Sart Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 Another game, another poke vote. Berenion @Berenion Please respond to the thread about any questions you have. Speaking of questions, communication is limited by PMs this game. We can create one each cycle, but how long do the PMs last. Do they end at the end of the day, or do they last for the remainder of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seonid Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 This is going to be interesting. Nobody is quite sure that even their own faction is safe. Now, personally, I'm a fan of the bondsmith victory condition, but that'll take a wee little bit of coordination, or sheer dumb luck. I'd advise that cooks not kill this cycle, at least until you have a decent idea about who's on your side and who's not. The last thing we want to do is kill our own factions light radiant by mistake. Of course, if you aren't in my faction, go ahead and kill your own knights, please. Do our work for us. I might poke vote someone later this cycle, after I do rollover for LG29. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arinian Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 As I understand Stick is pinch-hitter... I so disappointed , even don't know on whom I should throw poke vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeMarshall Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 Stick should be a role immune to surge of transformation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berenion Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Sart said: Another game, another poke vote. Berenion @Berenion Please respond to the thread about any questions you have. I definitely will, thank you . Also, as I understand it, not everyone can create PMs, only those who have the power to can (Bondsmiths, Runners, Leaders, Commanders and Captains). It is stated in the rules that the ones created Runners and Bondsmiths will last until one of the players in the PM is dead (basically the remainder of the game), so I'm guessing it's the same for the ones created by those in command? Edit- Oh, I just saw this answered above. Edited January 2, 2017 by Berenion 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipper Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) Hm, Sart. Poke votes are fine sometimes, but not 1. When you're the first post. What sensible reasoning could you have to declare suspicion on someone? 2. (Even worse) When you explicitly declare that the vote is a poke vote, because you a. Remove all value from said vote for analysis purposes b. Let the voted person know that your vote has no teeth 3. (Compounding here) When you tell the voted person that they need to provide suspicions, after a. Being the only one to post b. Notifying them that the vote has no substance. Feels a lot like filler. Edited January 2, 2017 by Kipper Accidentally posted with just the first few lines 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manukos Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 first of all unfortunately I will not be as active as I was in the last game since tests are going to start real soon secondly I am led to believe that there has been a game similar to that before are there any indications of how we should proceed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeMarshall Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) Are we starting with voting for lynching? Shouldn't that be last in the cycle? Edited January 2, 2017 by Drake Marshall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manukos Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 45 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said: Are we starting with voting for lynching? Shouldn't that be last in the cycle? First of all , herald of irony ? Tou and @little wilson will get along secondly : I believe that it refers to the order that actions take place at the end of the turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverblade5 Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 I'm also in favor of a bondsmith victory. Establishing what kind of game we're playing is something that I think is important and should be decided by the end of the cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeMarshall Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) Ah. Well in that case voting for a lynch is valid I suppose. Although at this point I don't see any real reasons for lynching... So far we are just a crowd of paranoid strangers in a marketplace. What reason would a crowd sitting in a market place have to suddenly hang a random member? Edited January 2, 2017 by Drake Marshall 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin in Burgundy Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Silverblade5 said: I'm also in favor of a bondsmith victory. Establishing what kind of game we're playing is something that I think is important and should be decided by the end of the cycle. I agree. It'd be nice to have a "friends forever" win, as apposed to a "terminate the opposition and build your empire on the backs of their corpses." EDIT: @Kipper, Sart might have poke voted Berenion since it's his first time and it's nice to have new player feedback. Also, Sart specifically asked for Berenion to ask questions. There wasn't malice in that, it was just him trying to help a new player out. Edited January 2, 2017 by Assassin in Burgundy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sart Posted January 2, 2017 Report Share Posted January 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Kipper said: Hm, Sart. Poke votes are fine sometimes, but not 1. When you're the first post. What sensible reasoning could you have to declare suspicion on someone? 2. (Even worse) When you explicitly declare that the vote is a poke vote, because you a. Remove all value from said vote for analysis purposes b. Let the voted person know that your vote has no teeth 3. (Compounding here) When you tell the voted person that they need to provide suspicions, after a. Being the only one to post b. Notifying them that the vote has no substance. Feels a lot like filler. You're right. It was filler. I'm not sure how active I'm going to be in this game, so I wanted to make sure that I posted something. I figured asking a new player to post would be a good idea, and I attached a vote to make sure it had some weight. I also asked for a clarification from the GMs. What else would you want from a first post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conquestor Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) "Hey, does anyone know where my Lerisium is? I forgot where I put it." Does anyone want to do a bit of RP with me? Edited January 3, 2017 by Conquestor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverblade5 Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 @little wilson Can people with the ability to pm create group pms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little wilson Posted January 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 Just now, Silverblade5 said: @little wilson Can people with the ability to pm create group pms? No. PMs are only between two players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverblade5 Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, little wilson said: No. PMs are only between two players. Darn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecthelion III Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 I'm feeling in an RP mood, so sure, @Conquestor. I do need a character, though... How about Davis, a benevolent and honest but mysterious old man, who no one knows the last name of. He is so honest, he would even return someone's lost lerasium to them if he found it. Probably. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kynedath Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 I'm good with a win in any way it comes. If we kill the eliminators and both or one of the teams win or If we go for the bondsmith win, I'd be fine with either. The thing that I don't want to happen is people pursuing the secondary win condition. Looking at the number of players in this game, I'd say it is fairly likely that there is one of each type of radiant split between the two factions. That would give the radiants around the same percentage of players in the game as diagrammists if a little less. Since the secondary win condition calls for only half(ish) of the radiants to be killed, then there are twice as many eliminators that we have to kill in relation to radiants. Our focus has to be on killing eliminators, no matter what. The other thing is that, with this amount of people playing, the communication between ranks is going to be easier than in the last game like this (MR10). There are only ten people in each faction, 1 leader, at least 2 commanders, 2 or 3 captains and 4 or 5 privates. Each of the higher ranks can make a PM, meaning that within two to three turns, each person should have a PM with someone in their faction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecthelion III Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) Especially because if the Bondsmith dies, which is not unlikely given that this is SE, all careful preparation would be ruined. Edit: @little wilson Link to the player list? Edited January 3, 2017 by Ecthelion III Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Joe in the Bush Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 I'm going to head this off as soon as possible. The Bondsmith Joint win is unlikely, probably unattainable, and boring. I will not be trying to get the bondsmith victory. Deliberately going for the victory would require everyone to reveal their full alignment, diagrammists included, and then it would require the systematic destruction of the ghostbloods and the Sons until they have equal numbers to the diagrammists. Anyone seeing the problem here? The diagrammists can kill the other factions, with those factions full blessings, because it's to 'get down to the correct numbers'. Meanwhile, we'll be sacrificing our own teammates. But who are we going to sacrifice? Random players? No, we're too smart for that. We'd sacrifice regular players, roleless players. We don't want to lose powers after all. And what about the sacrifices, are they going to go along with this? Is everyone here willing to die just so that everyone else can win? No. No, everyone is not willing to die, to forfeit their own victory, just so that everyone else can win. (I'm not, so that statement is 100% true, even if all 19 other players disagree with me.) In short, After this point, i will accuse anyone who supports going for the bondsmith victory over* the normal victory, of being a diagrammist and do my best to kill them. *You can still support a bondsmith victory if it looks like it's in sight, just please don't lose sight of your side's victory, and the sacrifices of the deceased. Onto the actual game! So, this is a mostly hidden faction game. Only two people know the full sides; Thad and Rest. I'm uncertain as to the safest strategy for this game. I don't think anyone should be killing, unless they receive a list of their teammates from Thad or Rest, since otherwise they run the risk of Friendly Fire. I'm also uncertain if people should report to their superiors their roles, because if their superior is a diagrammist, then they'll likely kill them. Really, my best advice is to get as much information as possible, but to not share any of it.* Incidentally, this game has a high chance of having revealed Eliminators. Because, once we kill the last diagrammist, one team wins, and the other loses. So, a diagrammist facing the lynch will likely reveal, and beg for protection from the weaker faction, who will likely oblige in order to finish killing the enemy faction. There's no real way to deal with this until it comes up, but when it does, i vote we just kill the Diagrammist. Don't let them pull an Aman (Or a Joe) and lie about the number of their teammates, or their actions, ect. We just kill the diagrammist. We have no surefire way of knowing we have more radiants then the other faction. (Exception, if the entire other faction is dead, and this is confirmed by Thad or Rest, then we can be sure) so we have no real benefit to keeping any murdering diagrammists alive. As for the other possible win, or Both the sons and the ghosts winning together, with an equal number of radiants, i find that equally improbable. It's too easy for one side to lie and say "Oh yeah, we only have 1 radiant, just like you" when they have two. Heck, they could be telling the truth, not knowing that their skybreaker** has remained hidden this whole time. So, I'm not going to actively support an fullscale alliance. I won't stop one from forming, but if it does form, i won't trust it. TL;DR Read it anyway, but, in short, The likeliest, and safest route to victory is annihilation of the other two factions. don't be a sucker and play for alliances. *Yes, that advice is horrible if everyone practices it. **There are no skybreakers, they're just an example. Now then; on to defending myself from the inevitable arguments of: "Joe is a diagrammist, who is trying to keep the focus of the game on Ghosts vs. Sons! He's trying to divide us and keep us from working together!" That is not what I'm doing. I'm trying to keep us all from falling into the peace trap. I spent an hour trying to figure out the best way to get the most number of players to win, before realizing that 1) It was incredibly unlikely for more than 1 faction to win anyway, 2) it's too easy to sabotage, and requires everyone's cooperation, and 3) It's boring, and I want to kill the other factions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecthelion III Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 Seonid, you're on but haven't had much to say. May I interest you in a cup of coffee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seonid Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 I'll pass on the coffee, though a good hot chocolate might interest me. Other than making one of the first posts of the game, advocating against the use of cooks first cycle, and expressing my preference for the bondsmith win con, thereby sparking a decent discussion culminating in Joe's avowal to lynch anyone who supports the win con - no, I haven't had much to say. I've got thoughts on possible distributions of ranks - I suspect 2 commanders, each with a captain and either 2 or 3 privates reporting to them. That gives us a nicely split 10 per side - I'd assume a symmetric proportion of diagrammists, so either 2 or 3 per side. Most likely 2, since 6 total diagrammists means that only one of each of the other 2 factions need to die for the bondsmith ability. So 4 total eliminators, and the rest of us. Don't have much time beyond this tonight, so I'll see y'all in the morning 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecthelion III Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) I'm a private and I received a PM from my captain saying he did not receive a PM from his commander, so the commander is probably talking to another captain. This leads me to believe that if my captain is to be trusted, there is more than one captain under a commander. I'm also partial to hot chocolate, but I figure I can get people to talk more when they're on caffeine. Edit: 666 posts Edited January 3, 2017 by Ecthelion III Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seonid Posted January 3, 2017 Report Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Ecthelion III said: I'm a private and I received a PM from my captain saying he did not receive a PM from his commander, so the commander is probably talking to another captain. This leads me to believe that if my captain is to be trusted, there is more than one captain under a commander. I'm also partial to hot chocolate, but I figure I can get people to talk more when they're on caffeine. Edit: 666 posts My suspicion is that the commander in question either opened a PM with a private or hasn't been online. With only 20 players, we are left with 10 per side. 9 after subtracting our various honored supreme leaders. Assuming 2 commanders, we are down to 7 underlings to divide between them. If each commander has 2 captains, then one captain will be left without a private. It's possible that there could be 3 captains, two with one private and one with two, but that makes the symmetry really obnoxious. Now, if there's only one commander, then there could be 2 captains, each with 3 underlings. But that would leave the commander knowing exactly as much about his organization as his honored supreme leader. While that would be good in the real world for redundancy's sake, it would remove the niche of the supreme leader - they would be largely superfluous. Those are my reasons for believing as I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts