Nah, that's gambler's fallacy not law of averages. Also see above.
As far as strategies, I've been digging around the internet some but most of the information is going to be buried in vote counts later on. So everyone should vote one way or the other for every proposed team. /soapbox
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Mindreaver jokingly asking to nominate 28 reads genuine.
@Mind, I've played Avalon a couple of times. I agree that the best thing for me, Merlin, to do is to purposefully craft bad teams, because passing missions means next to nothing if scum can sniff him out. Additionally, it's up to the other townies to pretend to be Merlin so that scum can't rule anyone out as NOT being Merlin.
Another option is for people to be so towny that we don't need Merlin outing himself to craft good teams, but I'm not reeeally holding my breath for enough people to clear themselves.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Yeah, it's certainly the optimal strategy but we'll deal without I guess.
I kind of think Silver/Mind/Vaimes has a good shot, but I also kind of think the first quest is going to pass regardless - any scum guy who throw "fail" on Q1 basically tells us there's a scum in those three right off the bat. Unless we have lol!town here, I guess.
People who play against their win condition will be recommended for probation post-game. In this case, this specifically refers to good guys who submit a "Fail" for any reason.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Also, if an early quest succeeds, it is not a blanket clear for the people on that quest.
True, but it's a great start because they can't give away the first two quests that easily. Hold on, thoughts forming...
Worst Case Scenario:
Quest 1: Players 1, 2, 3, result Fail
Quest 2: Players 4, 5, 6, 7 result Fail
This means that AT LEAST 2 scum have been selected, leaving at least 3 remaining scum. If we select every single player that hasn't been nominated, we guarantee a loss.
Best Case Scenario:
Quest 1: Players 1, 2, 3, result Pass
Quest 2: Players 4, 5, 6, 7 result Pass
This means that if we assume all players on those quests are town, the remaining five are scum. Seems like a bad deal for scum. If just one of those 7 players is actually scum providing a false positive all that does is illegitimately clear a scum as a townie. All THAT does is allow them to participate in the final three quests, but there still needs to be two scum to fail any of the last 2 quests, so that means at least two scum will need to provide a false positive and those two scum will need to be in the same quest, which can easily be combated by ensuring that no two players from the remaining 5 are ever put on a quest again.
For the remaining 7 players, here's what we would be looking at:
-Quest 3 requires 5 players. We can't use any of the last five players. Period. We only need to eliminate 2 of the scummiest first 7 players for the third quest of 5 people. That quest is do or die for scum (assuming MErlin lives), so if that quest fails, we have at least one sleeper scum in that group of 5.
we then eliminate the scummiest of that group and run the next quest with all 6 of the remaining cleared players from Quests 1 and 2.
I don't know, it seems like a pretty big gamble for scum to give a false positive.
@Joe: this issue is that if we have 2 scum in group 1 or 2, chances are fairly good that they still submit pass and then have reasonable chance to get picked for later rounds. Regardless of who we pick for the first quest, it's going to pass, and the same is likely for the second quest. Unless we get a group of all scum in those quests, they won't risk it. The long game is what's important.
Hmm, it's not really that's simple, it's all WIFOM, but I don't see the first two quests failing without some serious foolery.
Worst Case Scenario:
Quest 1: Players 1, 2, 3, result Fail
Quest 2: Players 4, 5, 6, 7 result Fail
This means that AT LEAST 2 scum have been selected, leaving at least 3 remaining scum. If we select every single player that hasn't been nominated, we guarantee a loss.
That's correct. Unless there's more than two scum in those seven names, that is. But we know there's at least one scum in those three names - why wouldn't we eliminate the scummiest name and send the remaining two on Q2? Doesn't that give us more information than selecting a new group?
There's also the information we get from who voted "yes" to the quest versus who voted "no" and who voted "yes" vs "no" on previous attempts that involved those players. (That's my area. ) We shouldn't just be blindly pushing quests through - if I don't like Mindreaver's team for Q1 I'll vote "no" and I expect you all to do the same (until the fifth attempt, which will get pushed through no matter what).
Best Case Scenario:
Quest 1: Players 1, 2, 3, result Pass
Quest 2: Players 4, 5, 6, 7 result Pass
This means that if we assume all players on those quests are town, the remaining five are scum. Seems like a bad deal for scum. If just one of those 7 players is actually scum providing a false positive all that does is illegitimately clear a scum as a townie. All THAT does is allow them to participate in the final three quests, but there still needs to be two scum to fail any of the last 2 quests, so that means at least two scum will need to provide a false positive and those two scum will need to be in the same quest, which can easily be combated by ensuring that no two players from the remaining 5 are ever put on a quest again.
It's a pretty big assumption that Q2 will pass with different players from Q1. If Q1 passes, we should select the same group + one more player for Q2, not throw out the party that just gave us a pass. If that one fails (and it probably will regardless), we should hopefully have enough info from votes and behavior to figure out who failed it.
For the remaining 7 players, here's what we would be looking at:
-Quest 3 requires 5 players. We can't use any of the last five players. Period.
The chances of those being exactly the scum team are astronomically low (which is why Q2 will almost certainly fail if you select all new players after Q1 passes). You're basically banking on us choosing only town and getting passes, which of course supports the argument that scum throwing a pass is bad.
We only need to eliminate 2 of the scummiest first 7 players for the third quest of 5 people. That quest is do or die for scum (assuming MErlin lives), so if that quest fails, we have at least one sleeper scum in that group of 5.
we then eliminate the scummiest of that group and run the next quest with all 6 of the remaining cleared players from Quests 1 and 2.
I don't know, it seems like a pretty big gamble for scum to give a false positive.
It's only a big gamble if we (1) choose entirely new players for Q2 and (2) assume if we choose scum for Q2 that they will also throw a pass. Also (3) there could be multiple scum on Q1+Q2, in which case Q3 will fail regardless if we don't select players from the remaining 5.
Of course, we will eventually run into the problem of "we're not allowed to self-nominate" which basically means that if we try to select the same team multiple times eventually one of them will have to select their own replacement.
Also it eliminates our ability to ensure that at least one name is town when town is up to nominate, which feels really bad for us. I'm still trying to grok how that meshes with the strategy stuff I was reading before, as well as how it applies to a 12 man since Avalon is normally played with 5 to 9 players.
@silver. Just keep in mind I was only discussing the best and worst case scenarios, not actual likely events. I had forgot about the idea of repeating a quest team, but really my point is that I don't think we should be banking on a Q1 pass with or with out scum. For the scum, I feel like a fail would be worth the cost of suspicion. Not only does it go towards their wincon, it also could sow suspicion on up to two other potential town players and prevent them from being selected on future quests, which would then increase the chances of scum being selected for the next rounds. Scum will want to have at exactly 1 player on each quest. Keep that in mind when analyzing quest team votes and suggestions.
Well, I don't think they'll necessarily want exactly the number they need. Because we'll be looking for (ex.) one scum on Q1 if it fails, right? So if there's two scum on Q1, it's more likely one of them will be selected for Q2.
Or we can select all new, like you proposed, but I don't really think that's a good idea. If we can get 4-5 players we know are town, we can win the game by forcing teams through with those names on them. The most important thing is getting as much info as we can about a smaller group of players. We don't *need* to clear the entire game and I think it would be a mistake to try to.
So for these proposals of 3 and 4 and they both fail etc...
If the early ones fail, we're hosed. They are much more important. Things only get more difficult as we add more and more people, and as Silver mentioned, not choosing yourself throws an additional wrench in the works.
So the answer to if Q1 and Q2 fail, we're just done. I doubt we'll be able to choose any better when it's 5 people. And we'd have to do that 3 times in a row, which choosing the same people over and over *might* work, but it's going to depend on where in the list we find ourselves. Scum don't have to choose our "safe 5", and in any member of the "safe 5" is the chooser we have to vote it down to get another shot.
So lets take this one specifically as seriously as we can, even though we'll have the least data. And then Q2 is going to be the real test.
So for these proposals of 3 and 4 and they both fail etc...
If the early ones fail, we're hosed. They are much more important. Things only get more difficult as we add more and more people, and as Silver mentioned, not choosing yourself throws an additional wrench in the works.
So the answer to if Q1 and Q2 fail, we're just done. I doubt we'll be able to choose any better when it's 5 people. And we'd have to do that 3 times in a row, which choosing the same people over and over *might* work, but it's going to depend on where in the list we find ourselves. Scum don't have to choose our "safe 5", and in any member of the "safe 5" is the chooser we have to vote it down to get another shot.
So lets take this one specifically as seriously as we can, even though we'll have the least data. And then Q2 is going to be the real test.
I don't think passing Q1 is super-duper important, actually. Q2 is, though, because if we pass Q1 we can be in a strong position after passing Q2 and if we fail Q1 we're screwed if we fail Q2. Basically, failing Q1 is like mislynching on D1 except we actually get more info - we know there's at least one scum in those three names. So it's not really the end of the world *if* we can figure out which of the three failed the quest.
Also, there are ways of maximizing our data for Q1 before choosing. But talking about them sort of nullifies the tells, which is why I'm not saying anything. Ask me about that in post game, too, if you want.
I had what I thought was an important question for Iso but I got distracted for a minute and it left me entirely. Consider this a reminder to myself, so that when I revisit this page later I can try to remember what it was.
Oh, actually, one more thing. Could we please pretty please vote Yes or No in the following format?
vote: yes
or vote: no
(colons optional, capitalization irrelephant)
I want to take Eco's vote counter out for a spin. Anyone else who wants to can try it, too. It should work as long as you put Yes and No as the players in the player list, I believe.
Oh! I remembered my question too. @Modso:
Once someone has voted Yes or No for a party, are they allowed to change their vote or is it locked in?
(I'm assuming we can change, but. better safe than sorry.)
Of course, we will eventually run into the problem of "we're not allowed to self-nominate" which basically means that if we try to select the same team multiple times eventually one of them will have to select their own replacement.
Also it eliminates our ability to ensure that at least one name is town when town is up to nominate, which feels really bad for us. I'm still trying to grok how that meshes with the strategy stuff I was reading before, as well as how it applies to a 12 man since Avalon is normally played with 5 to 9 players.
Yeh all strategy I read involved picking yourself when you’re up for nominating the team. I think not being able to do that plays into the hand of the scumteam immensely. But I guess we can decide on a team and then pass round robin towards someone that isn’t on it? If that person wants to screw us, he’ll have to out himself as scum by nominating a different team.
Should work until we've lost 2 quests.
But I guess we can decide on a team and then pass round robin towards someone that isn’t on it? If that person wants to screw us, he’ll have to out himself as scum by nominating a different team.
The only problem is the "fail to pass 5 times in a row scum wins" clause. So the list up top might read:
1) person we want
2) person we want
3) scum
4) scum
5) scum
Passing on 1 and 2 hands the game to scum, unless, as you say, we're find with outing a few scum and fail a quest just to get a specific team.
Passing on purpose seems dangerous. And voting down a group shouldn't be something we take lightly.
I think we should take 3 out of D_V / Cantrip / me / Silver for the first quest.
I have that narrowed down slightly further (sans D_V/Cantrip), but it's pretty early and I haven't heard from half the game. I also am leaning toward Vaimes.
Hmmm. I don't think passing a selection on should be serious. Most of the time it forces people to vote more on different teams which gives us more information without risking a quest failure.
That said, I really don't want to ruin the tell here by determining the strict mathematical odds. But for 5-9 players it's twice as likely that a team without you (me) on it has scum on it. I haven't run numbers for 12 players and probably won't (because it will ruin the tell, see?). I guess what I'm getting at is that most new player advice I read said that towns fail because they're afraid of passing when they should, strictly speaking, be passing more often than they accept.
Hmmm. I don't think passing a selection on should be serious. Most of the time it forces people to vote more on different teams which gives us more information without risking a quest failure.
That said, I really don't want to ruin the tell here by determining the strict mathematical odds. But for 5-9 players it's twice as likely that a team without you (me) on it has scum on it. I haven't run numbers for 12 players and probably won't (because it will ruin the tell, see?). I guess what I'm getting at is that most new player advice I read said that towns fail because they're afraid of passing when they should, strictly speaking, be passing more often than they accept.
I actually don't disagree. I think the only difference of opinion I have is that we shouldn't pass "on purpose".
So if ya'll don't like my group, that's fine. Vote no, and we move to DK (where are you DK?). My problem is with the strat of "We need Mindreaver, so we should all agree to vote no, pass to DK. THAT seems like a bad strat, that nullifies those tells, and also puts us in place to be vulnerable to some out of the blue "5 passes and you lose". And to be clear, I think kind of loss is improbable. The real damage is not seeing who people would nominate, whether or not we want to actually accept it.
Also, I like Rhand's choices. I'd probably say Vaimes instead of Cantrip but I'm having a hard time reading Cantrip.
Plus tonereading Vaimes is a poor plan but I'm doing it anyway since he has all of one post worth of content.
Also, I like Rhand's choices. I'd probably say Vaimes instead of Cantrip but I'm having a hard time reading Cantrip.
Plus tonereading Vaimes is a poor plan but I'm doing it anyway since he has all of one post worth of content.
Do you have an opinion on D_V? I originally hated the not-Merlin thing, and the "because I'm Percival" is too cute.
Same question to you Rhand, since he's in your grouping.
So far I like Vaimes. For his D_V questions (particularly the why not-merlin) and his comment to shadow "you aren't town enough yet". Love it.
Cantrip, seems overeager. Not sold man.
Shadow, see Cantrip
Rhand and Silver, no opinion yet. But no bad vibes either.
This seems like an odd reason to express suspicion. I would think that everyone would be eager to go on the quest; it's sorta an integral part of everyone's wincon, no?
1. Gun to head, what alignment is Mindreaver and why?
2. Why would you claim Not Merlin? Please be specific.
1 IDK lul I just want to go questing.
2. Cause I'm claiming the other town role.
The only down side I can think of for scum claiming this role is that the real Percival would know you were scum. But that's a pretty big downside. So if you're scum, you would have to be ok with being outted at some point down the road. That feels like a bad position to be in, and Town should never falseclaim Percival, so I'm inclined to believe you.
@Modso:
Once someone has voted Yes or No for a party, are they allowed to change their vote or is it locked in?
(I'm assuming we can change, but. better safe than sorry.)
Votes will be accepted for the 72-hour period that the voting phase is open after each party selection.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
@Modso:
Once someone has voted Yes or No for a party, are they allowed to change their vote or is it locked in?
(I'm assuming we can change, but. better safe than sorry.)
Votes will be accepted for the 72-hour period that the voting phase is open after each party selection.
Right, but once I've voted can I change my mind during the 72 hour period?
So far I like Vaimes. For his D_V questions (particularly the why not-merlin) and his comment to shadow "you aren't town enough yet". Love it.
Cantrip, seems overeager. Not sold man.
Shadow, see Cantrip
Rhand and Silver, no opinion yet. But no bad vibes either.
This seems like an odd reason to express suspicion. I would think that everyone would be eager to go on the quest; it's sorta an integral part of everyone's wincon, no?
I specifically mean the way you're buddying up to Rhand. That interaction just seems... I don't know. Do you love me? I can read you the best. Unladen swallow.... all of that.
Maybe that is all just friendly RVS-style banter, but right this second, it's most of your posts in the game. It's page 2 though, so I wouldn't take it too hard.
As far as the D_V claim, just one question for you: How would a scum D_V be outed? Or for that matter, how would any claim be outed? We aren't going to see any flips. Take a look at the 4 or 5 Merlin claims, OR you could look at the 7-9 Knight claims we'll eventually have. Conflicts won't hurt, if we can't prove who is lying and who is telling the truth.
(Ok, maybe it's not strictly -EV. But we should probably drop it. I was trying to hint at that with my post right after D_V's claim and my post after you asked what I thought of D_V, but. For now just assume he's town unless he gets counterclaimed or we know he's throwing fails - if he's counterclaimed, we can just not put either of them on a quest team.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also I ain't Merlin.
Nah, that's gambler's fallacy not law of averages. Also see above.
As far as strategies, I've been digging around the internet some but most of the information is going to be buried in vote counts later on. So everyone should vote one way or the other for every proposed team. /soapbox
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Okay now I'll go read the first page.
@Mind, I've played Avalon a couple of times. I agree that the best thing for me, Merlin, to do is to purposefully craft bad teams, because passing missions means next to nothing if scum can sniff him out. Additionally, it's up to the other townies to pretend to be Merlin so that scum can't rule anyone out as NOT being Merlin.
Another option is for people to be so towny that we don't need Merlin outing himself to craft good teams, but I'm not reeeally holding my breath for enough people to clear themselves.
---
I kinda of like Cantrip prodding at Rhand.
Mind/Vaimes/Cantrip mission is a go. Sorry. You're not town enough, and there's no space left for the first quest. Hm.
Two things.
1. Gun to head, what alignment is Mindreaver and why?
2. Why would you claim Not Merlin? Please be specific.
to nominate *Shockwave in 28
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
First quest Shadow/Cantrip/Vaimes
I am the only trustworthy person though...
I actually agree, second only to me.
I kind of think Silver/Mind/Vaimes has a good shot, but I also kind of think the first quest is going to pass regardless - any scum guy who throw "fail" on Q1 basically tells us there's a scum in those three right off the bat. Unless we have lol!town here, I guess.
Cantrip, seems overeager. Not sold man.
Shadow, see Cantrip
Rhand and Silver, no opinion yet. But no bad vibes either.
1 IDK lul I just want to go questing.
2. Cause I'm claiming the other town role.
Well, I thought of some things, but. I don't really want to talk about them. Maybe if someone reminds me in postgame.
I believe D_V's claim, though.
(Next time, we should try not claiming instead, but cat's kind of out of the bag now...)
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Worst Case Scenario:
Quest 1: Players 1, 2, 3, result Fail
Quest 2: Players 4, 5, 6, 7 result Fail
This means that AT LEAST 2 scum have been selected, leaving at least 3 remaining scum. If we select every single player that hasn't been nominated, we guarantee a loss.
Best Case Scenario:
Quest 1: Players 1, 2, 3, result Pass
Quest 2: Players 4, 5, 6, 7 result Pass
This means that if we assume all players on those quests are town, the remaining five are scum. Seems like a bad deal for scum. If just one of those 7 players is actually scum providing a false positive all that does is illegitimately clear a scum as a townie. All THAT does is allow them to participate in the final three quests, but there still needs to be two scum to fail any of the last 2 quests, so that means at least two scum will need to provide a false positive and those two scum will need to be in the same quest, which can easily be combated by ensuring that no two players from the remaining 5 are ever put on a quest again.
For the remaining 7 players, here's what we would be looking at:
-Quest 3 requires 5 players. We can't use any of the last five players. Period. We only need to eliminate 2 of the scummiest first 7 players for the third quest of 5 people. That quest is do or die for scum (assuming MErlin lives), so if that quest fails, we have at least one sleeper scum in that group of 5.
we then eliminate the scummiest of that group and run the next quest with all 6 of the remaining cleared players from Quests 1 and 2.
I don't know, it seems like a pretty big gamble for scum to give a false positive.
Hmm, it's not really that's simple, it's all WIFOM, but I don't see the first two quests failing without some serious foolery.
There's also the information we get from who voted "yes" to the quest versus who voted "no" and who voted "yes" vs "no" on previous attempts that involved those players. (That's my area. ) We shouldn't just be blindly pushing quests through - if I don't like Mindreaver's team for Q1 I'll vote "no" and I expect you all to do the same (until the fifth attempt, which will get pushed through no matter what).
It's a pretty big assumption that Q2 will pass with different players from Q1. If Q1 passes, we should select the same group + one more player for Q2, not throw out the party that just gave us a pass. If that one fails (and it probably will regardless), we should hopefully have enough info from votes and behavior to figure out who failed it.
The chances of those being exactly the scum team are astronomically low (which is why Q2 will almost certainly fail if you select all new players after Q1 passes). You're basically banking on us choosing only town and getting passes, which of course supports the argument that scum throwing a pass is bad.
It's only a big gamble if we (1) choose entirely new players for Q2 and (2) assume if we choose scum for Q2 that they will also throw a pass. Also (3) there could be multiple scum on Q1+Q2, in which case Q3 will fail regardless if we don't select players from the remaining 5.
Also it eliminates our ability to ensure that at least one name is town when town is up to nominate, which feels really bad for us. I'm still trying to grok how that meshes with the strategy stuff I was reading before, as well as how it applies to a 12 man since Avalon is normally played with 5 to 9 players.
Or we can select all new, like you proposed, but I don't really think that's a good idea. If we can get 4-5 players we know are town, we can win the game by forcing teams through with those names on them. The most important thing is getting as much info as we can about a smaller group of players. We don't *need* to clear the entire game and I think it would be a mistake to try to.
If the early ones fail, we're hosed. They are much more important. Things only get more difficult as we add more and more people, and as Silver mentioned, not choosing yourself throws an additional wrench in the works.
So the answer to if Q1 and Q2 fail, we're just done. I doubt we'll be able to choose any better when it's 5 people. And we'd have to do that 3 times in a row, which choosing the same people over and over *might* work, but it's going to depend on where in the list we find ourselves. Scum don't have to choose our "safe 5", and in any member of the "safe 5" is the chooser we have to vote it down to get another shot.
So lets take this one specifically as seriously as we can, even though we'll have the least data. And then Q2 is going to be the real test.
Also, there are ways of maximizing our data for Q1 before choosing. But talking about them sort of nullifies the tells, which is why I'm not saying anything. Ask me about that in post game, too, if you want.
I had what I thought was an important question for Iso but I got distracted for a minute and it left me entirely. Consider this a reminder to myself, so that when I revisit this page later I can try to remember what it was.
vote: yes
or
vote: no
(colons optional, capitalization irrelephant)
I want to take Eco's vote counter out for a spin. Anyone else who wants to can try it, too. It should work as long as you put Yes and No as the players in the player list, I believe.
Oh! I remembered my question too.
@Modso:
Once someone has voted Yes or No for a party, are they allowed to change their vote or is it locked in?
(I'm assuming we can change, but. better safe than sorry.)
I'll pretty much vote any wagon yes.
Unless someone has another reason.
Yeh all strategy I read involved picking yourself when you’re up for nominating the team. I think not being able to do that plays into the hand of the scumteam immensely. But I guess we can decide on a team and then pass round robin towards someone that isn’t on it? If that person wants to screw us, he’ll have to out himself as scum by nominating a different team.
Should work until we've lost 2 quests.
This post feels terribly forced. Please don’t nominate this one for quests.
I think we should take 3 out of D_V / Cantrip / me / Silver for the first quest.
1) person we want
2) person we want
3) scum
4) scum
5) scum
Passing on 1 and 2 hands the game to scum, unless, as you say, we're find with outing a few scum and fail a quest just to get a specific team.
Passing on purpose seems dangerous. And voting down a group shouldn't be something we take lightly.
I have that narrowed down slightly further (sans D_V/Cantrip), but it's pretty early and I haven't heard from half the game. I also am leaning toward Vaimes.
Says the person who self-admits to be scum.
That said, I really don't want to ruin the tell here by determining the strict mathematical odds. But for 5-9 players it's twice as likely that a team without you (me) on it has scum on it. I haven't run numbers for 12 players and probably won't (because it will ruin the tell, see?). I guess what I'm getting at is that most new player advice I read said that towns fail because they're afraid of passing when they should, strictly speaking, be passing more often than they accept.
So if ya'll don't like my group, that's fine. Vote no, and we move to DK (where are you DK?). My problem is with the strat of "We need Mindreaver, so we should all agree to vote no, pass to DK. THAT seems like a bad strat, that nullifies those tells, and also puts us in place to be vulnerable to some out of the blue "5 passes and you lose". And to be clear, I think kind of loss is improbable. The real damage is not seeing who people would nominate, whether or not we want to actually accept it.
Also, I like Rhand's choices. I'd probably say Vaimes instead of Cantrip but I'm having a hard time reading Cantrip.
Plus tonereading Vaimes is a poor plan but I'm doing it anyway since he has all of one post worth of content.
But yeah, I want to hear from those guys a bit, and get a better feel for those who are here. Lurking doesn't get you on a quest
Looking forward to it though, I haven't played with a few of you in well over a year.
Same question to you Rhand, since he's in your grouping.
I'm Merlin so he's either town or Mordred. You can trust me.
The only down side I can think of for scum claiming this role is that the real Percival would know you were scum. But that's a pretty big downside. So if you're scum, you would have to be ok with being outted at some point down the road. That feels like a bad position to be in, and Town should never falseclaim Percival, so I'm inclined to believe you.
Coming on the heels of a Percival claim, why would you fish for other Percivals?
What? What do you mean?
Votes will be accepted for the 72-hour period that the voting phase is open after each party selection.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Maybe that is all just friendly RVS-style banter, but right this second, it's most of your posts in the game. It's page 2 though, so I wouldn't take it too hard.
As far as the D_V claim, just one question for you: How would a scum D_V be outed? Or for that matter, how would any claim be outed? We aren't going to see any flips. Take a look at the 4 or 5 Merlin claims, OR you could look at the 7-9 Knight claims we'll eventually have. Conflicts won't hurt, if we can't prove who is lying and who is telling the truth.