-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Team of marty99, tamius23, Xarkan, and citizen1oo1 is APPROVED 5-2
approve: marty99, jpr123, Xarkan, tamius23, citizen1oo1
reject: Cymsdale, Falc
Mission phase begins. marty99, tamius23, Xarkan, and citizen1oo1 can send SUPPORT or SABOTAGE orders when ready.
Just seems like there was no reason to deviate from a team of JPR, Citizen, Xarkan and Marty... If we reject this team though we have very little chance of a resistance member getting the next rounds cards. Then again there's only 1 useful card (last overheard conversation) that would be any help...
Edit - took too long writing this clearly
Edit - took too long writing this clearly
As was mentioned before in one of the previous rounds, I will permit playing No Confidence simultaneous with/during the mission phase. If played, the team will be considered one of the rejected teams for the round, and it will be treated as if the mission never occurred.
Mission 4 FAILS with 2 sabotages
Spies win with 3 FAILED missions out of 4.
SPY VICTORY
But who are they? I will reveal that tomorrow. In the mean time, we'll let players and spectators go ahead and guess. Perhaps some would like to speculate or see if their guesses were correct, and we'll hold off a little on spoiling the surprise.
(Spies, if you would be so kind as to hold off and wait until tomorrow for public gloating and the like. But Spies are now at liberty to talk to one another by PM)
Spies win with 3 FAILED missions out of 4.
SPY VICTORY
But who are they? I will reveal that tomorrow. In the mean time, we'll let players and spectators go ahead and guess. Perhaps some would like to speculate or see if their guesses were correct, and we'll hold off a little on spoiling the surprise.
(Spies, if you would be so kind as to hold off and wait until tomorrow for public gloating and the like.
But Spies are now at liberty to talk to one another by PM) 
Consider me on standby
edit: Never mind that
edit2: To be entirely fair, it *is* possible for two spies to support the mission just so they can mess with the resistance for a bit longer
Don't forget that this is intended as a real-life game where people see each other face-to-face. Lying is quite a bit harder (for most people ..) in those circumstances, so the "demanding of the resistance" bit isn't a bad thing.
Not sure how well it balances on a forum, though.
Eh, I'm not really sure how resistance could win this at all, but meh.
It was fun watching you, I'd like to join in for the next game.
It was fun watching you, I'd like to join in for the next game.
Didn't know we had more spectators apart from randakar.
Also, the time for colored text has passed. But feel free to continue if it pleases you!
Also, the time for colored text has passed. But feel free to continue if it pleases you!
Nah, thanks, I like the colour.
Also, my guess is: marty is a spy, of course, while Xarkan isn't(nice use of scanning card, btw). Another spy then would be Cymsdale, obviously. It's harder to choose between citizen and tamius, but I'd go with citizen for obvious(not so) reasons.
Also, my guess is: marty is a spy, of course, while Xarkan isn't(nice use of scanning card, btw). Another spy then would be Cymsdale, obviously. It's harder to choose between citizen and tamius, but I'd go with citizen for obvious(not so) reasons.
randakar said:
I think the easier bluffing from the spies is counteracted by the photographic memory given to resistance. In a live game you won't have a written transcript.
This is very true. It doesn't actually seem to have offset the balance much, though.
Then again, The Resistance is known to be difficult on "The Resistance" ;-)
My personal biggest spy suspect (from day 1, no less) is actually Citizen.
Last edited:
Oh look big surprise there.
Will the culprits please step forward so that I can properly chastise the other Resistance players for stuffing their heads in the sand?
First claiming that no spy in his right mind would sabotage the first mission, then *after* that mission passed (with him on it) conveniently neglecting to mention it again. Ever.
Nor did anyone else, mind. But still. And there's been other hints, the last of which was his eagerness to have the GM declare game over.
As an unrelated note, one thing that amazed me for a long time in this game is how various people were assuming spies weren't going to propose teams with more than 1 spy on it while doing that is *exceedingly easy*, *entirely risk-free* and *talked about at length* in previous games.
Guys, proposing a two-spy team as a spy is really not that hard. *especially* at the start of the game.
Just yourself and one other spy, you make sure you support the mission, and the other spy can do whatever the hell he likes. Either outcome would suit you just fine.
Last edited:
I have warmed up to the possibility, as proven by the fact that I stopped excluding teams based on it and simply ranked them lower. In round 1, at least. If round 1 goes to the Resistance, then the Spies know they'll either need all three upcoming missions with one sabotage, or they'll need the 4th mission with two sabotages. Pressure's already on to win round 2 without compromising your chances for the upcoming rounds.
One thing that's been quite obvious to me and should have been to more people: the Resistance needs information. As much as possible. And from the very start, Marty did his best to make sure we didn't. His stunt with his Strong Leader, completely bypassing me, made it totally impossible for anyone to judge me based on my actions and no Resistance player should have allowed that to stand.
..you don't entirely get it. I don't think you should take it into account as a factor -at all-. Seriously. Some people will *prefer* two-spy mission teams. And you can't really tell in advance which is which.
Also, I call bull on the notion of trying to use statistics to find the spies. I've tried it before, but I feel it distracts you too much from the interplay between people within the game itself and therefore harms you more than it helps.
Using logic to exclude teams as possibilities is fine, but using statistics? That's just *asking* for getting deceived.
Bull.
Their priority is to get people to trust them. Having two spies on the supposedly critical round two and having both *support the mission*?
That's the kind of in-game event that the spy team can ride all the way to victory. Really.
Hmm, you may have a point in that. Denying / getting the resistance information is where the game is at.
Strategies evolve, though. Who knows, maybe next game we won't have a spy win.
Totally agreed on all three points. If you make assumptions about spy play in the open you are practically begging spy's to use those assumptions to their advantage.Also, I call bull on the notion of trying to use statistics to find the spies. I've tried it before, but I feel it distracts you too much from the interplay between people within the game itself and therefore harms you more than it helps.
Using logic to exclude teams as possibilities is fine, but using statistics? That's just *asking* for getting deceived.
Bull.
Their priority is to get people to trust them. Having two spies on the supposedly critical round two and having both *support the mission*?
That's the kind of in-game event that the spy team can ride all the way to victory. Really.
Hmm, you may have a point in that. Denying / getting the resistance information is where the game is at.
Strategies evolve, though. Who knows, maybe next game we won't have a spy win.
And yes, there were just what, three games played? I wonder how was the third game of mafia in the world played and how funny would their strategies seem to contemporary ww players.
We'll see as we continue playing, won't we?
I remain convinced that from a purely logical point of view, sending one Spy is the approach with the least amount of risks.
I think that such a situation could only come about if the rest of the players allow it to, in which case, shame on them and they deserve their loss.
If you send near-identical teams on missions 1, 2 and 3 without many other proposals, then yeah, you end up starting round 4 without enough information if suddenly one of them turnded out to be a spy.
Good resistance play requires gathering as much possible information about everyone in the game as quickly as possible.
Without information, logic and statistics don't work anyway :happy: