Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Resistance [BSG-esque PBP Game] [GAME OVER-SPIES WIN]

145791016

Posts

  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    Tayrun wrote: »
    I'm going to be voting no for any proposal that throws out any of the original 3 members.

    Most interesting.

    This said, I should be clear that MrBody is sounding more like a new player than a spy, to me.

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    MrBody wrote: »
    The first proposal of keeping the original team +1 was universally shot down? I'm only seeing 2 people arguing against it.

    Maybe only two people were arguing against it, but I would think that the voting stats speak for themselves as to who was convinced.

  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    edited September 2012
    (although, having said that, without the votes of doodles, Cerberus, and blah it's impossible to tell what the result might have been.)

    Flimflammery on
  • MrBodyMrBody Registered User regular
    How would we learn more from failing with 2 new people vs. failing with 1 new person?

  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    We would learn that the person left behind is most likely trustworthy.

  • mi-go huntermi-go hunter Once again I'm back in the lab. Cleaning my knives, ready for stabs.Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    MrBody wrote: »
    How would we learn more from failing with 2 new people vs. failing with 1 new person?

    My thoughts exactly!

    So what if you cycle out one person? If this mission fails, you still have the 2 that participated in the first mission suspected as well as the 2 new people! How will this give us more information than having the original 3 plus one new member?

    I'm going to vote no on this mission, I changed my mind.

    mi-go hunter on
  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    *huge, fucking, sigh*

    Yeah, no, I'm done explaining things. Either it's just not getting through or I'm simply hearing invalid objections from spies trying to mess things up.

    Two out two in is a better new team configuration than original plus one.

    Vote how you will.

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    @mi-go hunter - see what I said above. In addition, if more than one spy sabotages the mission (which they may well do; no way to communicate to each other in the open group that only one of them should sabotage, and they certainly don't want the second mission to succeed), we will be able to quarantine four people whilst knowing that amongst them we have eliminated at least two spies. That sounds like a good exchange to me.

    You may counter that the spies could work out a code in their posts; well, that's possible, I suppose, if a little unlikely. I really have no idea how you would establish that without communicating outside this thread, unless you were some kind of Sherlock Holmes.

  • mi-go huntermi-go hunter Once again I'm back in the lab. Cleaning my knives, ready for stabs.Registered User regular
    @mi-go hunter - see what I said above. In addition, if more than one spy sabotages the mission (which they may well do; no way to communicate to each other in the open group that only one of them should sabotage, and they certainly don't want the second mission to succeed), we will be able to quarantine four people whilst knowing that amongst them we have eliminated at least two spies. That sounds like a good exchange to me.

    You may counter that the spies could work out a code in their posts; well, that's possible, I suppose, if a little unlikely. I really have no idea how you would establish that without communicating outside this thread, unless you were some kind of Sherlock Holmes.

    Oh, I see what you're trying to do. You are notified of the number of sabotages played?

    Fine. If so, I will give the mission a shot if that's true.
    Tayrun wrote: »
    Yeah, no, I'm done explaining things. Either it's just not getting through or I'm simply hearing invalid objections from spies trying to mess things up.

    Seriously Tayrun, that's getting old.

  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    Tayrun wrote: »
    Yeah, no, I'm done explaining things. Either it's just not getting through or I'm simply hearing invalid objections from spies trying to mess things up.

    Seriously Tayrun, that's getting old.

    Yeah this time it ain't bullshit though.

    Tayrun on
    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    You are notified of the number of sabotages played?

    Fine. If so, I will give the mission a shot if that's true.

    We will be notified, I assume. In the RL version of the game, it's a case of everyone on the mission secretly putting forward a 'success' or 'fail' card, which are then shuffled together and revealed - therefore everyone would see how many sabotage attempts have been made, but (obviously) not exactly who made them.

  • mi-go huntermi-go hunter Once again I'm back in the lab. Cleaning my knives, ready for stabs.Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    Tayrun wrote: »
    Tayrun wrote: »
    Yeah, no, I'm done explaining things. Either it's just not getting through or I'm simply hearing invalid objections from spies trying to mess things up.

    Seriously Tayrun, that's getting old.

    Yeah this time it ain't bullshit though.

    Jesus, what do you expect me to do, support every single mission proposal or look like a spy?! Fine! I can do that! Whatever the plan is, I'll give it the green light and vote yes! And I won't object to it! That's the least suspicious thing to do!

    Your paranoia is killing me here.

    mi-go hunter on
  • CapfalconCapfalcon Tunnel Snakes Rule Capital WastelandRegistered User regular
    edited September 2012
    1. Blahmcblah - NO
    2. Damonis - YES
    3. Egos - YES
    4. kilnaga - YES
    5. mi-go hunter - YES
    6. doodles613 - NO (Abstain)
    7. Mr Body - NO (Abstain)
    8. Flimflammery - YES
    9. Cerberus - YES
    10. Tayrun - YES

    Mission Accepted!

    The mission team consists of: @Cerberus, @Tayrun, @Flimflammery & @MrBody.

    I await your orders.

    Capfalcon on
  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    Tayrun wrote: »
    Tayrun wrote: »
    Yeah, no, I'm done explaining things. Either it's just not getting through or I'm simply hearing invalid objections from spies trying to mess things up.

    Seriously Tayrun, that's getting old.

    Yeah this time it ain't bullshit though.

    Jesus, what do you expect me to do, support every single mission proposal or look like a spy?! Fine! I can do that! Whatever the plan is, I'll give it the green light and vote yes! And I won't object to it! That's the least suspicious thing to do!

    Your paranoia is killing me here.

    Chill.

    The previous times was mostly just me arsing around.

    This time was real, because you and body were arguing against a good idea, but now that Flims has pointed out the plan and that you can see all the cards that get played and you've changed your mind, all is cool.

    A-mi-go-s? :)

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
  • mi-go huntermi-go hunter Once again I'm back in the lab. Cleaning my knives, ready for stabs.Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    Tayrun wrote: »
    A-mi-go-s? :)

    >_>

    The new recruit's mood swings and impulsiveness were getting on Thalia's nerves. He seemed convinced that almost everyone could be a Spy and impersonated as a Spy at the most inappropriate of times. And now, he was asking to be friends? Thalia shook her head. "You know what kid, I'll definitely be your friend if you complete the mission successfully."

    mi-go hunter on
  • DaemonisDaemonis Registered User regular
    Dan Gorbovski
    Good luck, guys! May I have a photo of you, and you sign the picture. It's for my album.

  • MrBodyMrBody Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    We would learn that the person left behind is most likely trustworthy.

    I'm...not sure how that makes sense. You're intentionally increasing the odds that a spy goes on the mission and makes it fail, meaning you can trust the left behind people more? Why leave them behind in the first place then?

    Guys, we win by succeeding in missions, not by expanding the pool of suspects. We should not be throwing a single mission (in fact we should plan on the 5th failing and only being able to afford one other failure). The original 3 man team is more likely than not all resistance.

    So what do we gain by rotating them out? Think about this.

    KEEP ORIGINAL 3 + 1 NEW
    Mission succeeds: We have 4 guaranteed known resistance.
    Mission fails: We have 3 slightly suspect spies and 1 majorly suspect spy.

    ROTATE ORIGINAL 3 OUT
    Mission succeeds: The odds are ridiculously against this.
    Mission fails: We have 2 slightly suspect spies and 2 majorly suspect spies.


    Not only does rotating people out increase the chance for failure, but we're in a worse position if we fail.

    There's just no reason to not go with the same people if missions succeed. We shouldn't be thinking "We need to punt and get more suspects so we'll be prepared for later missions." We should be thinking "Let's try to lock down a nearly sure thing early so we don't lose when the tougher missions later." The later missions aren't worth any more than the early ones. Right now we're theorycrafting based on the thinking that outing spies is more important that winning missions.


    I wouldn't go by the last vote as last word. 3 people abstained and were counted as no. Given the nature of PbP and how it might be common for some to miss a 24 hour deadline, can we count abstains as not counting rather than a "no"? Even one missed resistance vote is going to doom us.

    MrBody on
  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    edited September 2012
    Why does rotating people out increase the chance for failure? You are very much assuming that any spy in the first mission would always sabotage.

    The odds say 1 spy in the first mission is probable (I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty certain 1/3 isn't much less than 2/5). It is in that probably present spy's best interest to appear trustworthy from the beginning. So why, bearing that all in mind, is 'the original 3 man team more likely than not all resistance'?

    Anyway, it's academic at this stage. The mission team is set, so I hope my teammates are getting on with the voting... Vive la Resistance!

    Flimflammery on
  • mi-go huntermi-go hunter Once again I'm back in the lab. Cleaning my knives, ready for stabs.Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    This mission will only really pay off if it succeeds or if it fails and we find that two sabotage cards have been played.

    But that REALLY seems like a stretch.

    mi-go hunter on
  • blahmcblahblahmcblah I never drink... wine. Registered User regular
    edited September 2012
    Every mission is precious. I don't think we can afford to blow one just to maybe expose a spy, but that's what we've just done. It could just be my lack of experience talking, but I'm pretty sure 2-0 and four solid resistance is better than 1-1 and maybe figuring out two spies. If we'd gone with the original 3 + 1 and the new team member wasn't a spy, then it's game over, we win, since we just pick those four again for mission #3. This way seems like it risks too much for not as much potential upside. But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake.

    blahmcblah on
    mi-go hunter
  • CerberusCerberus Registered User regular
    We also can't just have mission votes fail constantly! That just leads room for the spies to win.
    Especially if a spy is mission leader, won't the other spies just vote yes for their missions so they know it will get sabotaged, they only need to convince a few others of the plan to get a full yes vote. Thats why I'm saying we need to agree before a fixed team is put forward.
    Maybe, I don't know compromise on our ideas at times, or need to be in the team for once?

  • blahmcblahblahmcblah I never drink... wine. Registered User regular
    There's no way a 5th proposal ever fails, since everyone votes yes, even the spies.

  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    The thing is, we need to expose spies if later missions are going to succeed. Otherwise we're just going to end up adding them blindly each time we have to increase the numbers. Which doesn't sound like a recipe for success, it's just blind hope; granted, it might succeed, but it would succeed merely because of tremendous luck.

    Whereas with the plan we are carrying out we are at least attempting to find out information that will help us along the line. That way, if things go wrong, we've got some kind of foundation to build on. With the plan you're backing, if things go wrong we would be forced to start from scratch, and pick the team from six complete unknowns.

  • CapfalconCapfalcon Tunnel Snakes Rule Capital WastelandRegistered User regular
    3 PASSES and 1 FAILURE.

    @Tayrun to make the next mission group. Again, it is a four member group.

  • mi-go huntermi-go hunter Once again I'm back in the lab. Cleaning my knives, ready for stabs.Registered User regular
  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    Bugger.

    We learnt that we should probably quarantine all four members of the team and start over with you (mi-go) as a member. And that if Tayrun chooses himself for the mission team we should vote it the hell down. Also, I would suggest that blahmcblah be on the next team, as the only one who definitely voted 'No' for the mission to go ahead.

  • MrBodyMrBody Registered User regular
    blahmcblah wrote: »
    Every mission is precious. I don't think we can afford to blow one just to maybe expose a spy, but that's what we've just done. It could just be my lack of experience talking, but I'm pretty sure 2-0 and four solid resistance is better than 1-1 and maybe figuring out two spies. If we'd gone with the original 3 + 1 and the new team member wasn't a spy, then it's game over, we win, since we just pick those four again for mission #3. This way seems like it risks too much for not as much potential upside. But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake.

    This, exactly this. There was so much more to gain from keeping all 3 original members. Outing spies is nowhere near as important as passing missions and identifying definite resistance members. Keeping all the original team would and passing would have clinched the latter two.

    And what did we gain out of failing a precious mission? That there might be a spy out of the original two or the new two? That tells us almost nothing within the time frame we have.

    I'm calling me, mi-go, and blah as definite resistance. Anyone who was strongly pushing all this rotation should be suspect.


    (I'm not sure the abstain time limit voting is going to work. If an abstain = no, then resistance is kind of screwed, and spies can just intentionally time out and abstain when they want to vote no and not look suspicious)

    Egosmi-go hunter
  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    I'm definitely putting myself on the team.

    Looking through all records and checking patterns now...

    ...

    MrBody I'm reasonably convinced you're resistance. You'd be playing a real long game with your approval voting if you were a spy. You're in.

    Blah, I'm less certain of you that I am of MrBody, but you're in too. Your yes/abstain/no is looking resistancy to me.

    Taking suggestion with reasoning why for the 4th team member. Fuck it. mi-go, you're up.

    Mission 3 - Team Proposal 1: Tayrun, Blahmcblah, MrBody, mi-go hunter.

    Reasonably sure I can't possibly have picked two spies there, I think it's very unlikely we'll be putting them in a potential double-fail trap with this.

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    MrBody wrote: »
    (I'm not sure the abstain time limit voting is going to work. If an abstain = no, then resistance is kind of screwed, and spies can just intentionally time out and abstain when they want to vote no and not look suspicious)

    Also, this.

    This needs to be changed or we might as well concede to the spies right now.

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
    Flimflammery
  • EgosEgos Registered User regular
    We learnt that we should probably quarantine all four members of the team and start over with you (mi-go) as a member. And that if Tayrun chooses himself for the mission team we should vote it the hell down. Also, I would suggest that blahmcblah be on the next team, as the only one who definitely voted 'No' for the mission to go ahead.

    So in theory... if there was only 1 spy. And we limit our selection pool to 6 . Then the 3 remaining spies would have a much greater chance of getting on a party if we followed this logic. Actually they would be pretty much assured? Or am I wrong

  • mi-go huntermi-go hunter Once again I'm back in the lab. Cleaning my knives, ready for stabs.Registered User regular
    Tayrun wrote: »
    Fuck it. mi-go, you're up.

    :D

    Anyway, I knew that switchup was not a very good idea, it really gave an opening for the spies to sabotage.

    And yes, something needs to be done about the abstain = no votes. @Capfalcon?

  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    Egos wrote: »
    We learnt that we should probably quarantine all four members of the team and start over with you (mi-go) as a member. And that if Tayrun chooses himself for the mission team we should vote it the hell down. Also, I would suggest that blahmcblah be on the next team, as the only one who definitely voted 'No' for the mission to go ahead.

    So in theory... if there was only 1 spy. And we limit our selection pool to 6 . Then the 3 remaining spies would have a much greater chance of getting on a party if we followed this logic. Actually they would be pretty much assured? Or am I wrong

    You are not wrong.

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
  • CapfalconCapfalcon Tunnel Snakes Rule Capital WastelandRegistered User regular
    MrBody wrote: »
    (I'm not sure the abstain time limit voting is going to work. If an abstain = no, then resistance is kind of screwed, and spies can just intentionally time out and abstain when they want to vote no and not look suspicious)

    I'll admit I'm assuming good faith from everyone involved. Do you think we should eliminate the time limit?

  • EgosEgos Registered User regular
    i think unless it gets ridiculous, probably

    (re : timelimit) . maybe send a friendly pm to remind them

  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    MrBody wrote: »
    (I'm not sure the abstain time limit voting is going to work. If an abstain = no, then resistance is kind of screwed, and spies can just intentionally time out and abstain when they want to vote no and not look suspicious)

    I'll admit I'm assuming good faith from everyone involved. Do you think we should eliminate the time limit?

    In my experience, voting records are an important tool in ferreting out spies.

    I think all the votes should be something someone had to choose, no defaults.

    If someone's delaying the game, I feel we should replace the player, not default their vote.

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
  • EgosEgos Registered User regular
    we do have stever777 as a reserve and no sign of ,for epic,

    @DOODLES 613

  • EgosEgos Registered User regular
    sorry did the op version

    @DOODLES613 !!!!!!

  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    @Stever777 would be a guaranteed spy, though.

    I mean, it's Stever...

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
  • FlimflammeryFlimflammery There's always money in the banana stand... Oxford, UKRegistered User regular
    I... don't know what to think anymore, this has been going through my head for the last 24 hours and I'm confused as hell.

    I agree that blah and mi-go hunter are good picks for this team, for reasons I stated earlier. MrBody seems a fairly safe bet too, just from the amount of time he has spent arguing his position; even though I'm not sure I fully buy his strategy in all cases, he seems pretty much sincere.

    Tayrun I'm not sure about either, but he was right previously, a team leader not voting himself on is a massive vote of no-confidence, especially when there is not enough other information to go on - a loyal team leader knows ultimately that they can only trust themselves completely. In fact, Cerberus is looking increasingly suspicious to me as a result of initially intending not to vote for himself.

    So I guess that's me voting 'yes' for this plan, despite my earlier comments on quarantining us all. However, Cerberus and I should probably be quarantined from now on; although I know I'm not a spy, I concede that the previous mission failure does taint us both, and you probably all can't take the risk.

    If this mission does fail, I'll be pretty much convinced that Tayrun's eeeeevil.

    Regarding the abstentions, I don't think we should get rid of the time limit in all cases - if there is a clear majority either way, I think it's fine to go ahead. However, when the abstentions could swing the vote either way (as with my mission proposal) we should probably give the absentees an extension until we do have a clear majority.

  • TayrunTayrun Registered User regular
    If this mission does fail, I'll be pretty much convinced that Tayrun's eeeeevil.

    Fair. Risk I have to take though.
    Regarding the abstentions, I don't think we should get rid of the time limit in all cases - if there is a clear majority either way, I think it's fine to go ahead. However, when the abstentions could swing the vote either way (as with my mission proposal) we should probably give the absentees an extension until we do have a clear majority.

    I disagree. I feel the important thing is that someone makes a decision and makes that known. I'm happy to be very lenient with waiting if people need more time.

    3DS: 5257-9337-8263
145791016
Sign In or Register to comment.