Blacjak

Gunslingers

307 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Rexozord said:

My apologies. I thought it was clear that the two strategic areas I discussed were examples of analysis that presented themselves. Obviously, those were the two I chose to pursue, but there are others that the game itself suggests (how should Sinical pick deputies? how should we use duels? how should dead innocents use revenge bullets, if at all? etc.) that I think would be better subjects for analysis than who may or may not have volunteered to be a baddie. Now, I have no doubt you could have analyzed any of these if you had chosen to, but you chose to analyze an aspect of the game that I consider to be mostly useless. And I wonder if you chose that because you thought it would be the most helpful in finding baddies, or if it was chosen because it's easier to analyze without helping the innocent's chances of winning.

Also, let's go back to the full claim discussion. We have 9 players, Sinical is confirmed innocent (and so doesn't have to claim anything, although his role appears to be public), and we suspect there are 2~3 non-innocents (I think 4 non-innocents is quite unlikely). That means we have 6~7 innocents. I think the chances for typical investigator roles here are small (and as such, I think the only "important" innocent role is the one everyone already knows). So we outnumber the non-innocents 2:1 (most likely). We don't lose too much in terms of information warfare (after all, it's not like we can discuss our roles in private). On the other hand, this puts a lot of pressure on the baddies (unless their abilities are fairly innocentish) to fake a role. Also, it seems that you're assuming that baddies will have an auto-kill of some kind, but I'm pretty sure they're confined to shooting and dueling just like everyone else. Of course, that's something we'll find out shortly. I just think you're making a lot of assumptions that this set-up will be like a typical WW set-up in your argument against a full claim, and the only reason I'm bringing up a full claim is because it seems like this set-up is very different from a typical WW set-up.

EDIT: Also, since blacjak seems to have missed deadline, it's likely we won't see results until after he's done working.

Discussing who might be evil is less important to you than discussing what you yourself admit is a terrible strategy in every other circumstance? I'm supposed to have independently come up with this horrible idea of yours and proposed it myself before you did?

And the second thing you expected me to discuss instead of trying to figure out who might be evil is: What I discussed first. My first post here.

And none of these things you bring up have anything to analyze. They're strategy discussion points, not analysis.

After being killed off in every SISK game and dozens of others for TRYING TO HELP, it should be a LITTLE BIT OBVIOUS why this has me upset. You presented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF VALUE in your analysis, and that's supposed to be better than analyzing the ONE thing we have so far that might help us figure out who to start looking at.

1 hour ago, RocktheFox said:

Over analyzation might mean you are compensating for something. 

Getting told I"m "over analyzing" for the umpteenth game is making me not want to play on this forum anymore. I won't be playing another SISK because I've been killed EVERY SINGLE GAME because of this "helping innocents looks evil" BS. I get accused of it mostly when I'm innocent just by sheer odds, but also when I'm evil which just gets thrown back at me by way of confirmation bias, and I'm frankly fed up with it. "Over analysis" means analyzing to an extent that isn't useful. So, like Rex, you're claiming it's not useful to look for who might be evil. Really.

 

I'm done for tonight before I say something I'll regret. This is pushing too many buttons that should not be pushed. Analysis should never be treated as inherently suspicious, and no matter how you try to spin it, that's exactly what you're doing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT'S HIIIIIIIIGH NOOOON! Shouted the Timekeeper. Wish I had this guy waking me up XD Couldn't make it til midnight.

The second High Noon will occur at 3am Friday the 28th.

Here's a tally of posts this cycle for your convenience and my scrutiny:

1. Sinical 2
2. Inu 5
3. Cel 1
4. Traj 1
5. Rex 5
6. Rift 3
7. Rock 3
8. Lion 1
9. Zilary 1

Everyone hid inside today, yelling insults from cracks in their doors. No one was brave enough to step outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, day one was actually just a day. Well that sucked considering I wasn't really there at all...

Still half busy right now, will catch up in a few hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, I misread as well, since I thought Day 1 would've ended in 48 hours? I will try my best remember when Day 2 ends...err, High Noon. It looks like nothing happened last night either.

Since there's no "night scene" per say, my guess is that the baddies have the same shooting/gun/bullets as everyone else. They might have powers on top of that, but I don't think we have our typical "night kills" this game. Our kills/wounds are anybody's game, regardless of alignment, as we are all armed with injuring/killing power. We will have to figure out who is a baddie by who leads who to shoot who...what? Something like that.

There also seem to not be a requirement to shoot every day or anything like that. I personally would like to wait for our investigative powers (hoping we have any, and it's not me) to reveal things on thread. If I remember correctly, everyone starts out with 1 bullet, so we can hold off until we have a confirmed baddie and pick 3 of us to aim at them.

As far as sign ups go and judging who would be most likely to volunteer and so forth, I was not aware there were option to volunteer as a ruffian/sheriff/person/thing (or just didn't read it in the first sign-ups posts). And no, Blacjak didn't prompt me to sign up. The game started after the event I thought it was going to overlap with, so I thought I had time to join this game. However, with Halloween/World Series going on this weekend, I will try my best to stay in the loop.

Edited by Zilary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my absence as well. I was gone most of yesterday. I haven't read much of what's happened since my last post, so I'll get on that momentarily.

 

Edit: I confess to being still confused as to when the next High Noon is set to occur (the first post says 12:01 am EST, Thursday the 27th, which is already passed, isn't it?)

Edited by Trajectory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was announced in my most recent post, where I revealed the results of the cycle. But I guess I can keep it updated on the first post for easy reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@weee5067 Yep. I tried to do something from the MC side, and Blac has put in good tools to try to encourage participation, but having the players themselves ATTACK anything resembling activity... I don't know if it can be fixed. I'm sure as hell not going to join the inactive squad, but I am having a lot of trouble finding the energy to even read the thread, let alone post.

Anyway - nothing happened at noon, and no one said the shootey word starting with "B". Any secretive abilities to shoot either require activity (meaning the villain team has lost, we can all go home now), or are optional/limited. It seems the villains are either biding their time or using other abilities.

EDIT:

Rex, Rift and Rock are the only ones other than me who have enough posts to use an ability. All names starting with R, just like Ruffians. Sinical starts with S like Sheriff. Totally not evidence, but I will laugh my stitches out if that's how Blac picked the roles...

Edited by InuyashaOhki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm scrambling a bit to come up with something to say, honestly. Which is not a problem I usually have. I have an ability I'd like to use, sure - but I'd guess that the same is true for everyone else. The most discussion so far has been between Rex and Inu, as far as I can tell. Inu does seem a bit more snappish than usual, to me; usually he's one of the cooler heads. I can totally sympathize with what he's said so far about feeling attacked for being active, though, so I don't see any reason to shoot him.

I'm a bit more wary of Rex, to be honest. There's not a specific thing he's said that I can point to and say, "this looks bad to me"; there's just something about the way he's been posting that's reminding me a bit of evil!Rex that I've seen in the past. Just a feeling, for now.

As far as anyone else goes, there really isn't much to go on (and yes, that does include me. I'm sort of annoyed that I haven't been posting as much as I do normally, but then I remember it's Halloween week and I have an actual social life. :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: Had a busy day at work, so I've not read all the posts in detail. However, I feel a need to weigh in on the attack on Inu.

First, I initially agreed with Rex. My first post initially began with the question "How much will we really learn from who may or may not have volunteered?" However, as I wrote my post, I thought through the point of the question more thoroughly. Blac included the mechanic, and like Inu, I do not anticipate he dropped it without telling us. Even though we don't learn much from the analysis, it is a valid starting point for the conversation. When it was first brought up as a discussion point, there wasn't anything else on thread for us to cover.

Rex's next point was that he thought it may have been easy analysis to hide behind. However, I would contend that at this point in the game, which the mechanics as they are, most arguments can be hidden behind. The Sheriff concept is one we haven't seen in action before, so any suggestions made as to how we would want Sinical to behave are untested and therefore equally valid as ideas. 

Because of these two points, I personally don't think Inu should be considered any more suspicious than any other player. His touchiness is atypical, but honestly, he kind of got ganged up on because there were several of us being rather low-key day one. While he bears watching, it is no more so than anyone else. 

I have to leave in 10 minutes, but I'd like to propose a couple of questions that I intend to try to form my own opinion answers to when I get back. It would be great if we could get some discussion going on them, though, and I know I'll be back a bit too late to generate real conversation.

1. How do we think Sinical should behave as sheriff? Knowing him, I expect him to either totally do his own thing and probably be amazing at it, or to do exactly what the majority requests. 

2. What approach should we take to our shots? The point about not opening up innocent revenge kills has been mentioned and I have two thoughts formed on that already. First, remember they have to know who shot them for the revenge shot to do any good. So announcing who we are planning to target makes revenge shooting an innocent a lot more likely 'cuz the revenge shots will have a higher success rate. Second, with the publicity of who fired, I personally expect that no one will want to fire the first shot in a given day, for fear that no one else will fire and their target will become rapidly apparent. In order to win the game, we need to be willing to take that risk, because the baddies won't, and so we'll never let off shots and the game will never end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Celairiel said:

2. What approach should we take to our shots? The point about not opening up innocent revenge kills has been mentioned and I have two thoughts formed on that already. First, remember they have to know who shot them for the revenge shot to do any good. So announcing who we are planning to target makes revenge shooting an innocent a lot more likely 'cuz the revenge shots will have a higher success rate. Second, with the publicity of who fired, I personally expect that no one will want to fire the first shot in a given day, for fear that no one else will fire and their target will become rapidly apparent. In order to win the game, we need to be willing to take that risk, because the baddies won't, and so we'll never let off shots and the game will never end. 

I thought we had to announce who we were attacking in thread? The whole dueling thing, right? So wouldn't anybody who gets a revenge shot already know who killed them?

 

Edit: ... I am an idiot. I was mixing the two shooting rules.

Edited by lion wiggles
Dumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so here are my thoughts.

Rexs view that blac would just drop the volunteer thing is really confusing. Why on earth would blac create the mechanic to just drop it? Honestly it is a very good avenue of approach to look at and inus post seems pretty helpful. The fact you are trying to discredit anything in it is mildly suspicious to say the least.

Rex then goes on to basically say "Oh hey, we should do nothing. We'll get stronger than the baddies as the game goes on". I realise this isn't a standard game, but what the hell? That is the complete opposite of how every game has ever worked. You can be pretty certain that evil players will have some power that strengthens them or weakens us. Suggesting we just sit here and wait for them to act is bewildering.

 

So basically from what I've read, Inu seems innocent and I'd say Rex is likely evil. As for everyone else, they haven't said anywhere near enough for me to have a view on the matter. I for once can't complain though about that considering my own lack of activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rexozord said:

I mean, I'm not criticizing that you are analyzing. I just find your choice to analyze something finicky and disconnected to the actual play of the game when you had plenty of other avenues for analysis available somewhat suspicious. Also, it seems like you're overreacting here. It's not like I shot you or proposed that others shoot you. I merely noted it as lightly suspicious. Honestly, this response is way more suspicious than your first post.

18 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

Discussing who might be evil is less important to you than discussing what you yourself admit is a terrible strategy in every other circumstance? I'm supposed to have independently come up with this horrible idea of yours and proposed it myself before you did?

And the second thing you expected me to discuss instead of trying to figure out who might be evil is: What I discussed first. My first post here.

And none of these things you bring up have anything to analyze. They're strategy discussion points, not analysis.

...

I'm done for tonight before I say something I'll regret. This is pushing too many buttons that should not be pushed. Analysis should never be treated as inherently suspicious, and no matter how you try to spin it, that's exactly what you're doing here.

I think I was pretty clear here. Choosing what to examine in a game when there are a lot of moving parts like this one is definitely indicative of a player's mindset. Also, I really don't appreciate the deliberate strawmans here. No, I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss who is evil, I'm saying that analysis of who may or may not have volunteered is not helpful to determining who is evil (more on this later). Full claiming could potentially be good because this game has a different ruleset than other more standard games. No, I do not care if you didn't propose my idea, I care about what ideas you did propose. The two things I pointed out were examples of what I thought was worth spending my time analyzing. I then listed other examples (that I chose not to discuss but thought might make good alternatives) that you proceeded to ignore. Also, your response is super emotionally charged, when my statement was rather light. This seems like an overreaction to me.

Interestingly enough, both of these counter arguments are good counter arguments. I definitely read your first post, but I either misattributed it or dismissed it, and I think that if you had simply lead with this, I would have acknowledged your counter argument and my suspicion would have been removed. I disagree completely regarding your second counter argument (I think the two things you separate as strategy discussion and analysis are inherently connected and one is not possible without the knowledge of the other), but I also think it adequately explains why you would devote so much effort to analysis that I see as untenable.

I think it's pretty clear that I'm not spinning anything. Also, I think it's pretty clear that my initial suspicions were way weaker than you made them out to be. But I suppose now is the time to properly elaborate on exactly why I think analysis regarding who may or may not have volunteered is pointless. (Warning, the following paragraph will be long, and if you don't care about volunteer analysis and whether it's useful or not, feel free to skip.)

First, there are two clear cases where it is not useful at all (if no one volunteers or if everyone volunteers), and I hope I don't have to explain why that's the case. Additionally, unlike traditional alignment analysis, we have no way of determining the number of people who volunteered. With alignment analysis we can do some set-up breaking and get a decent idea of how big the teams are. So let's say that the number of people who volunteered is somewhere in the not obviously unusable range (1-8). If the number of volunteers is very low (1-2) it's very likely that blacjak had to make at least one (possibly more) non-volunteers non-innocent roles. Additionally, there's a significant possibility that with such a low number of volunteers, blacjak may have scrapped the entire system. Both of these scenarios either eliminate the analysis or further disconnect it from alignment. Additionally, if the number of volunteers is on the low end (1-4) the best use of the analysis is to determine people who most likely volunteered (to what degree? we don't know because we don't know how many volunteered) and increase the probability weight that they are baddies compared to those who most likely didn't volunteer. However, if the number of volunteers is high (5-8), this method of analysis is barely better than literally executing at random. On the other hand, if the number is high (5-8) the best use of the analysis is to determine people who most likely did not volunteer (to what degree? again, unknown) and decrease the probability weight that they are baddies. And similarly, if the number of volunteers is low, this analysis is not much more favorable than executing at random. But this does not even consider the likelihood that we can properly determine who volunteered and who did not. Whim could always cause a person who may be disinclined to volunteer, and missing the option could always cause an inclined person to not volunteer. Further, it seems likely that most players, if not all, would have a strong inclination to volunteer (people like powerful/involved roles, baddie roles tend to be more powerful/involved, thus...). And on top of that, let's assume that either a large or small number of players volunteered... if this is the case, "likelihood to volunteer" does not correlate strongly with "likelihood to be evil". It doesn't matter if someone is 65% likely to volunteer and another player is 95% likely to volunteer, if both players did volunteer, then both players are equally likely to be non-innocent, despite a rather significant 30% difference is inclination. This all also assumes that there is no non-innocent role (OMT or Neutral) that blacjak decided would be assigned to a player who did not volunteer. All-in-all, there are just far too many mitigating metagame factors for volunteer analysis to have a significant advantage over the worst case execution strategy (random). And that is why I thought it was minorly suspicious that Inu would choose it as the area he would put the most time and thought into.

12 hours ago, Sinical said:

Oh, day one was actually just a day. Well that sucked considering I wasn't really there at all...

Still half busy right now, will catch up in a few hours.

Given the time that has elapsed since this post and the completely lack of content in his posts on Day 1, I would be tempted to attempt to organize an execution on Sinical now if he weren't a public innocent role. *sigh*

4 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

@weee5067 Yep. I tried to do something from the MC side, and Blac has put in good tools to try to encourage participation, but having the players themselves ATTACK anything resembling activity... I don't know if it can be fixed. I'm sure as hell not going to join the inactive squad, but I am having a lot of trouble finding the energy to even read the thread, let alone post.

Anyway - nothing happened at noon, and no one said the shootey word starting with "B". Any secretive abilities to shoot either require activity (meaning the villain team has lost, we can all go home now), or are optional/limited. It seems the villains are either biding their time or using other abilities.

EDIT:

Rex, Rift and Rock are the only ones other than me who have enough posts to use an ability. All names starting with R, just like Ruffians. Sinical starts with S like Sheriff. Totally not evidence, but I will laugh my stitches out if that's how Blac picked the roles...

I'm not attacking activity. I hope, now having elaborated thoroughly on my argument, you can see that. But lashing out at me is not helpful.

I pretty much agree with this here. I think it's likely that either the baddies 1) don't have special shooty powers or 2) are part of the "inactive" group that didn't have enough currency to use abilities.

3 hours ago, Trajectory said:

I'm scrambling a bit to come up with something to say, honestly. Which is not a problem I usually have. I have an ability I'd like to use, sure - but I'd guess that the same is true for everyone else. The most discussion so far has been between Rex and Inu, as far as I can tell. Inu does seem a bit more snappish than usual, to me; usually he's one of the cooler heads. I can totally sympathize with what he's said so far about feeling attacked for being active, though, so I don't see any reason to shoot him.

I'm a bit more wary of Rex, to be honest. There's not a specific thing he's said that I can point to and say, "this looks bad to me"; there's just something about the way he's been posting that's reminding me a bit of evil!Rex that I've seen in the past. Just a feeling, for now.

As far as anyone else goes, there really isn't much to go on (and yes, that does include me. I'm sort of annoyed that I haven't been posting as much as I do normally, but then I remember it's Halloween week and I have an actual social life. :P)

Well, you always have the choice to respond to the multiple open questions I posed to the thread and only Inu has been paying enough attention to answer.

Also, I find it interesting that this argument has been made against me in at least two recent games I can remember. The first I was converted the day the arguments started appearing and the second I was innocent the entire time. Maybe you guys need to recalibrate your Rex-baddie-scanners or something.

1 hour ago, Celairiel said:

Disclaimer: Had a busy day at work, so I've not read all the posts in detail. However, I feel a need to weigh in on the attack on Inu.

First, I initially agreed with Rex. My first post initially began with the question "How much will we really learn from who may or may not have volunteered?" However, as I wrote my post, I thought through the point of the question more thoroughly. Blac included the mechanic, and like Inu, I do not anticipate he dropped it without telling us. Even though we don't learn much from the analysis, it is a valid starting point for the conversation. When it was first brought up as a discussion point, there wasn't anything else on thread for us to cover.

Rex's next point was that he thought it may have been easy analysis to hide behind. However, I would contend that at this point in the game, which the mechanics as they are, most arguments can be hidden behind. The Sheriff concept is one we haven't seen in action before, so any suggestions made as to how we would want Sinical to behave are untested and therefore equally valid as ideas. 

Because of these two points, I personally don't think Inu should be considered any more suspicious than any other player. His touchiness is atypical, but honestly, he kind of got ganged up on because there were several of us being rather low-key day one. While he bears watching, it is no more so than anyone else. 

I have to leave in 10 minutes, but I'd like to propose a couple of questions that I intend to try to form my own opinion answers to when I get back. It would be great if we could get some discussion going on them, though, and I know I'll be back a bit too late to generate real conversation.

1. How do we think Sinical should behave as sheriff? Knowing him, I expect him to either totally do his own thing and probably be amazing at it, or to do exactly what the majority requests. 

2. What approach should we take to our shots? The point about not opening up innocent revenge kills has been mentioned and I have two thoughts formed on that already. First, remember they have to know who shot them for the revenge shot to do any good. So announcing who we are planning to target makes revenge shooting an innocent a lot more likely 'cuz the revenge shots will have a higher success rate. Second, with the publicity of who fired, I personally expect that no one will want to fire the first shot in a given day, for fear that no one else will fire and their target will become rapidly apparent. In order to win the game, we need to be willing to take that risk, because the baddies won't, and so we'll never let off shots and the game will never end. 

I disagree with your assessment. I think there was plenty (and still is) to discuss.

Really, I just think that this was the least dangerous of any other topics (as strategy discussion could suggest tactics to other players that they hadn't thought of before... this is generally good for innocents, because they outnumber non-innocents). Further, I also think it was not dangerous because the analysis doesn't correlate well to who is actually evil (see full argument above if interested).

The only person who proffered any arguments regarding Inu being suspicious is me. Rock made a flippant comment that was honestly in pretty bad taste, but it certainly doesn't constitute an argument. So I'm not sure ganged up on is a fair assessment. However, I'm still rather uncertain on him. His anger was out of proportion to what I actually said, but I think it may have been out of proportion as a baddie too, so I'm not quite sure how to weigh it.

Honestly, Sinical acting almost any way that is different than how he is acting now would be great. I expected him to actually get stuff rolling, but so far he has done literally nothing. Ideally he should try to identify innocents and start deputizing them every High Noon. On the other hand, it's really important that he not deputize any baddies. So there's a balancing act here.

Well, I'm not so certain that first shot will be totally undesirable. Once someone makes the first shot, I think that many other players will want the opportunity to shoot as well. I feel like the game is going to build slowly until everyone starts shooting (pretty much what you'd expect from a locked room full of gunmen with pistols drawn, really). With regards to revenge shooting, we do want to minimize revenge bullets on innocents, but I also think it's acceptable to take a revenge bullet in exchange for taking down a baddie. It's tough to tell how effective revenge bullets will be for either side.

EDIT: @Sinical I have explained my issues with volunteer analysis in detail above. We will get stronger as the game goes on. We've seen nothing to indicate that the baddies will do so. I see no issue in waiting to shoot until we have a good reason to shoot. Do you have any information to contradict this?

Also, with regards to everyone, please remember this is not a standard Werewolf game. We cannot mindlessly follow standard strategy and assume it will work. We need to re-examine why we do what we do and figure out exactly what the "correct" or "best" or "standard" strategies should be for a set-up like this. They could be similar, and they could be vastly different. But "that's not how regular Werewolf works" is a poor and lazy argument.

Edited by Rexozord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rexozord said:

EDIT: @Sinical I have explained my issues with volunteer analysis in detail above. We will get stronger as the game goes on. We've seen nothing to indicate that the baddies will do so. I see no issue in waiting to shoot until we have a good reason to shoot. Do you have any information to contradict this?

It would be god awful game design balance wise. I mean, I don't see how anybody could ever not see that as a flaw, where the innocents get stronger by doing nothing. The game would be fundamentally broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rex, I appreciate your thoughts on the first shot. And it reminded me that a shot does not necessarily equal a kill. Damage to an innocent, while not ideal, is more acceptable than death for every revenge shot.

I don't understand your argument that innocents will grow stronger relative to baddies. Yeah, we'll grow stronger as we earn Fame and Fortune. But they can earn at the same rate. Especially since it is likely one of us chatty people at least is evil. As far as we can be certain, all players start off relatively similar in power. At least, that is my assumption from the description in the first post and signups. Relative strength is therefore not a correlation directly of time in the game, but activity in the game. On average, baddies are less likely to go inactive, especially in this no PM setting, because they have a team to keep them accountable. The longer the game goes, the farther the gap in power between active and inactive player. Therefore, the weaker the innocents to the baddies, in all likelihood. Not the other way around.

With a deeper reading of the thread thus far, I'm inclined to agree with Sinical's assessment of Rex and Inu's alignments. Not high confidence, but it's certainly the way my suspicions lean. And I feel like I ought to have a read on Traj that's worth talking about, but I really don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Celairiel said:

I don't understand your argument that innocents will grow stronger relative to baddies. Yeah, we'll grow stronger as we earn Fame and Fortune. But they can earn at the same rate. Especially since it is likely one of us chatty people at least is evil. As far as we can be certain, all players start off relatively similar in power. At least, that is my assumption from the description in the first post and signups. Relative strength is therefore not a correlation directly of time in the game, but activity in the game. On average, baddies are less likely to go inactive, especially in this no PM setting, because they have a team to keep them accountable. The longer the game goes, the farther the gap in power between active and inactive player. Therefore, the weaker the innocents to the baddies, in all likelihood. Not the other way around.

He means that there are more innocents, and therefore will gain more overall funds and therefore more overall bullets.

It doesn't take into account any secret powers people have, which I'm sure will more than make up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's a substantial difference between "doing nothing" and "not shooting anyone".

Cel, I think taking activity into consideration (accurately, anyway) is difficult, but if you are correct, that would blunt the advantages innocents get with time, yes. However, as a base line, there will be more innocents than baddies (let's say 6 to 3 for the sake of argument). This means that the earning potential for innocents for Fame/Fortune is twice as high as that for baddies. Without a night kill/attack to force the innocents to use their bullets, there is no reason for us not to stockpile and get stronger (unless/until we come to a strong conclusion regarding someone's alignment).

I'm still really interested in what everyone thinks about a potential full claim. Only Inu and Shattered have said anything about it. I would like to see what other people think about it. The longer we wait, the less effective it will be as a strategy.

Xed with Sinical: Do you have any private information that indicates this? Because I don't. And I don't see any justification for it in the rules or on the thread either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to take me some time to get through the major wall of text post, but I've read everything else. Regarding the innocent to villain earnings - we know that the rules say active powers take 3 Fame and that each non-spam post is worth 1. If that's all there is to the game, we do come out ahead by stalling, but Blac clearly built an emphasis on activity into this game so I rather doubt stalling will work out to our advantage. First off, we only know about public avenues of earning. Private avenues are another matter. We don't know what other mechanics are in the game, such as earnings rate modifiers, abilities that earn fame or fortune, or abilities that take items from other players (almost every game with items that I've ever played has had an item thief of some sort).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to reply about the full claim. Thanks for the reminder. I agree with the prior statements. I feel that providing that much information indiscriminately to all players puts our power roles at risk. With no private verification possible, a baddie could select a role that is easy to replicate and can therefore live long enough to take out the important innocents. I don't think the balance allows us to weed through false and true claims quickly enough for that to be a reasonable strategy.

I don't intend to shoot tonight because I don't know who I'd target. But my goal is to shoot tomorrow. I'm not yet sure if I will publicly share who I shoot or not. I personally would rather not, but there were arguments in favor of declaring targets and I'm willing to be persuaded. Also, to hear arguments for who I should use my bullet on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last point before I head to sleep, again apologising for relative lack of activity. Should be better from tomorrow onwards though.

Anyway, I'd just like to say that I personally won't consider any shooting to be indicative of alignment as long as it comes with a reason for why you're doing it. So you have the sheriffs approval to go around shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't useful breakdowns of the massive post to quote, so I'll just respond to a couple points:

1. No one claimed that analysis of who volunteered was foolproof, and I didn't even suggest it as a driving factor for action. It was, however, a place to start. I'm guessing we have some sort of investigative role, so having a few marginally higher probability targets is better than random. As I said in a game in 2014 here, if all I can do is eek out a .01% improvement in our odds, I'll eek out that .01% improvement. We've seen several games where the metaanalysis was a driving factor. Not always accurate, but better than random. You're also operating on the assumption that you decry later in the same post - that this works like a normal game. We don't know what abilities are out there. We do know that the MC intentionally asked for volunteers for villain roles - something unheard of. It stands to reason that such a bold move on the MC's part had a purpose to it. It's a clue we're almost certainly meant to use. 

2. You'll note after my frustration yesterday, no one has claimed that you trying to figure out game structure is suspicious. Yet I've seen that in 7 of my last 10 games. It's not technically attacking activity, just as a bullet hitting someone through a wall isn't technically shooting them. But this doesn't get off on a technicality. The person on the other side of the wall still has a bullet in them, and the activity level in the game takes a hit every time someone uses a weak or fatuous argument to attack the ones posting analysis. If you didn't like doing analysis, I'd tell you to just leave it to others, but you DO actually analyze in the games you play. It's like wearing white pants and then claiming someone else's white shirt makes them suspicious because it's after Labor Day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Celairiel said:

First, remember they have to know who shot them for the revenge shot to do any good. So announcing who we are planning to target makes revenge shooting an innocent a lot more likely 'cuz the revenge shots will have a higher success rate. Second, with the publicity of who fired, I personally expect that no one will want to fire the first shot in a given day, for fear that no one else will fire and their target will become rapidly apparent. In order to win the game, we need to be willing to take that risk, because the baddies won't, and so we'll never let off shots and the game will never end. 

Revenge Bullets can only affect the player that killed you, and shot order is randomized. Assuming we shoot to kill, it's (at best) a one-in-three shot for Revenge Bullets. Given the town's input on their use/direction, that further allows optimized targeting.

2 hours ago, Sinical said:

It would be god awful game design balance wise. I mean, I don't see how anybody could ever not see that as a flaw, where the innocents get stronger by doing nothing. The game would be fundamentally broken.

I can't recall the last Blacjak game that I played, but I wouldn't be surprised if he would add or remove something to the design based on a whim, and Rex has made a good point in this being a non-typical Werewolf design. Experimental games like this run the risk of being inherently broken.

1 hour ago, InuyashaOhki said:

abilities that take items from other players (almost every game with items that I've ever played has had an item thief of some sort).

On this note, I'm going to make a partial claim. I gain Fame every time I've given an item. I'm willing to pass items along to Sinical during the following cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inu brings up a good point that there could potentially be ways for certain roles (or just baddies) to earn currency privately. I had not considered this. After thinking for a minute or so, I don't think that's the case (or if something like that was available, it would be for a neutral-type role, not baddies). But it is a possibility to keep in mind. Item theft is a possibility, but I imagine that if it exists, the player(s) who has the ability did not generate enough Fame to use it yesterday.

Cel, I'm very much doubting we have power roles in the traditional sense. I'm expecting all our roles to be a bit more self-serving than normal, and I think investigation-type abilities will be limited in some way (otherwise I feel like that favors "stalling" even more). Also, public verification is fairly easy to coordinate. A player can simply announce what they're doing with their ability (if it is verifiable at all) right after deadline but before High Noon can be processed (or sufficiently late that they feel the baddies won't be able to react). It's been done before successfully. However, I will admit with deadline potentially changing every day and being so late, it might be difficult for most players to do that successfully.

I was never under any disillusion that you thought volunteer analysis was foolproof, Inu. However, I think that it's potentially anti-town to try to direct everyone at an analysis that can only improve our chances by .1% when other analysis/strategy discussion could potentially increase the innocent chances by orders of magnitude more (and yes, I do think certain strategy topics could potentially increase our odds by that much, and yes, I do think one of those could be full claiming). The question is whether you chose the analysis deliberately to give the appearance of being helpful while being as unhelpful as possible, or whether you disagree with me on the impact of volunteer analysis/you hadn't fully considered the challenges of volunteer analysis/etc. Also, I doubt blacjak intended that we use meta-analysis on who would or would not volunteer to be baddies. If I thought volunteer analysis was a useful tool, I would have probably protested the mechanic in signups for that reason.

All non-meta analysis deals with substance that happens on thread (typically post contents and voting trends). You cannot analyze something that isn't there. If we accept that my suspicion of you is because of the act of analysis (and not the content of that analysis), then the source of literally any suspicion not founded in "They are not posting content and/or voting." must also be accepted as the same. And I think that is absurd. If you think that my argument against you is weak or fatuous, attack the argument. Expose it as weak or fatuous. Hell, I already acknowledged that you had a solid counter argument that I agreed with (as well as a potentially solid counter argument that I did not agree with). But don't break out the strawmans or accuse me of hypocrisy.

(Also, as a side note, when you say 7 out of 10, did I actually play in the other 3 games? I almost always engage in some sort of set-up breaking early on, IIRC.)

 

On a new note, and this is especially relevant since we know at least one person is planning on shooting tomorrow, I would like to know who, if you were forced to shoot someone right now, you would shoot. This is addressed to everyone. I'll go ahead and start. I think I would probably shoot RocktheFox or Traj. I think Rock's statement aimed at Inu was highly manipulative and aimed to make him respond in a manner that made him look baddie. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems suspect. As for Traj, he's doing that thing he does when he's bad sometimes. Usually he's a bit more involved and direct when innocent. Still, I find him a bit less suspect than Rock. I also want to keep my eyes open for Rift and Lion. Rift had some decent points Day 1, but has yet to show up for Day 2 at all (changed as of two seconds ago), and that's kind of odd. Lion has made some floaty posts but hasn't contributed anything. So, what do the rest of you think?

@Shattered Rift:  "Players Shot lose 1 HP in the order that they are Shot, so Shooting first does matter" Revenge Bullets are easy for the baddies to land if the innocents are extremely organized. Not sure that outweighs the benefits of being extremely organized, but there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rexozord said:

@Shattered Rift:  "Players Shot lose 1 HP in the order that they are Shot, so Shooting first does matter" Revenge Bullets are easy for the baddies to land if the innocents are extremely organized. Not sure that outweighs the benefits of being extremely organized, but there you go.

Whoops. Revealed in random order. That's what I misread.

In any case, that leaves the matter of Revenge Bullets as one of whether or not innocent Revenge shots will be controlled. Considering that the dead innocents can communicate with the living, it's not the shot-in-the-dark that such a power would be in a standard game... but it does encourage baddies to shoot earlier in the day to avoid risk. As for the baddies themselves, even if we assume, say, four baddies (for the sake of exaggeration), that's only three revenge shots they get to aim at us. That's only enough to kill one innocent. Less if a baddie accepts a Duel. Though at this point, I'm very skeptical about the efficiency of a duel (but that has more to do with how slowly we seem to be able to acquire resources).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was hoping that some people would respond to the who would you shoot question, but with how late I posted it, I guess it was a bit too much to ask. It would be irresponsible to shoot before answering it at all, though.

Yeah, baddie revenge bullets may not have enough effect to be worth considering. I think revenge bullets are there to encourage baddies to duel instead of just shooting people. Dueling is really dangerous though, and I'm not sure people will be using it much. You have to be very confident of someone's alignment (and essentially be ready to die to back that up) to declare a duel on someone.

I'm looking forward to this High Noon, though. It will probably flesh out our understanding of the game. If it doesn't... that's pretty ominous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of recent statements and with contemplating my own position so far a duel would be the best course of action. By the way what actual is labour day all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.