Long Game 110? [Sign Ups]: Termina Abandoned (A Majora's Mask Mafia Adventure)

[The Unknown Medallion he/him]

1 hour ago, Wonko the Sane said:

  

Is there a minimum number of votes required to exe a player?

 

Do posts with both RP and discussion that are clearly separated count as two posts for the purposes of Rupees?

 

Much as I hate advocating for Villager silence, I think I agree. The Village doesn't gain much from knowing who has the low-tier masks, and having that information out there makes them less powerful. It does mean that this first cycle is effectively empty of information, though, with no exe and no role discussion, which I don't love. As I like to say, the Village thrives on commmunication.

 

I disagree with your assessment. First of all, I've run the numbers, and I'm pretty sure it's literally impossible for any player to ever buy the Fierce Deity mask in this game; it's just a joke being kept deliberately out of reach. But more importantly, what exactly about the masks or Post messages do you think will make it HARDER to identify elims? The Post hardly allows for intricate conspiracy or manipulation; it's both too slow and too constrained for that. It's most usable for disseminating critical information without revealing it to the whole thread. That explicitly benefits the Village far more than the elims. And the majority of masks benefit the Village more than the elims as well. The more of this game's mechanics come into play, the more info the village has to play with. Just because the elims might be able to lie about that information doesn't mean it benefits them. If that were the case, then all village roles would always benefit the elims, which is silly.

 

I'd very much like to see your calculations, as I've tried every Rupee boosting ability I can think of, and can't ever come close even if the game runs to 5 Loops.

 

---

 

FINALLY! After around a century of chores, it was time to go out and experience the Carnival. Sights, sounds, foods, fun, and, most importantly, the possibility of information about the Hero of Time and how Zymni might make her way home. She burst into the air with a twirl and zipped over to the door -- then, remembering the sunlight outside, she zipped back and tugged incessantly at Thistle's sleeve.

"Come on!" she urged as Thistle *far too slowly* made their way over to the door. Then, as Thistle finally opened the door to step outside, she swirled in a loop around their face and dove into the florist's shadow, her form melting into the darkness. 

I don't remember tbh, and Aman may have increased it after our convo

Either way, I still think it's the most valuable because mo money = mo better

[Wonko the Sane he/him]

14 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

Yeah, otherwise villagers could theoretically refuse to vote anyone out to ensure the Boss Mask is won by numbers.

Also the tie-breaker being value based means that RNG prioritizes the least active.

Ah, okay. That's a shame.

So, for the group, I was going to advocate the Village deliberately throw this first Loop, based on my experience with The Resistance.  If the Elims win this loop, we have 3-5 people hard-cleared; and if the elims kill one of their own to prevent that, we still get more information than we usually will from the exe this game. This is the only loop that can happen in, because it's the only loop that requires just one Elim death for the Village to win.

This is a lot harder to control if we don't have the option of skipping exes, though. Despite that, I still think it's worth considering the dynamics that result from only needing to exe a single elim to let the Village score the point. It's in the Elims' interest to lose this first Loop, to reduce information. For them, it's far better that we know at least one of five dead players is an elim, than that we know that all 5 dead players are Village. This isn't 100% -- In Resistance, you do gain a lot of tempo by taking the first Mission as a Spy. But it's a MUCH riskier game to drop all that information in the first round, and on balance, all other things held equal, Spies will typically want to pass on Mission 1.

Obviously, we don't have nearly as much control here, as we can't just choose not to kill any elims. But it's worth being aware of that dynamic.

[Archer he/him]

Ugh Wonko, I was having this for after the first NK. I was hoping the elims would NK a villager before they thought to hard about needing to WGG. 

Putting it out now: I volunteer to be voted off D2. 

Five people die in Loop 1. 
If they’re all village (revealed by whether we win or lose the Loop):
–We create a five-person trust circle of confirmed villagers. 
–We can design a code to use in-thread going forward, granting a communications advantage. 
–Five villagers start the round with 20 rupees, enough to buy the red masks that allow us to mechanically solve based on the NK. (If the elims target the confirmed villagers, they risk dying to Blast Mask. If they target elsewhere, they narrow our suspect pool that Loop.)

Downsides: 
–No room for error going forward. (By then, we should hopefully have some reads to work from, plus mechanical information). 
–Surviving players from Loop 1 may have enough rupees to buy violet masks that counter the effectiveness of the red masks. (In an ideal world, the village survivors would maximize their earnings and would submit two bids for every elim bid on a grey mask, blocking most of their purchases.)

The elim counter-play would likely be to do a Wounded Gazelle Gambit and NK one of their own. This gives us the Loop 1 win, which is fair compensation. Loop 2+ data is harder to read since killing one elim looks the same as killing two, but we’d have more room for error. 

FYI If we win Loop 2 or 3, we can vote off the same three people in every subsequent round and automatically win the game, barring mask-based shenanigans. 
 

[Araris Valerian he/him]

32 minutes ago, Wonko the Sane said:

Ah, okay. That's a shame.

So, for the group, I was going to advocate the Village deliberately throw this first Loop, based on my experience with The Resistance.  If the Elims win this loop, we have 3-5 people hard-cleared; and if the elims kill one of their own to prevent that, we still get more information than we usually will from the exe this game. This is the only loop that can happen in, because it's the only loop that requires just one Elim death for the Village to win.

This is a lot harder to control if we don't have the option of skipping exes, though. Despite that, I still think it's worth considering the dynamics that result from only needing to exe a single elim to let the Village score the point. It's in the Elims' interest to lose this first Loop, to reduce information. For them, it's far better that we know at least one of five dead players is an elim, than that we know that all 5 dead players are Village. This isn't 100% -- In Resistance, you do gain a lot of tempo by taking the first Mission as a Spy. But it's a MUCH riskier game to drop all that information in the first round, and on balance, all other things held equal, Spies will typically want to pass on Mission 1.

Obviously, we don't have nearly as much control here, as we can't just choose not to kill any elims. But it's worth being aware of that dynamic.

Gonna continue my RP later, but I’d like to respond to this and to Archer. I think we should play the first loop as a normal flipless game would go. If the elims want to bus/NK themselves, we can’t do much about that. As a result, we need the thread to be a place where we can generate info without relying on the end of loop results. I think the best way to bring that about is to be trying to exe elims every cycle.

Not to mention that I don’t want the elims to be the ones that get to choose the outcome of the first cycle. We need to force them to react to us, not the other way around.

Despite all that, this doesn’t mean that Wonko/Archer are bad exe targets. No particular reason to trust them at the current moment.

[Through the living Wahr He/Him]

I think I agree with Araris on always trying to go for an Elim, yes Archer and Wonko are right that loosing L1 would hard clear up to 5 people, but if the elims do not submitt a Night Kill they could reduce our trust circle to 2 hard Cleared players (assuming the NK can be skipped, while ensuring they still win L1 through the exe. This would leave us L2 in a situation where we do not have room for error and potentially only 2 instead of the planned 5 hard clears. 

However winning L1 leaves a very small range of Potential suspects for at least one of the  elims as well as leaving room for loosing a Loop later down the line. Which I think is the better Situation for us to be in.

[Ashbringer he/him]

I'll also note that putting the Village in a position where we have no room for error tends to end with errors occurring.

[Archer he/him]

Ouae the Zora (explicably wet) rummaged through her satchel of loose papers.
"Ah, here! Buttered Stambulb. A simple dish made of stambulb sautéed with goat butter. Sweet with a hint of spice, reminiscent of a cold, cozy night spent with someone special..."
The guard raised his hand. "I meant your travel papers."
"My travelogue won't be published until next year, you scamp! If you're that eager, I have a pre-order form in here somewhere..." 
"Just go. Please. Welcome to the Hero's Carnival, broughttoyoubyMayorBremor."
*******************

5 minutes ago, Wahrheitswächter said:

I think I agree with Araris on always trying to go for an Elim, yes Archer and Wonko are right that loosing L1 would hard clear up to 5 people, but if the elims do not submitt a Night Kill they could reduce our trust circle to 2 hard Cleared players (assuming the NK can be skipped, while ensuring they still win L1 through the exe. This would leave us L2 in a situation where we do not have room for error and potentially only 2 instead of the planned 5 hard clears. 

However winning L1 leaves a very small range of Potential suspects for at least one of the  elims as well as leaving room for loosing a Loop later down the line. Which I think is the better Situation for us to be in.

That might actually be the optimal strategy regardless of how things go. But if they commit to it tonight then we exe an elim and they have to start NKing again to inflate the pool, that'll be pretty obvious. 

Part of my reason for wanting to join the dead pool L1 is then I only have 4 suspects, and we can spend the loop solving each other. I'm slightly concerned about shooting in a pool of 1 rather than a pool with 3 though, since we need two elim deaths. Elims can shoot multiple of themselves and probably should this round, since they have the least money to lose. NK yourselves, cowards. 

Araris, I don't think we're really in control of this round. Us winning L1 is a worse outcome for the elims, so they're under no pressure. 

[Myst He/Him]

Whether we throw this loop or not, the Elims can mess it up either way. If we try and throw, one of them can just deep wolf, get killed by NK or they can just not NK. If we try to solve they just go as normal.

Added to the fact that we won’t know what happens till the loop ends, I advocate for actually solving. If it doesn’t go to plan, we’ve hard cleared 5ish people. But, if we succeed, we’ve made progress towards our victory(remember, we can only lose one boss mask) so I think we have to try and solve.

plus we get a smaller pool that we know has at least one elim

Edit: in case I wasn’t clear enough with the only losing one mask. There’s 4 loops, we need to win 3 to get majority. This is the easiest one to win. As opposed to loop 3 or 4, and I’d prefer to save our loss till then when it’s harder to win the loop

Edited February 20 by Mistfallen Soldier

[coco.pudding she/they]

7 minutes ago, Wahrheitswächter said:

I think I agree with Araris on always trying to go for an Elim, yes Archer and Wonko are right that loosing L1 would hard clear up to 5 people, but if the elims do not submitt a Night Kill they could reduce our trust circle to 2 hard Cleared players (assuming the NK can be skipped, while ensuring they still win L1 through the exe. This would leave us L2 in a situation where we do not have room for error and potentially only 2 instead of the planned 5 hard clears. 

However winning L1 leaves a very small range of Potential suspects for at least one of the  elims as well as leaving room for loosing a Loop later down the line. Which I think is the better Situation for us to be in.

I agree with this as well. Archer and Wonko’s plan basically leaves it up to the elims to do exactly what we want them to do—right after we say in thread exactly what we want them to do, which seems unlikely. While it would be nice to be able to hard clear those people, I think it seems more like a benefit to us winning the loop rather than a strategy we should go for, since there are so many variables that could go wrong.

Also, if a NK can be skipped that would definitely add an extra variable into this since that basically means the elims can choose how many people die each loop and are therefore resurrected with the stipend/cleared in the event of a village win in the previous loop. Is that a possibility?

[Amanuensis he/him]

9 minutes ago, Mistfallen Soldier said:

Whether we throw this loop or not, the Elims can mess it up either way. If we try and throw, one of them can just deep wolf, get killed by NK or they can just not NK. If we try to solve they just go as normal.

Added to the fact that we won’t know what happens till the loop ends, I advocate for actually solving. If it doesn’t go to plan, we’ve hard cleared 5ish people. But, if we succeed, we’ve made progress towards our victory(remember, we can only lose one boss mask) so I think we have to try and solve.

plus we get a smaller pool that we know has at least one elim

Edit: in case I wasn’t clear enough with the only losing one mask. There’s 4 loops, we need to win 3 to get majority. This is the easiest one to win. As opposed to loop 3 or 4, and I’d prefer to save our loss till then when it’s harder to win the loop

You can lose 2 as long as you gain 2, but that means y'all get to do the Final Day exe  

[Wonko the Sane he/him]

1 hour ago, Archer said:

Ugh Wonko, I was having this for after the first NK. I was hoping the elims would NK a villager before they thought to hard about needing to WGG. 

Ah. Fair enough. If I've got one weakness in this game, it's that I share way too easily. 

1 hour ago, Archer said:

Downsides: 
–No room for error going forward. (By then, we should hopefully have some reads to work from, plus mechanical information). 

There's a small room for error. A team needs to win three Loops to win the game. A second loss for the Village just puts us in sudden death with Loop 5, not an automatic loss.

1 hour ago, Archer said:

FYI If we win Loop 2 or 3, we can vote off the same three people in every subsequent round and automatically win the game, barring mask-based shenanigans. 

Oh, interesting, I hadn't noticed that. The big difference between this game and Resistance is that the elims don't get a choice between failing and passing the mission; so a mission pass or failure contains more info than I'm used to from Resistance (which is good, because we get a lot LESS info from the exe than you get from team proposals and votes in Resistance). So Elims don't really get a choice to throw a round except on Loop 1; they have to treat every round as make-or-break.

 

50 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

Gonna continue my RP later, but I’d like to respond to this and to Archer. I think we should play the first loop as a normal flipless game would go. If the elims want to bus/NK themselves, we can’t do much about that. As a result, we need the thread to be a place where we can generate info without relying on the end of loop results. I think the best way to bring that about is to be trying to exe elims every cycle.

Not to mention that I don’t want the elims to be the ones that get to choose the outcome of the first cycle. We need to force them to react to us, not the other way around.

The thing is, the Elims DO get to choose the outcome, if they're smart. Unless they're actively trying to win Loop 1 -- which is a bad idea for them -- all they have to do is NK one of their own and the entire exe suddenly loses more than half of its information value. BUT if we managed to FORCE the NK to hit an Elim (by not exeing elims Loop 1), we'd have narrowed the Loop result from 1-in-5 people being an elim, to 1-in-3.

The problem, as I mentioned, is that with mandatory exes, we don't actually get to control whether we exe an Elim; we don't have nearly enough info to do it with any confidence. So it's a dynamic that I think we should keep in mind for analysis, but not an actionable strategy that I'm advocating.

50 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

Despite all that, this doesn’t mean that Wonko/Archer are bad exe targets. No particular reason to trust them at the current moment.

See, the thing is, I'm totally fine with getting exed, for the reasons I've outlined; it would dramatically improve the info available to me personally and to the Village as a whole. But I'm also confident that e!Wonko would ALSO love to be exed right now, so Archer's eagerness to get exed, while understandable, is very slightly worrying to me.

 

31 minutes ago, Wahrheitswächter said:

I think I agree with Araris on always trying to go for an Elim, yes Archer and Wonko are right that loosing L1 would hard clear up to 5 people, but if the elims do not submitt a Night Kill they could reduce our trust circle to 2 hard Cleared players (assuming the NK can be skipped, while ensuring they still win L1 through the exe. This would leave us L2 in a situation where we do not have room for error and potentially only 2 instead of the planned 5 hard clears. 

However winning L1 leaves a very small range of Potential suspects for at least one of the  elims as well as leaving room for loosing a Loop later down the line. Which I think is the better Situation for us to be in.

Once again, we're allowed to lose up to two Loops without losing the game, not just one. Obviously losing Loop 1 costs tempo, but I remain confident that the information we gain from it would still outweigh that loss. But again, it's kind of a moot point, because we don't really get to choose whether we exe an elim or villager. My original thought was that we would choose not to submit exes at all, but that isn't allowed, so now it's just something to be aware of.

 

13 minutes ago, Mistfallen Soldier said:

Whether we throw this loop or not, the Elims can mess it up either way. If we try and throw, one of them can just deep wolf, get killed by NK or they can just not NK. If we try to solve they just go as normal.

Added to the fact that we won’t know what happens till the loop ends, I advocate for actually solving. If it doesn’t go to plan, we’ve hard cleared 5ish people. But, if we succeed, we’ve made progress towards our victory(remember, we can only lose one boss mask) so I think we have to try and solve.

plus we get a smaller pool that we know has at least one elim

But the key is that forcing the NK to hit an elim is more informative than simply exeing an elim. And again, we can lose two masks. The victory condition is that one team has to earn 3 masks. If the game ends 2v2 we get a sudden death round for a fifth boss mask.

But, still, as I've been saying, we really don't get to choose whether we exe an elim or not. So I'm saying all this to make us more aware of the dynamic -- that it's in the Elims' interests to lose Loop 1 -- than to propose a plan of action.

 

10 minutes ago, coco.pudding said:

I agree with this as well. Archer and Wonko’s plan basically leaves it up to the elims to do exactly what we want them to do—right after we say in thread exactly what we want them to do, which seems unlikely. While it would be nice to be able to hard clear those people, I think it seems more like a benefit to us winning the loop rather than a strategy we should go for, since there are so many variables that could go wrong.

Also, if a NK can be skipped that would definitely add an extra variable into this since that basically means the elims can choose how many people die each loop and are therefore resurrected with the stipend/cleared in the event of a village win in the previous loop. Is that a possibility?

This line of thinking isn't banking on the elims making a mistake, it's pointing out what's in their best interests. If they choose to win Loop 1 then they are handing an enormous advantage to us. So, obviously, they won't. I am fairly confident that there WILL be a dead elim at the end of this Loop. (If not, and they choose to take Loop 1, hats off to you elims; it's a gutsy play. I know I've certainly done it in Resistance. It makes for a very thrilling game, and it's a very difficult position to maneuver your way through.)

Edited February 20 by Wonko the Sane

[Myst He/Him]

2 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

You can lose 2 as long as you gain 2, but that means y'all get to do the Final Day exe  

I forgot about that, but I’d prefer not to make it that far. At that point, as Wonko pointed out earlier, someone could have the DF mask at that point(if they didn’t die and got the right masks for it) and that places everything on whoever gets it.

3 minutes ago, Wonko the Sane said:

But the key is that forcing the NK to hit an elim is more informative than simply exeing an elim. And again, we can lose two masks. The victory condition is that one team has to earn 3 masks. If the game ends 2v2 we get a sudden death round for a fifth boss mask.

But, still, as I've been saying, we really don't get to choose whether we exe an elim or not. So I'm saying all this to make us more aware of the dynamic -- that it's in the Elims' interests to lose Loop 1 -- than to propose a plan of action.

Okay, I can see that, but this is all based on our ability to exe a villager(not a situation I’ve been in before without knowing who’s who).

Ah, okay, I have been promoting a plan of action, so I thought you were too.

[coco.pudding she/they]

13 minutes ago, Wonko the Sane said:

This line of thinking isn't banking on the elims making a mistake, it's pointing out what's in their best interests. If they choose to win Loop 1 then they are handing an enormous advantage to us. So, obviously, they won't. I am fairly confident that there WILL be a dead elim at the end of this Loop.

Ah okay, thanks for the clarification on that. 
I do think you’re probably right about that, I just don’t know if we should be counting on it for strategy since we won’t know until the end of the loop.

[The Unknown Medallion he/him]

1 hour ago, Archer said:

 

FYI If we win Loop 2 or 3, we can vote off the same three people in every subsequent round and automatically win the game, barring mask-based shenanigans. 
 

Couldn't the elims obfuscate this with a DGG (Dead Gazelle Gambit) as well?

I also think we should attempt to solve normally. Even if we hit a villager and force them to DGG, there's no way for us to tell the difference between that and exing an elim. 

[Araris Valerian he/him]

28 minutes ago, Wonko the Sane said:

The thing is, the Elims DO get to choose the outcome, if they're smart. Unless they're actively trying to win Loop 1 -- which is a bad idea for them -- all they have to do is NK one of their own and the entire exe suddenly loses more than half of its information value. BUT if we managed to FORCE the NK to hit an Elim (by not exeing elims Loop 1), we'd have narrowed the Loop result from 1-in-5 people being an elim, to 1-in-3.

How are the elims choosing the outcome if we exe one of them? In other words, there are two possible outcomes to the first loop. If we sit around and do nothing, then the elims have the exclusive choice as to which of those outcomes results. But if we exe them, then they are limited to a single outcome. At a minimum the village has the ability to try and force a specific outcome, and we shouldn’t just pass on it.

Also, what’s the proposed strategy for avoiding an elim? Isn’t the ability to consistently exe villagers on purpose equivalent to the ability to consistently exe elims on purpose?

[Divergent He/Him]

Oh, so the outcome of a loop is also affected by the night kill? I don't know why I had assumed that it was only based on the alignment of who gets executed

[Through the living Wahr He/Him]

1 minute ago, Divergent said:

Oh, so the outcome of a loop is also affected by the night kill? I don't know why I had assumed that it was only based on the alignment of who gets executed

Well we need one dead Elim during this loop to win the Loop, all following loops require two dead elims (if i remember correctly) now Elims could NK one of their own to mess up a strategy proposed by Archer and Wonko to loose L1 on pupose to hard claim some people as villager

[Wonko the Sane he/him]

17 minutes ago, Mistfallen Soldier said:

I forgot about that, but I’d prefer not to make it that far. At that point, as Wonko pointed out earlier, someone could have the DF mask at that point(if they didn’t die and got the right masks for it) and that places everything on whoever gets it.

I actually think it's genuinely impossible, even with 5 Loops. As best I can tell, the most money you can have going into the Sudden Death round is:

Loop 1 (Bunny Hood): 10 - 5 + 30*1.5 = 50
Loop 2 (Postman's Hat): -5 + 30 + 16 = 41
Loop 3 (Bunny Hood): -5 + 30*1.5 = 40
Loop 4 (Postman's Hat): -5 + 30 + 16 = 41

Total: 50 + 41 + 40 + 41 = 172 Rupees

So the DF mask is effectively a meaningless part of the game; it will literally never enter play.

 

19 minutes ago, coco.pudding said:

Ah okay, thanks for the clarification on that. 
I do think you’re probably right about that, I just don’t know if we should be counting on it for strategy since we won’t know until the end of the loop.

I'm in agreement with you, I think. If we had the ability to skip exes by not voting, I'd advocate we do that, but as it stands, we really have no way of controlling whether an elim gets exed.

 

7 minutes ago, The Unknown Medallion said:

Couldn't the elims obfuscate this with a DGG (Dead Gazelle Gambit) as well?

I mean, I guess? But it would be wildly stupid of them. It would only work if they deliberately give us Loop 2 by killing themselves, letting them take Loop 3 (because we assume that the three exes from L2 contain two elims), at which point it becomes extremely obvious what happened, and we probably know the exact identities of at least two elims, meaning the game is ours.

 

9 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

How are the elims choosing the outcome if we exe one of them? In other words, there are two possible outcomes to the first loop. If we sit around and do nothing, then the elims have the exclusive choice as to which of those outcomes results. But if we exe them, then they are limited to a single outcome. At a minimum the village has the ability to try and force a specific outcome, and we shouldn’t just pass on it.

You're correct that they don't get a choice if we exe one of them, but the point is that Archer and I are confident that the outcome of exing one of them is the outcome they'd choose anyway, so they still get the outcome of their choice. If they want to lose Loop 1, they can, and Archer and I believe they want to lose Loop 1.

However, there's a difference between them losing Loop 1 because the Village happened to guess one of them, and them losing because they were forced to take action. The second leaves them substantially more exposed, as they were forced to play cards.

As a metaphor, imagine that, in a particular round of a usual game, the elims had the power to use their votes to guarantee that a villager was exed. Now, technically, if the village misexes on their own, that's "removing choices" from the elims, because they don't get to choose whether a villager gets exed. But It's still obviously better to try to exe an elim in that situation, even though it means they now "get to choose" whether an elim or a villager gets exed. because obviously, they'll choose the latter, but by making THEM exert their own influence, they're forced to expose themselves more.

HOWEVER, this is all academic, because, as I've been trying to say:

20 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

Also, what’s the proposed strategy for avoiding an elim? Isn’t the ability to consistently exe villagers on purpose equivalent to the ability to consistently exe elims on purpose?

We have no proposed strategy. I am confident the dynamic I'm describing exists, but there's no realistic way to proactively take advantage of it. I'm not and haven't been saying, "we should try and exe villagers", because there's no mechanism for actually trying to do that. I'm simply trying to make the village aware that, this Loop, the elims probably WANT to lose, and we should factor that dynamic in our analysis and attempts to solve.

 

2 minutes ago, Wahrheitswächter said:

Well we need one dead Elim during this loop to win the Loop, all following loops require two dead elims (if i remember correctly) now Elims could NK one of their own to mess up a strategy proposed by Archer and Wonko to loose L1 on pupose to hard claim some people as villager

Just to be triply clear: I am not proposing a strategy. I am raising awareness of a dynamic. IF we were allowed to skip exes, then there would be a strategy for me to promote, but as things stand, there isn't.

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

16 hours ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren said:

@Amanuensis I didn't get the spec doc

@Amanuensis!

[Amanuensis he/him]

10 minutes ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren said:

@Amanuensis!

Sorry! I will set up the spec doc tonight, at work currently

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

3 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

Sorry! I will set up the spec doc tonight, at work currently

Oh

Alright.

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

4 hours ago, Mistfallen Soldier said:

Edit @Hoid Slayer I assume you’re perfect requirements include everyone sending a lot of PMs

Uhh wut

[Myst He/Him]

58 minutes ago, Wonko the Sane said:

I actually think it's genuinely impossible, even with 5 Loops. As best I can tell, the most money you can have going into the Sudden Death round is:

Loop 1 (Bunny Hood): 10 - 5 + 30*1.5 = 50
Loop 2 (Postman's Hat): -5 + 30 + 16 = 41
Loop 3 (Bunny Hood): -5 + 30*1.5 = 40
Loop 4 (Postman's Hat): -5 + 30 + 16 = 41

Total: 50 + 41 + 40 + 41 = 172 Rupees

So the DF mask is effectively a meaningless part of the game; it will literally never enter play.

I thought it was per message, not per player. I’ll go check the wording again, but I thought that if I sent 4 msg, the Postman would get paid 4. I highly doubt it would be included if there wasn’t some way of reaching it

Edit: Hoidslayer, I pinged the wrong person, I was trying to Ping TUM, but forgot who I was trying to ping

Edited February 20 by Mistfallen Soldier

[Through the living Wahr He/Him]

@Mistfallen Soldier

The wording of the Postmans hat:

19 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

Passively enables Postman’s Service and earns +1 Rupee for each unique player that is delivered a message.

With 16 Players thats a max of 16 Rupees per Loop. Wonkos Math is right, it seems like that there is no possible way to gain the Fierce Deity Mask (even with 20 Players it would Cap at 180 Rupees)

The only possible way would be if theres some sort of nasty or pleasant suprise waiting for us down the line. I hope not but thats the only way I can see that the Fierce Deity Mask can be aquired.

Edited February 20 by Wahrheitswächter

[Ashbringer he/him]

Perhaps you could purchase the Mask if you keep Rupees even after dying? I don't think you do, because of the stipend, but perhaps you do.