Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 19, 2014 12:58:37 GMT -8
Furare, I don't think we can say 'always sends themselves' because if by the time we get to a particular GM, we're pretty sure he/she is a spy, we don't want them going on the mission. Yeah, as Bunny said, there's a difference between always choosing yourself on the team and actually being allowed to go through with it. I just think that if the GM is always on the Away team, that cuts down the degree of uncertainty surrounding the mission in the event of a failure. I mean, if a mission fails, we know that one of the people on the team is a Spy, but we don't know which - I'm not sure we need to add "uncertainty about whether the GM is a Resistance member who sent a Spy by accident, or another Spy getting his/her friends in position" to the list of questions we need to ask. I feel like "resistance" as the overall description of all of us works, just in ROMS "town" refers both to the playerlist as a whole *and* to an innocent member thereof. Actually, come to think of it, I would say that people should mention whatever feelings they have about who should be on a team. If you think someone should go because you trust them (FoI), say that. If you think someone shouldn't go because you think they're a Spy (FoS), say that as well. Just... if you are Double Agent, be careful not to always be saying not to send Spies. Mix it up a bit. Heh. The idea of Riku, Leif and AL being a team is interesting - although, of course, if the mission succeeds, we should bear in mind that we haven't actually learned that they're trustworthy. That's the difficult thing; we learn only from failure. There's a philosophical point in there somewhere, I'm sure. Forum business: Yeah, "Reply" always gave you "Reply with preview" while Quick Reply (the box at the bottom) didn't. On this version you can preview your post *and* still see the rest of the thread, which to my mind is a definite improvement. Once the upgrade happened, all of the people who didn't have an avatar were converted to have the same, creepy-blank-stare avatar. I just changed it to a picture of sliced limes, the better to fit in with ROMS.
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jan 19, 2014 14:11:15 GMT -8
The thumb is like Facebook. I decided to try and see, and now on Bunny's post about the reply button, it says "Jolyma likes this." How droll.
|
|
|
Post by AhoyLindsay on Jan 19, 2014 14:51:45 GMT -8
But what we really need is 3 successful missions, not to figure out who the moles are. I'm perfectly fine with having anyone on a mission if they're going to vote succeed, so if the bad guys want to do that just to take some information/certainty from us, that's good in my book. And it's nice that the GM switches every round regardless, so in the event of a failure we don't necessarily need to worry about whether possible intentional picking of moles sabotaged us the previous time but can rather focus on the new GM and what they're doing/their motives are. Anyhow, I'm okay with me, Riku, and Leif to start with, but I'm also roughly okay with most anyone to start with. I agree that unless/until a mission fails we have little solid information. I guess one good thing about sending me, Riku, and Leif is that if we fail, we can act on that information immediately, by skipping me and/or Leif. Unless Riku's a bad guy and wants that to happen... But if riku's a bad guy we're a bit screwed for round one regardless. Plus there's no way to tell which of the three of us it was. I guess we could send me, Leif, and Joly (the next three on the list after riku) but it depends how much riku wants to pick himself. We can't be predictable either or there's room for manipulation. Also, if the mission succeeds, and one of the people was actually a bad guy letting it succeed, the worst that happens is that that person engineers a failure on their turn as GM, which is only one round and therefore the same number of points as them just having sabotaged the initial mission in the first place. Sorry, this is all a bit rambling. Traveled back to school today, which is exciting. Dinner time now, see you guys later.
|
|
|
Post by Aethera on Jan 19, 2014 15:22:06 GMT -8
I mean, if a mission fails, we know that one of the people on the team is a Spy, but we don't know which... It's actually AT LEAST one of the people on the team is a spy. We don't want to forget that. We're not voting people off, so it's not like "hang a rogue and everyone else on the list gets FOI" but it is still important. If a mission fails, we might want to consider swapping out the entire team, although with 4 Spies, that too may not help. And you're right, I keep forgetting about the fact that if we think a GM is a Spy we can just vote the list down. This is really rough to adjust to. That's the difficult thing; we learn only from failure. Actually, I think that's not always true. For the first mission, I think success won't teach us anything. However, if the 1st mission succeeds and so does the 2nd, I think that might teach us things. I think it's statistically unlikely that the 2nd mission lacks a Spy (I won't pretend to be able to do the math, but with nearly half of us Spies, and 4 people required, it doesn't seem likely) and the 4th and 5th missions require 2 spies on them which will be harder to achieve, considering we'll have more information, so I don't think they'd vote to Succeed if there is a Spy on the 2nd mission and they were already down 1-0. If the 1st mission fails, that'll be different, but yeah, I think we can learn from success too under the right circumstances. Riku, I thought of Mastermind too, except the false positives and 'at least one' part kind of screw up the comparison. (I loved that game as a kid.) If the mission succeeds, we haven't learned anything either way. If the mission fails, we know that at least one of Riku, Leif and AL is a spy, and with Leif and AL, we'll know the next two GM lists bear extra scrutiny? Like I said, best I can come up with. I don't know how else to begin…3 random people helps us less than 2 upcoming GMs. (And I do know it'll help us know whether to trust you Riku, but my overriding point was the next 2 GMs.) Yeah AL, I don't think we should be sending just 'the next GMs' all the time. I just figured it was as good a way as any other to start, and has a slightly better chance of giving us immediately useful information. Riku could also use an RNG (or pretend to if he's a Spy, heh), go alphabetically, pick people based on what he's seen us say so far, or any other method he can think of. Preview: Yay the quoting works! I love that it even shows the icon, so cute!
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 19, 2014 15:29:33 GMT -8
I'd be very interested to see how you intend us to make it to three successful missions without at least going some way towards figuring out who the "moles" are.
I feel it's likely that the first mission would be a success regardless of the alignment of the people sent. When it's a matter of three people on a team, a mission fail is a 1/3 chance that anyone on it is a Spy. In 2 and 3, there are 4 people, so a Spy on one of those teams has more cover to operate. The crunch is going to come in 4 and 5, where 2 Fails are needed to ruin the mission - it's imperative that by that point we aren't picking two Spies at once on a team, because if we do (and if they've already Failed 2 and/or 3) they just have to both vote Fail and they win the game. I can see reasons why a Spy might pass an earlier mission just to be in a position to win the long game. The more Spies are under suspicion from earlier missions, the less likely it is that two Spies will be picked for those crucial missions where the Spy team needs two moles to get their way.
Basically, the idea of the bad guys playing along to reduce our information does worry me, and it probably should.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 19, 2014 15:31:25 GMT -8
That was in response to AL; apparently Aethera posted in between but I didn't notice. The mini-avatars in the quote thing are cute, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Marinated on Jan 19, 2014 17:04:43 GMT -8
The more I think about this the more I can't see how we can get the three successful missions. Certainly not by logic alone. So I think the best thing to do at this stage is just pick three people for the first mission, get a result, and then we'll have something to discuss other than just theory, as we're unlikely to get any tells from anyone just discussing theory.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 19, 2014 19:38:01 GMT -8
Hah, I thought mastermind too. I think basically we just ought to pick a somewhat methodical way and go about it. I don't know that much good comes from a mission with ABC then DEFG the HIJA and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 19, 2014 23:42:58 GMT -8
I dislike the lack of page changing abilities at the bottom of the page now.
My comments regarding the Riku - AL - Leif being spies thing was more or less in the uncommon happenstance that the first three GMs are spies, the town resistance is very likely to lose the game.
I like the starting concept of a mission of those three to see what happens. Personally, I think there are more benefits for a spy to try to sabotage the early missions than the later ones. They have a four man group, it isn't a problem to have one of them score a point for their team in the starting round of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 20, 2014 0:04:46 GMT -8
I think I've come to agree with Aeth and AL on the sending of the next two GMs; it's reasonable, gives us information, and I can't see anything wrong with it. So that would be me, Leif, and AL. Unless I see something convincing me otherwise, I'll lock that in when I wake up tomorrow.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 20, 2014 0:55:38 GMT -8
We can reject missions so we're not quite at the mercy of Spy GMs. I'll admit that it would be a disadvantage to have the first three GMs be Spies but I don't think it's devastating.
Basically I think people should reject missions that seem wrong to them for any reason at all, even if you can't quite explain it. From what I've heard, that seems to be the point of the game.
Note that my opinions and suggestions are shaped by talking to Wrecker when she was floating the concept. She told me Spies picked for the first mission usually bluff, so I assumed that was likely to happen here. It might not, but I can see the advantage.
I intend to support Riku's choice solely because I think we need one mission under our belts before the true discussion can begin. I may torpedo later missions for no better reason than "a funny feeling". But for now, cooperation.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 20, 2014 6:43:16 GMT -8
We can reject missions so we're not quite at the mercy of Spy GMs. I'll admit that it would be a disadvantage to have the first three GMs be Spies but I don't think it's devastating. I agree with your first point, but I still think it'd be devastating. I think it'd be better if you could explain something. I mean, ultimately, it seems like the game is about accepting the right mission components. I'm on board with Riku's idea too. We have to start somewhere some some degree of vetting upcoming GMs is sensible, I think.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 20, 2014 7:42:22 GMT -8
It's better if you can explain it, sure. I'm just saying, if you feel like we're making a mistake, don't hold off on giving your "No" vote just because you don't have a detailed logical explanation why. We should be saying what we think, not just what we can justify thinking. (This is stuff I've been saying about ROMS, too, the last couple of times I played.)
I think we're coming at this from different positions. I'm expecting the first mission to be approved but that the subsequent ones may well not be. Wrecker told me about a game she played where there were 10 rejected missions, and I know ROMS players well enough to know that we might well be able to rival that. Our capacity for uncertainty and prevaricating is - or should be - legendary.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 20, 2014 8:06:56 GMT -8
I dislike the lack of page changing abilities at the bottom of the page now. I now seem to have a page changing thing that floats down the page with me. That's excellent. I think regular ROMS seems to feed into the "weak agree" bias, where a lot of times people agree just enough. I wonder if this'll feed more towards a weak disagree bias where enough people just don't like an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 20, 2014 9:58:55 GMT -8
I have a page change thingy at the bottom on my phone so maybe that is well and sorted now.
If the first three GMs are spies chances are there will be two mission fails which puts the playerbase into OMG WHAT DO WE DO NOW.
That's probably or at least hopefully not the case. If Leif or AL are spies I don't see much incentive in them letting the mission pass. If they are both spies then there would be reason to pass it.
Rikus willingness to cope with suggestions is null tell, but if he's a spy and neither Leif or AL are, we are playing right into the spies hands.
|
|
|
Post by Bunnylaroo on Jan 20, 2014 10:02:13 GMT -8
I'm feeling a little "at sea" on this first day, probably because I'm not big on "theorizing in advance of data" and all that. I like the idea of sending the next two GMs, if for no other reason because it seems methodical. However, I'd accept any mission team, to be honest, because I feel like I'll have more of a handle on this game once something happens. But what we really need is 3 successful missions, not to figure out who the moles are. I'm perfectly fine with having anyone on a mission if they're going to vote succeed, so if the bad guys want to do that just to take some information/certainty from us, that's good in my book. I think Furare already pointed this out, but you can't have the one without the other. I mean, this game is different from ROMS in that our goal is not to identify the spies, but in order to achieve our mission goals, we have to avoid sending spies on missions. Incidentally, when I quote, the adorable tiny avatar isn't showing up in the box. What am I doing wrong? Because lord knows I need my quotes to be cute.
|
|
|
Post by firebolt153 on Jan 20, 2014 10:35:48 GMT -8
For now, I'm good with whatever. I mean, to me, sending the next three GMs is the same as just picking three random people to go on a mission at this point. Because lord knows I need my quotes to be cute. Words I never thought I'd see strung together? Also it seems it's not working for me either Maybe it only works if you press the 'quote' button on that box and not typing in the code?
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 20, 2014 11:30:04 GMT -8
The incentive not to fail the first mission is so that you don't hand the resistance the information that "at least one of these three people is a Spy". Since that's the only mission with so few people on it. I'd expect to see 2 and 3 fail if we pick wrong because those are the easiest ones to mess up. (Only requiring 1/4 to be a Spy when the proportion is 40%.)
I did realise that this will be more challenging than the live version because communication between Spies. They can advise each other what to do, which can't happen in live. I don't know how big an effect that will have.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 20, 2014 12:18:52 GMT -8
Because lord knows I need my quotes to be cute. Like this. You have to use the person's account name, not their screen name. For a lot of people, that's just the same as their screen name but with a lower case initial letter.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 20, 2014 13:01:49 GMT -8
Sets is cremate though. It shows account name if you view their profile.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 20, 2014 13:04:43 GMT -8
Alright, it's settled then.
Mission Team: Riku, Leif, AhoyLindsay
|
|
|
Post by Jolyma on Jan 20, 2014 13:39:00 GMT -8
I vote yes, because we need to start somewhere.
Vote: Accept
|
|
|
Post by Marinated on Jan 20, 2014 14:32:16 GMT -8
Vote: Accept
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 20, 2014 14:50:37 GMT -8
Vote: Accept
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 20, 2014 15:34:27 GMT -8
Right, then.
Vote: Accept
Let's see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 20, 2014 15:55:40 GMT -8
Vote: The finest of Accepts
ps: Chapman's chocolate marshmallow ice cream is really good.
|
|
|
Post by AhoyLindsay on Jan 20, 2014 16:19:01 GMT -8
I'll Vote: Accept on that too. ( Leif, Riku-the moment we set off on the mission, I say we just ditch this town and make a break for Hawaii. Deal?)
|
|
|
Post by Bunnylaroo on Jan 20, 2014 17:01:22 GMT -8
Vote: The finest of Accepts ps: Chapman's chocolate marshmallow ice cream is really good. I think we're at 50% + 1, but just in case wrecker is a stickler for formatting the above (successfully) quoted doesn't count Vote: Accept On a side, anti-math note, can I just say thanks for doing a 10 person game, in which even I can quickly figure out percentages? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 20, 2014 17:04:23 GMT -8
And better yet, the percentages won't change!
|
|
|
Post by wrecker15 on Jan 20, 2014 17:52:15 GMT -8
Okay, that's a majority.
Riku, Leif, AL, you have until 10am my time on Wednesday to send me your replies. That's... Um, 5pm Tuesday afternoon, Jan 21 (PST).
By the way, there's a discussion forum up in the DT area for those who aren't playing, but have thoughts. PM me if you want the password (Actually please do, or I'll just ramble to myself in there =P)
|
|