Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14  All

Author Topic: Resistance VII: Avalon - Resistance Wins!  (Read 8254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

chairs

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
  • Why don't you have a seat over there...
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2013, 10:54:55 am »

Oh man, I missed the chairs+table option, I'm dumb.

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2013, 11:12:38 am »

Chairs any particular reason for that combo? Or just random? Just curious really and trying to get my bearings. Is it customary/wise to nominate one's self on these missions? I'm coming up soon to propose.

Should we possibly wait for the others to speak up? I was reading some of the other Mafia threads and it seems people don't generally care for lurkers...maybe we should give them a chance to contribute?

Of course, probably the best thing for me to do is shut up :P But where's the fun in that eh?
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

chairs

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
  • Why don't you have a seat over there...
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2013, 11:26:39 am »

Well, Jim asked and tables was kind of a random pick.  I feel like mission 1 is one of those where it's not super important to 'get it right' because I'd be amazed to see any fails on mission 1 regardless.

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2013, 11:41:55 am »

Oh I see...I was sort of under the impression that baddies were obligated to fail. So I suppose ceding the first mission would probably be worth it for the possibility of masquerading as a good guy? Are there 3 people on Mission 2?
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

chairs

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
  • Why don't you have a seat over there...
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2013, 11:46:48 am »

That's my understanding,yes

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2791
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2013, 12:05:04 pm »

Eh, okay. Proposing without yourself because of a misunderstanding, that's fine. In fact there's often some good reasons to not include onself on M1 anyway. Jimmm is an interesting pick, there's actually some arguably strategic grounding for picking him actually (asides from the fact he's sounded generally helpful so far), in that if this mission does pass he's proposing 2.5 next round. But uh this mission probably won't go ahead, so whatever.

M1 does indeed often pass. I haven't looked to see if any stats have been gathered, but I wouldn't be surprised if the win rates in 7P for an M1 pass (with spy on team) and M1 fail are about even.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.
I hereby declare myself the best dominion player in the world. Obviously.

Twistedarcher

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 494
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #56 on: September 12, 2013, 12:15:49 pm »

Mission 1, Proposal 1 has been proposed. Please send me your votes by 11:00 am Friday.
Logged

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #57 on: September 12, 2013, 12:42:53 pm »

Tables, what "misunderstanding" are you referring to exactly? Just the fact that he missed your furniture team combo? Why do you suppose this mission will be rejected? Do you plan on voting to reject it?

Please don't interpret these questions as accusations--I'm just genuinely curious as to your reasoning!
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

mail-mi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1296
  • Shuffle iT Username: mail-mi
  • Come play some Forum Mafia with us!
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #58 on: September 12, 2013, 01:00:10 pm »

I'm not cool with random proposals very much, and it's M1.1.
Logged
I currently imagine mail-mi wearing a dark trenchcoat and a bowler hat, hunched over a bit, toothpick in his mouth, holding a gun in his pocket.  One bead of sweat trickling down his nose.

'And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise." - Moroni 7:41, the Book of Mormon

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #59 on: September 12, 2013, 01:03:07 pm »

I'm not cool with random proposals very much, and it's M1.1.

OK, what would you suggest then? Wait a bit and see how things evolve?

I would think that if there were ever a time for random proposals, it would be 1.1.
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

mail-mi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1296
  • Shuffle iT Username: mail-mi
  • Come play some Forum Mafia with us!
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #60 on: September 12, 2013, 01:31:09 pm »

I'm not cool with random proposals very much, and it's M1.1.

OK, what would you suggest then? Wait a bit and see how things evolve?

I would think that if there were ever a time for random proposals, it would be 1.1.
Well, true, but we also have missions 1.2 to 1.5 to choose from.
Logged
I currently imagine mail-mi wearing a dark trenchcoat and a bowler hat, hunched over a bit, toothpick in his mouth, holding a gun in his pocket.  One bead of sweat trickling down his nose.

'And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise." - Moroni 7:41, the Book of Mormon

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2791
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #61 on: September 12, 2013, 01:31:33 pm »

Tables, what "misunderstanding" are you referring to exactly? Just the fact that he missed your furniture team combo? Why do you suppose this mission will be rejected? Do you plan on voting to reject it?

Please don't interpret these questions as accusations--I'm just genuinely curious as to your reasoning!

Misunderstanding: I presume Chairs missed that he could put himself on the mission. Or at least that's the impression I got from his reaction pretty soon after he proposed.

I think the mission will be voted down because it's M1.1. That means at the very least:

There are five people not on the mission who might vote no so they can be on the mission
There are four people who would propose a mission later this round who might want to propose a mission this round
The more proposals there are with legitimate votes, the more information this generates for the resistance. Voting no by default unless you trust this mission is MUCH better for resistance than voting yes by default unless you don't trust it.

I'm rejecting because of the second point. I have the hammer (proposal 5). On mission 1, okay, that's not a big deal, but it's still an advantage and it's still a reason for me to reject most proposals.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.
I hereby declare myself the best dominion player in the world. Obviously.

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #62 on: September 12, 2013, 04:23:35 pm »

That sounds reasonable. Unless somebody makes a compelling argument otherwise, I will be voting to reject this proposal.

Where do you suppose the others are anyway? In some exotic time zone perhaps? Occupied by other engagements? Or possibly...MATURING THEIR DIABOLICAL PLANS!?!?




Lol I jest of course...mostly...
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #63 on: September 12, 2013, 04:36:46 pm »

How about we don't reveal how we are going to be voting in-thread. I know that helped me as a spy last game.
Logged

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #64 on: September 12, 2013, 04:41:00 pm »

Oh ok. I thought that the votes were revealed after having been tabulated? I figured that info would come to light soon anyway.
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #65 on: September 12, 2013, 04:46:21 pm »

They will be revealed - the idea is to make it harder for spies to choose how to vote.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2791
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #66 on: September 12, 2013, 05:14:59 pm »

Yeah, I agree with Lio, even though I've revealed how I'm voting. But eh, it's M1.1.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.
I hereby declare myself the best dominion player in the world. Obviously.

WalrusMcFishSr

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
  • An enormous walrus the size of Antarctica
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #67 on: September 12, 2013, 05:15:33 pm »

Very sensible.
Logged
My Dominion videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/WalrusMcFishSr   <---Bet you can't click on that!

chairs

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
  • Why don't you have a seat over there...
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2013, 06:27:50 pm »

Tables, what "misunderstanding" are you referring to exactly? Just the fact that he missed your furniture team combo? Why do you suppose this mission will be rejected? Do you plan on voting to reject it?

Please don't interpret these questions as accusations--I'm just genuinely curious as to your reasoning!

Misunderstanding: I presume Chairs missed that he could put himself on the mission. Or at least that's the impression I got from his reaction pretty soon after he proposed.

I think the mission will be voted down because it's M1.1. That means at the very least:

There are five people not on the mission who might vote no so they can be on the mission
There are four people who would propose a mission later this round who might want to propose a mission this round
The more proposals there are with legitimate votes, the more information this generates for the resistance. Voting no by default unless you trust this mission is MUCH better for resistance than voting yes by default unless you don't trust it.

I'm rejecting because of the second point. I have the hammer (proposal 5). On mission 1, okay, that's not a big deal, but it's still an advantage and it's still a reason for me to reject most proposals.

When you say you have the hammer, does that mean we auto-accept your mission if nobody else's goes through?

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2791
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2013, 06:30:50 pm »

Yes. It's a reasonable useful position to have. Missions often don't go to proposal 5, unless that person is trusted, but when they do it gives that person the freedom to propose whatever they want. That's obviously good for someone regardless of their allegiance.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.
I hereby declare myself the best dominion player in the world. Obviously.

yuma

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 695
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2013, 07:35:33 pm »

How about we don't reveal how we are going to be voting in-thread. I know that helped me as a spy last game.

Can you give specific examples from last game where this happened?

Because honestly I kinda disagree. I know I am coming into this game as a newbie, but I think not having an in-thread discussion helps evil more than good.

Here is my thinking.

If all discussion is held back a spy can put down a vote. Once the votes come in that person is free to explain however he wants why he voted. After the fact. There is no accountability.

Whereas if a discussion is held in-thread and a spy is forced to put down whether or not he is going to vote and explain why he is somewhat bound by that post. If he changes it when it actually comes time to vote, he had better have a really good reason, especially if it is the deciding vote!

Now I think it is true that spies can get an idea of how to vote based off how what the other players around them are saying. BUT! That only holds true if the spy is one of the last players to say what they are going to do. But then we can start suspecting players who hold back on their decision publicly and wait until everyone has said what they are going to do.

My thought process is this:

I think that we should have whomever is the current proposal leader also ask for players in a certain order to say whether or not they are going to accept or reject. Say chairs is the leader here. He might ask that Jimmm, Walrus, yuma, Tables, Mail-mi and lio explain how/why they are going to vote. He is likely to put players that he suspects the most toward the front and those he has good reads on toward the front (although maybe we should have someone who is not the proposal leader be the leader for vote explanations as the proposal leader is likely to have the players he has good reads on, on the mission with him). This will give us more "data points" as we can see who that player has good reads on and bad reads on. But it will also likely force players who are generally seen as scummier to take a position earlier in the game and w/o as much information. Basically this puts bad in a bind. They have to either say they will accept a mission or decline a mission w/o knowing what the current status is of the other players. After everyone has had their say they have to decide if they want to keep the accept/decline. If they want to keep it we can keep that in mind, if they want to change it... well like I said it will be a huge topic of conversation I think if someone changes their mind.

sorry for the wall of text. Maybe this has been tried in other games before, but mostly I think that having a public discourse is important as it gives us information to analyze and use on later missions.

I will say that I am somewhat suspicious of lio for suggesting it, as well as for Tables for just blindly accepting it? I wonder if lio as spy last time had a hard time coming up with whether he wanted to accept or reject mission before he knew what others around him were doing and giving reasons why? Who else was spy last game or other games? Is this something that spies struggle with? I think if I were a spy it would be something I would.
Logged

Tables

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2791
  • Build more Bridges in the King's Court!
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2013, 07:58:04 pm »

There's lots of issues with publicly revealing votes.

First and foremost is the fact that it gives no advantage to the rebels, while giving all the advantages to the spies. What do Rebels get out of public votes before the mission goes ahead, exactly? Meanwhile, spies get to see how the voting trends are doing. If they're in a place they could easily be on the fence, they can 'decide' to vote no to a clean mission, or yes to a dirty mission, if it looks like it might go ahead or not. The most revealing pieces of data in this game are votes, and if you give spies a means to hide in them - even if it's only around 1/3rd of the time they're near the end, then that obfuscates a lot of potential information.

Secondly, it prevents any kind of honeytrap play. Making a proposal you're confident will get shot down or which is very likely to contain spies, and see who votes it up, and other similar things. These plays are often very good sources of information, but rely on voting being hidden until everyone is ready. Your proposal would make that very difficult.

Honestly, I'm just not seeing a single advantage for the resistance in always revealing votes, but it's considerably helpful to spies.
Logged
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.
I hereby declare myself the best dominion player in the world. Obviously.

yuma

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 695
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2013, 08:06:21 pm »

There's lots of issues with publicly revealing votes.

First and foremost is the fact that it gives no advantage to the rebels, while giving all the advantages to the spies. What do Rebels get out of public votes before the mission goes ahead, exactly? Meanwhile, spies get to see how the voting trends are doing. If they're in a place they could easily be on the fence, they can 'decide' to vote no to a clean mission, or yes to a dirty mission, if it looks like it might go ahead or not. The most revealing pieces of data in this game are votes, and if you give spies a means to hide in them - even if it's only around 1/3rd of the time they're near the end, then that obfuscates a lot of potential information.

Secondly, it prevents any kind of honeytrap play. Making a proposal you're confident will get shot down or which is very likely to contain spies, and see who votes it up, and other similar things. These plays are often very good sources of information, but rely on voting being hidden until everyone is ready. Your proposal would make that very difficult.

Honestly, I'm just not seeing a single advantage for the resistance in always revealing votes, but it's considerably helpful to spies.

I feel like you didn't read what I wrote. But maybe you and I are missing each other somewhere.

First: I said that I think it offers an advantage because it forces a spy to take a position before he has complete knowledge.

Say there is a spy that comes online. He sees that someone proposed a mission. No one else has commented on it. He has to make a decision, accept or reject and say it publicly. And this is a pretty binding decision if you ask me because a reversal is going to bring a huge amount of scrutiny. Afterward others comment (mostly the good guys) and maybe knowing this he would have changed his mind, but now he can't, or if he does again lots of scrutiny.

Now the question arises... well how do we make sure spies always post first. Answers: we can't. But we can have players make a list of who should say whether they accept or reject publicly. If there are 3 spies and 4 resistance than 4/7 times that will be a player who is good leading that discussion. (And again we can also use that information of which player put which player in front and in the back).

To add to this discussion, I am curious why this wasn't brought up last game? Or was it? It obviously was around because lio said he gained an advantage from it. I viewed the game throughout most of it and I think throughout all of it people expressed their accept/decline decisions in-thread pretty often. I don't remember people saying "don't say anything!" My point is that having it just be scattershot probably isn't a good idea. But controlling it and harnessing it I think could have benefits.

Otherwise... what exactly are we supposed to talk about and get reads off?
Logged

yuma

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 695
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2013, 08:07:21 pm »

And can you clarify your second point? I am not quite following what you are saying there.
Logged

liopoil

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2587
    • View Profile
Re: Resistance: Avalon II
« Reply #74 on: September 12, 2013, 08:41:18 pm »

How about we don't reveal how we are going to be voting in-thread. I know that helped me as a spy last game.

Can you give specific examples from last game where this happened?
Sure:

The last mission. If I wanted to continue pretending to be resistance, I had to keep rejecting all the proposals. Well, there came a proposal which I thought probably had oberon on it. I looked at what people said and their stances, and decided that if I accepted the proposal would very likely be approved. So I approved it. It ended up that it didn't need my vote to be approved, but anyway...

Also, in earlier missions, can't think of specific examples off the top of my head, but I know there were some proposals where what I want as a spy conflicted with what I want as a spy-pretending-to-be-resistance. By looking at how people seemed to be voting I could safely do what I would do as resistance without worrying about hurting my chances as a spy.

And well, consider this scenario:

Say I'm a spy, Jimmmmm is one of my partners, but tables isn't. So, I would love it if this mission was approved. However, if I accept it I look suspicious. But if it seems that the proposal will be rejected anyway, I can safely vote reject.

Or alternatively:

Say Jimmmm and Tables are spybuddies. As resistance, they should accept, but as spies, they don't want the mission to be approved. But since it looks like the proposal will be rejected anyway, they can safely approve the mission.

If a player says how they are voting before they vote and then they vote a different way, of course it looks suspicious. But a spy will never do that - they will just decide what they are going to do, say they will do it, then do it. I don't see why it matters if they explain them self before or after they vote.




On a completely separate note: Once a mission has been approved, no posting whatsoever until TA posts the results. We did that last game and it didn't end up mattering, but it could have.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14  All
 

Page created in 0.149 seconds with 20 queries.