gives us enough information to have a fighting chance.

Seriously? When did I EVER say anything like that? I seem to distinctly recall saying passing the mission was the better outcome. In fact, I think I might have said it twice. Where are you getting that I want a sabotage from?

Sorry, I probably misunderstood the meaning of the above sentence at the time.

Also, it seems like I am the leader, and I'm leaning to wards a team of me and tables (using ITS on him FMPOV of course). Or, me and Blue. I'm not particularly sure on IET, i have been getting some weirf vibes from him. I'm not particularly sure on Blue either though. Crap.

[Zanarkin]

Also, tables i voted no, because without me in it, it means that there is a spy in it. Plus, i don't particularly trust you (in fact i trust you a bit less than i trust Blue and no this isn't OMGUS eventhough it looks like it). Yes we could have ITS and all that, but i'd rather have the best chances to make a 1-1 score happen rather than a 0-2.

[Elieson]

And Proto, I tried running an 8 player resistance game. I converted it to this one of 6 players because two weeks and crap signups were discouraging the gane from even being large enough to play period. Convince a few others to join, and i'll gladly host any size (up to 10).

[Kriemhild]

I find Blues scummier than Slayer. Yes, that means I would have voted No to every set-up except I eat tables+Slayer. In any case, what I want right now are opinions from every single player on which players they want to send on the mission. This is something we should do after every mission is executed, if not after every proposal. Votes should not be the only way for players to express their opinions. The team that I want right now is I eat tables+Slayer and I'm not gonna vote Yes to anything else unless I have an idea of what team everyone else wants. If we just rush through like this, and this mission gets sabotaged, then we're not gonna have enough info to handle the scary 4-man missions (unless you want to just pick at random with a 33% chance of uncovering the second Spy). You guys should talk more about which players you want in or out.

[Kriemhild]

I don't have much of a read on either Blue or Slayer. But I can say with 90% certainty that (exactly) one of them is a spy. Bluedoom as spy giving a plot card to a non-spy feels slightly unexpected, and nothing Blue's said makes me suspicious of him, while what Slayer recently said... does.

Blues giving No Confidence to Resistance, well, yeah, I suppose that's a good point, but I still don't see how Slayer is scummy. Could you point to any specific post(s)?

[Zanarkin]

Honestly, i'd prefer a team of me and blue.

[Shinori]

Honestly, i'd prefer a team of me and blue.

This is actually what I want.

[Tables]

The posts of Slayer's I feel were scummy are the ones I quoted above.

I'd like to know what Shinori and Slayer are finding suspicious about me. I can't defend myself from 'just suspicious' after all (and those who've played with me before know I like to address most attacks at me)