If that's what helps you sleep at night.
Well it means our assumptions were right at the time - he didn't try to propose a 2 spy team. If the spies hadn't been changed, we might well have worked out the team.
And yes it does help me sleep at night
-
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.
Well it means our assumptions were right at the time - he didn't try to propose a 2 spy team. If the spies hadn't been changed, we might well have worked out the team.
And yes it does help me sleep at night
That's why I gave Xarkan the card. He done brilliantly in knowing exactly what I wanted him to do, and he pulled it off beautifully.
I never even wanted to imply you were trying to frame me. Just saying your assumption was wrong. Which it was. And I didn't refuse to put him, I simply said I wouldn't follow your advice to the letter and swap out Xarkan for me. And no, it wasn't impossible; it was impossible according to your analysis, which was flawed anyway. I had innocent reasons not to fully trust you.
That was the biggest worry of yesterday, when you said that if I wanted to swap in, I should do it for Xarkan. Now, I wasn't going to let that happen. However, I couldn't simply ignore you, so I had to come up with reasons not to fully trust you, and I think they made some sort of sense, although they were pretty damn speculative.
In fact, the only team I was ever going to propose was the one I did. I took a gamble that everyone's analysis would roughly average around the team, and fortunately it did, although for tamius I did have to wrangle it a bit.
From day 1 my plan was the complete character assassination of Falc. I went after him so strongly I actually convinced myself he was a spy at times. While he did have several good points, I honestly think I would have assumed he was a spy in your position. A lot of his analysis seemed very shaky, resting on one unproven axiom on top of another.
Very much so. And it goes to show that the resistance can't make assumptions like 'Xarkan wouldn't propose a two-spy team' even if he didn't actually intend to...he still did. And it completely wrong-footed the resistance. And from now on spies will know to try that occasionally. So for future, can we not make that assumption ever again.
Also, your suggested proposal of you, Falc and jpr on the last day was brilliantly judged. We'll never know if it was necessary, but I think it convinced the resistance that this proposal needed to pass.
Another thing: although I think all 3 of us played well, if I may flatter myself, we all had more or less opposite playstyles. I would never have done what Cymsdale did with his proposal that didn't include himself, nor would I have proposed the all-spy team like Xarkan did, but they both worked. Likewise, I don't think Cymsdale or Xarkan would have played that last day in the manner I did, but it did get the job done.
Point being, that the assumption that all spy players will play exactly the same, or else make a massive, revealing error. We all played very differently but we were all successful.
It also shows how meaningless it is to talk about optimum strategies, even short-term. It is so impossible to predict different players reactions, proposals, future plot card distributions, the competence of the spies and resistance, that while a perfect strategy in any situation may exist, it is effectively impossible to know for certain what it is. Different spies can make totally different plays in the same situation, and they can all be successful.
@jpr123: The resistance lost because, in my view, it's analytical models were fundamentally incorrect. You didn't have to believe Xarkan and Cymsdale couldn't both be spies, and I actually warned you this was a dangerous thing to assume. But y'all went ahead and did it. The game went the way it did because of player actions, and nothing else.
In short, this game is not so easily simplified as you would all like to believe. And assume nothing as certain.
If you're going to say that to try and make you correct, then that leaves you with an unstated assumption as well:Well it means our assumptions were right at the time - he didn't try to propose a 2 spy team. If the spies hadn't been changed, we might well have worked out the team.
And yes it does help me sleep at night
Which was incorrect.
Either way, there was at least one wrong assumption there
Xarkan thought he was resistance when he proposed the team and I decided that proposal was something a resistance member would do (since I was sure Cyms was a spy). It threw us off the whole game. Of course a spy could propose a 2 spy team, but I figured since this was most peoples first game he wouldn't take such a risk and play it more safe.
I'm not saying that it spoiled the game but it certainly didn't help the resistance...
I'm not saying that it spoiled the game but it certainly didn't help the resistance...
It was a fortuitous error on Xarkan's part. Again, I'd stress that roles were reassigned and re-sent before the start of the game was declared and Xarkan did his leader duties. Even if he had done it on purpose knowing his correct role, the effect would have been the same.
Xarkan wouldn't have made that team if he knew he was a spy.
But the only reason the resistance let it help the spies was by assuming no spy would have done that.
If you hadn't made the assumption that he wouldn't have done it, then it would have remained the poor decision it initially seemed, as it decreased our chances of getting the first mission sabotaged - because Cymsdale and Xarkan had already been proposed, when it was Cymsdale's turn he probably felt compelled to propose a team containing neither of them, as his main focus is always maximising information. And because of that, the first mission team succeeded. The spies were down a mission and we had two resistance members partially cleared. That might have happened anyway, but imho the first proposal made that outcome more likely. At this point, Xarkan's proposal damaged the spies chances. At this point I seriously thought we were going to lose.
It was only whenever the resistance decided to eliminate a team containing both Xarkan and Cymsdale that it helped us. The resistance had no reason to do this and it backfired. It's fine to suspect that Xarkan probably wouldn't do such a thing, but the resistance went ahead and built their entire game view on this assumption and it backfired massively, which was negligent in my view, even as a spy.
Spies doing stuff no one would expect usually favours the resistance, unless the resistance makes the assumption that the spy would never have done such a thing, in which case it massively wrong-foots the resistance.
And I'm not saying this from hindsight, I warned you all about this repeatedly during the game and was dismissed out of hand like I was offering homeopathy to a cancer patient.
No, the resistance wasn't unlucky. That proposal fooling you rests entirely on your collective shoulders, I'm afraid. If you had simply kept the possibility of Cymsdale and Xarkan being a team, you could easily have won. Instead, you gave us the rope with which to hang you. (At least capitalists make a few quid when they do it.)
If anything, that's my take home lesson from this game. Don't ever take anything for certain based on how you believe the spies would act.
Remember the proposed team of jpr123, Falc, and citizen1oo1 (round 3)? I thought that the rejection of that team was an indication that the Spies were more likely to win this one.
OK you try deciding who the spies are without making any assumptions.
We simply don't have enough information to do that... We had to make some assumptions and I only decided in mission 4 that we should assume Xarkan is clear as he was less suspicious than others. You don't see any problem in us correctly figuring out he was acting like a resistance member, when he also thought he was a resistance member at the time? We were punished for correctly working out his motives. I'm sorry but of course that hurts the resistance...
Anyway well played! When is someone hosting another game?
We simply don't have enough information to do that... We had to make some assumptions and I only decided in mission 4 that we should assume Xarkan is clear as he was less suspicious than others. You don't see any problem in us correctly figuring out he was acting like a resistance member, when he also thought he was a resistance member at the time? We were punished for correctly working out his motives. I'm sorry but of course that hurts the resistance...
Anyway well played! When is someone hosting another game?
Last edited:
Before anyone hosts another, it might be helpful to clarify all the rules and such going into it. Voting methods, how the cards are handled, and so on.
OK you try deciding who the spies are without making any assumptions.
We simply don't have enough information to do that... We had to make some assumptions and I only decided in mission 4 that we should assume Xarkan is clear as he was less suspicious than others. You don't see any problem in us correctly figuring out he was acting like a resistance member, when he also thought he was a resistance member at the time? We were punished for correctly working out his motives. I'm sorry but of course that hurts the resistance...
Anyway well played! When is someone hosting another game?
As a lurker in this thread, I'd just like to point out that nothing stops a spy from deliberately ignoring his role and playing like a resistance member. What hurt the resistance wasn't that he made a sub-optimal choice for a spy, but that the spies didn't end up being punished for that choice.
Of course not. The best spies act exactly like resistance members. But as I said I didn't think Xarkan would be the kind to take a risk so early, so I cleared him for it.
I agree with jpr, I can see no way the resistance can find out all the spies by round 5 with precision and without any arbitrary assumptions. Which means it all turns into a game of luck, bluff and nerves, not of pure logic.
The choice that brought ultimate victory is optimal enough. I would take "sub-optimal" choice with victory over "optimal" predictable choice leading to defeat any day, thank you.
Because a) that means spies will always sabotage if there are any spies in the mission (so successful teams will instantly get cleared of spy status), and b) that card that allows someone to look at one person's mission support order will be a lot easier to target ;-)
That one bears repeating.
Unless you can get mathematical certainty on it you should never take anything for granted.
It's true in werewolf, and it's true here.
One thing though, Marty. To be entirely fair to the resistance here - at some point a resistance player will have to choose who to trust, if only because they want to get a mission proposal passed somewhere.
Obviously they eliminated the wrong team, but you do have to make choices somehow, and between your absolutely stellar job at manipulating the village, Xarkan's two moves-the-resistance-didn't-see-coming, and Cymsdale the pretty-damn-good player (even though I felt he was a tad obvious given how quiet he became after you started talking and the suspicion levels rose - did I mention that if anything, *that* should have been a warning sign? Cymsdale the Resistance Member wouldn't have let you get away with doing all the talking.. and if he was a spy, and you weren't, he probably wouldn't have done that *either*. But I digress.) this village had an uphill battle in front of it, to say the least ;-)
I'd even host another (Falc did the first two), but I'm not sure if I will have time.
The Spies did get lucky with getting to pass most of the cards.
I'm surprised no one played the No Confidence cards. And the Keeping an Eye card wasn't played during mission 4, which was the last one in which it would have made a difference.
The Spies did get lucky with getting to pass most of the cards.
I'm surprised no one played the No Confidence cards. And the Keeping an Eye card wasn't played during mission 4, which was the last one in which it would have made a difference.
This game is really fun, I hope it picks up more traction.
As Cliges said, he sent the corrected roles well before I sent my proposal, it was my fault for not checking my PMs and the whole thread first. As for if I would have proposed a full-spy team otherwise, I'm not quite sure, I was in the 'I am a resistance' mindset when I sent it, I hadn't even considered what I would do as a spy yet.
And marty, was your 'I hope Xarkan tells me that Cymsdale is a spy' an intentional subtle clue? That is what made me decide to use it on Cyms.
As Cliges said, he sent the corrected roles well before I sent my proposal, it was my fault for not checking my PMs and the whole thread first. As for if I would have proposed a full-spy team otherwise, I'm not quite sure, I was in the 'I am a resistance' mindset when I sent it, I hadn't even considered what I would do as a spy yet.
And marty, was your 'I hope Xarkan tells me that Cymsdale is a spy' an intentional subtle clue? That is what made me decide to use it on Cyms.
I could, I think, run another Resistance game to start in a few days if there is sufficient interest, which I suspect there would be, and no one else wants to GM, which is to be seen, but I would guess most people would rather play than host.
With the help of Falc and Randakar, I now understand, not that they were unclear, really, but there were a few points of which I was unsure or had forgotten from the previous games. (That's mostly the more precise handling of some of the card effects.)
For right now, I think public voting is probably better for several reasons. Convenience for players is one of them. I'm not sure if optional private voting ought to be continued or not. If not, the Opinion Maker card perhaps could be replaced with something else. While it would be easy just to go without it, when there are enough players for it to be added to the deck (7 or more) it might be a bit of a balance issue to 15 card when there are supposed to be 17. It would raise the likelihood of drawing other cards, including ones I consider more revealing/powerful, e.g. Keeping a Close Eye on You .
I'd also consider not posting the results of a mission for at least 5ish hours after the mission phase starts regardless of the when and how the voting went.
I'm also in favor of allowing a player holding a No Confidence card to play it at anytime in a team building phase, even before all votes are in or the leader has proposed a team. However, the leader at the time of it being played would still get to pass the cards, if there are any. IOW, its effect is only upon the team proposal and building phase.
Otherwise, I feel it's mostly smooth sailing with the exception of a possible to schedule of some sort. That is, how long can a leader wait until proposing his team, and how long ought a vote stay open. While I more or less was ok with the practice of declaring a vote that was already mathematically decided over after having gone on after a certain amount of time, I have to say that I fear some might try to use this to a strategic advantage as it means not having to take a public stand on a proposal. It is potentially a greater problem if several do so at one time, meaning a given vote might have several no-shows.
I won't even bother with a RP setting for this, because it's so far in the background of the game so as to be barely noticeable (in distinction to werewolf). Indeed, I gave up on it almost as soon as this game started.
Any thoughts, questions, concerns, etc, about any of this?
So, unless there is someone else who wants to step in, I'll have game 4 up tomorrow (April 19) or the next day.
With the help of Falc and Randakar, I now understand, not that they were unclear, really, but there were a few points of which I was unsure or had forgotten from the previous games. (That's mostly the more precise handling of some of the card effects.)
For right now, I think public voting is probably better for several reasons. Convenience for players is one of them. I'm not sure if optional private voting ought to be continued or not. If not, the Opinion Maker card perhaps could be replaced with something else. While it would be easy just to go without it, when there are enough players for it to be added to the deck (7 or more) it might be a bit of a balance issue to 15 card when there are supposed to be 17. It would raise the likelihood of drawing other cards, including ones I consider more revealing/powerful, e.g. Keeping a Close Eye on You .
I'd also consider not posting the results of a mission for at least 5ish hours after the mission phase starts regardless of the when and how the voting went.
I'm also in favor of allowing a player holding a No Confidence card to play it at anytime in a team building phase, even before all votes are in or the leader has proposed a team. However, the leader at the time of it being played would still get to pass the cards, if there are any. IOW, its effect is only upon the team proposal and building phase.
Otherwise, I feel it's mostly smooth sailing with the exception of a possible to schedule of some sort. That is, how long can a leader wait until proposing his team, and how long ought a vote stay open. While I more or less was ok with the practice of declaring a vote that was already mathematically decided over after having gone on after a certain amount of time, I have to say that I fear some might try to use this to a strategic advantage as it means not having to take a public stand on a proposal. It is potentially a greater problem if several do so at one time, meaning a given vote might have several no-shows.
I won't even bother with a RP setting for this, because it's so far in the background of the game so as to be barely noticeable (in distinction to werewolf). Indeed, I gave up on it almost as soon as this game started.
Any thoughts, questions, concerns, etc, about any of this?
So, unless there is someone else who wants to step in, I'll have game 4 up tomorrow (April 19) or the next day.