The Resistance III

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The good guys are not worried about "looking weird".

Vote No

I think it will clear the question mark over Chunks. I vote yes.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

This is way more complicated than I thought it was.

I don't understand how someone could fail the first mission with no justification. At the time you had no idea who would approve ort disapprove of the mission. I don't get it.

I would say I don't understand how someone could pass the first mission proposal with no justification. But it is a habit we have formed here, mostly because we are all new players. (This is only my second online game, but I learned a lot playing a game at BGG.)

Let me go through my logic. The first leader is random therefore in this game there is a 3/7 chance that they are a spy. They will likely chose a member of the resistance to go with them on mission 1 so right there 3/7 times we have a 1S+1R mission.

4/7 times the first leader will be resistance, if they pick a random player for their proposal there is a 3/6 chance that that person is a spy, so another 2/7 chance for a 1S+1R mission. That leaves only 2/7 chances of the first proposal being for a 2R mission.

Couple that base rate with every spy voting for the mission and I would say that one of chunks or daphne was a spy. Now this last changes a bit if I consider that the spies probably believe that they are expected to vote yes on a mission without a good reason. Which is certainly the style of play we have established in the first two games. But I am still sticking with either chunks or daphne being spy at this point.

[Daphne Girl]

I want to say that I picked my partner to go on the mission solely based on who was below me in the line. I figured it just made sense, since I have no idea who the spies are. I know that I am not a spy and I was hoping that the next name(which happened to be Chunks) wasn't one either. I guess I am not getting the whole strategy thing like you are Crumb. It is also Friday and my brain is fried from the week. I just can't see how to pick the first mission any differently. We have absolutely no information to go off of.

[Crumb]

I'm not saying you should have picked it differently. I'm saying anyone other than you and chunks should have voted against it.

[Deadlokd]

But we need information to work with. If people vote down the first mission you have no info going into the next mission.

I don't get your logic at all Crumb. Spies need to have a good reason to vote no. Same goes for Resistance. There was no good reason to vote no, unless you make the two person missions a policy no vote. But then you're out one day of information. We have info going into day two, info that can be assessed after today's mission.

And the end result here is that we're one up.

[Crumb]

On the contrary, the voting gives us a lot of information, and we will have a mission 1 one way or the other. In fact I would say that voting a few proposals down will give us a lot more information then just zooming along at the beginning of the game.

I think you are looking at it backwards. You shouldn't default to yes and look for a reason to vote no, you should default to no and look for a reason to vote yes.

[Jerome]

DL, here we are collecting information, it becomes a bit of a math/logic game after a couple of results are in.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Crumb

I'm not saying you should have picked it differently. I'm saying anyone other than you and chunks should have voted against it.

5 consecutive votes against proposals in a win for the bad guys. There is never a reason to vote no on the first mission.

[Jerome]

FUS RO DAH!!! - YouTube

&feature=player_embedded

[Deadlokd]

Going on your maths Crumb it makes a lot of sense to vote yes on day 1.

[Kael]

No, I think Crumb's got a good point. We did learn a lot from the votes on the last mission of the last game, where we voted down four proposals and passed only the last one. Vote patterns allowed me to catch who the other spy was, going off my guess of who the first one was. Doesn't mean patterns like that will always be right, of course, but it is a good source of information.

Also, there really isn't any worry of the fifth (game-losing) proposal being voted down, since the Resistance outnumber the Spies and the Resistance damn well better be smart enough to pass even a bad proposal if it avoids instantly losing the game.

I'm not really sure why I defaulted to "always vote YES unless I have a reason not to," but I think Crumb is right, it should be the other way around.

If Player A proposes a 2-man mission of Player A and Player B at the start of the game, the only people who should be voting for it are A and B, plus the other spies if A or B are spies. I think this would be true even if only one of them is a spy, and will let the mission succeed so they appear legit and don't get zeroed by the other player on the mission.

At the start of a game, when there's no information whatsoever to go on, Resistance players should only be voting for the mission if they are personally on it. A) because they're the only person they know isn't a spy; and B) because information can be gathered from votes without even needing to risk a mission.

[chunksmediocrites]

Ah, but that's just the thing. Now you're putting down voting yes on a proposal as meaning that you're likely a spy or actually on the mission; whereas there are lots of reasons a spy could vote any number of ways on a mission:
1. Voting with the group after determining the overall direction people are going, to blend in and appear part of the group;
2. Voting against their own interest to muddy the water;
3. Voting no on a mission because there are no spies on the mission;
4. Voting no on a mission that has two spies on it in a round that doesn't need two spies, because they are worried both may fail the mission, giving the resistance a better idea of their identities.
5. Voting yes on a 5th game-proposal even if it is against their interests because voting no would out them.
etc.

Originally Posted by Kael

At the start of a game, when there's no information whatsoever to go on, Resistance players should only be voting for the mission if they are personally on it. A) because they're the only person they know isn't a spy; and B) because information can be gathered from votes without even needing to risk a mission.

If I read this correctly, the idea is to fail four proposals outright, pass the leadership to four people, and then we all vote for the fifth because if we don't we fail? How many rounds do we want to do that? What if the fifth leader is a spy?

That formula pretty much guarantees that every two and three-person mission will become fifth leader choice, as we're mapping out no votes over yes votes each time, with only people on the mission voting yes.

And then we're not going to get any more information on voting- unless someone deviates from that pattern, which I think would be unlikely; and muddy the water with game fatigue of being drawn out an extra week or two to get through each new proposal .2,.3,.4, etc.

I'm not saying rejecting missions isn't useful; it is. But I don't think votes are the best or only tell in the game; and if we play it that way above, even less useful.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Ah, but that's just the thing. Now you're putting down voting yes on a proposal as meaning that you're likely a spy or actually on the mission; whereas there are lots of reasons a spy could vote any number of ways on a mission:
1. Voting with the group after determining the overall direction people are going, to blend in and appear part of the group;
2. Voting against their own interest to muddy the water;
3. Voting no on a mission because there are no spies on the mission;
4. Voting no on a mission that has two spies on it in a round that doesn't need two spies, because they are worried both may fail the mission, giving the resistance a better idea of their identities.
5. Voting yes on a 5th game-proposal even if it is against their interests because voting no would out them.
etc.

These are all ways that the spies will screw around with the votes. I agree. I also think that the spies are much more likely to be default yes voting now also because that is the way the game has been played here. I'm not saying it is that simple, but I do think it would be unlikely for all spies to vote for prop 1.1 if one of you weren't a spy.

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

If I read this correctly, the idea is to fail four proposals outright, pass the leadership to four people, and then we all vote for the fifth because if we don't we fail? How many rounds do we want to do that? What if the fifth leader is a spy?

That formula pretty much guarantees that every two and three-person mission will become fifth leader choice, as we're mapping out no votes over yes votes each time, with only people on the mission voting yes.

No, I'm not at all saying we should always go to the fifth proposal, that would be bad because the fifth leader could be a spy and we wouldn't be able to do much about it. I am just suggesting that as players we are all to eager to pass mission proposals. What I would be looking for is a proposal that had no one I thought was a spy on it, and that got some no votes against it from people who I thought were spies. That would make me feel more confident that it was a good mission proposal.

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I'm not saying rejecting missions isn't useful; it is. But I don't think votes are the best or only tell in the game; and if we play it that way above, even less useful.

I'm not sure what could be bad about failing a few mission proposals. It isn't like we lose any information. We get a mission team eventually for each one. A few down voted missions can only be good for us as long as we don't push 5 every time.

[Kael]

I was speaking purely 'in theory' there. As soon as rubber meets road and we have some info, including from the first proposal and vote, obviously the situation changes, and everyone should be voting or not voting for missions mostly off whether they believe there's a spy on it.

[Kael]

Didn't mean to hit submit yet, just meant to say that it's really the same thing with the first proposal, you should be voting up or down based on whether you think there's a spy on it. It's just, odds are pretty good there's a spy on it if it's the very first proposal and its agents are selected more or less at random (random mission lead, picks self and one other agent, often the one right below them in order).

[Daphne Girl]

So Chunks, you want the mission to be you, Deadlokd, and Jerome.
I am thinking about this one.
I feel pretty good about you going, since you and I went on a successful mission together. Dl and Jerome are unknowns. I guess it isn't a bad idea to send the three of you so we can see what happens.

[Daphne Girl]

If anyone else has a better idea how to pick who to send, I am open to ideas. I haven't sent in my vote yet so I could vote against sending them if I am convinced it is a bad idea.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Mission 2.1;chunksmediocrites, Deadlokd, JEROME DA GNOME

Just a reminder.

[Kael]

Yeah, are we still waiting on votes, or is it Adam we need to yell at?

[Jerome]

wouldn't it be better if we voted in the thread, the game would be more interactive.

[Kael]

It's already been explained why we don't, and I think it's a good idea. Everyone still knows everyone else's vote, but people (spies) can't wait to see how others are voting before making theirs. At least, that's how it would work if some of the players weren't publishing their vote in-thread before they're all in anyway...

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by Daphne Girl

I feel pretty good about you going, since you and I went on a successful mission together.

Do you honestly believe that all the spies (or 2 out of 3 of them if you think I might be a spy) voted for a proposal that had two resistance members on it? This really makes me think you are a spy.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Kael

It's already been explained why we don't, and I think it's a good idea. Everyone still knows everyone else's vote, but people (spies) can't wait to see how others are voting before making theirs. At least, that's how it would work if some of the players weren't publishing their vote in-thread before they're all in anyway...

Ahh, but in open voting it is easy to see patterns of players voting, early, late, sneaking one in... closed voting tells us little and gives us little to talk about whilst we wait for an unknown goal (we don't even know how many votes have been placed, and if the GM announces who has yet to vote that puts the GM in a position of timing that announcement fairly), ...

[Kael]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

patterns of players voting, early, late, sneaking one in...

Are all patterns that could also originate from non-game issues, such as time available to post. I prefer not to muddy the issue, and give ammunition to spies trying to frame others.

[Daphne Girl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Do you honestly believe that all the spies (or 2 out of 3 of them if you think I might be a spy) voted for a proposal that had two resistance members on it? This really makes me think you are a spy.

I know that I am not a spy and I am hoping that Chunks isn't a spy since our mission was successful. These two thoughts were the reason for my statement. I do think you may be a spy. I am only certain of myself at this point.