Mid-Range Game 8: Highborn Intrigue

[RippleGylf she/her]

Yes, but a corrupted artifabrian can only corrupt a player for a single day. It's not permanent. 

 

EDIT: Sorry, feel like I misunderstood your post, can you explain your logic in simple terms that a brain as small as mine might understand?

Edited August 21, 2015 by RippleGylf

[Renegade he/him]

Alright, first, a few questions that I've received via PM:

 

• Are Brightlords/Brightladies the only players who can use the Night vote?

Yes.  This includes Brightlords/Brightladies with Shardplate, as well.

 

• What happens if an Artifabrian and Corrupt Artifabrian target the same player?

If this occurs, the regular (non-Corrupted) Artifabrian's ability takes precedence.  The target will not be Corrupt for the following cycle, and will be informed of this, as usual.

 

• If a player is attacked during the Night, and they have Shardplate and are being protected by a Guardsman, what happens?

In this case, the Guardsman's protective ability takes precedence over the Shardplate, so the player will not lose their Plate.

 

 

Also, I've included the links to each turn, as well as the current player list, in my signature.  Enjoy!

[STINK he/him]

@Ripple, King is saying that because the eliminators can corrupt each other permanently (with exception of artifabrian) , then one of the eliminators could be an artifabrian and become corrupted, meaning that basically the eliminators would be able to corrupt two times in one cycle rather than once, but the artifabrian one wouldn't be permanent.

[RippleGylf she/her]

@Stink: Okay, that makes sense. 

 

So far, our votes have been split between quite a few people, none of them with enough to lynch yet. I honestly don't think it's Raven or Stink, but who knows? Still, we need to make sure that we don't fall prey to an eliminator worldsinger, which won't give us any information.

[Sart he/him]

A lot has happened this game and I haven't been very active. My sophomore year of college has just started, so I was busy catching up with friends. Anyways, here's some quick analysis of the thread. First and foremost, the Nobles voted for Wilson. I doubt we can get any information from that. Several people have grudges against her, so it's reasonable to assume that one of them put a solitary vote on her, causing the confusion. Second, STINK has raised a lot of eyebrows. However, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. In the Quick Fix I was just in, I basically did the same thing, and I was innocent.

 

Now I want to talk about the role distribution. We know that there are only 8 roles this game. 2 of which (Assassin and Guardsmen) would grant them an additional kill, which would be way too dangerous for the eliminators to have. Since we've received confirmation that the Assassin kill is different than the Eliminator kill, we could theoretically verify all Assassins as good guys by having them shoot inactives tonight, provided they announce it during the night thread. While it's not ideal to have a verified good who can't tell who is evil, it would allow us to gather information on who is claiming what role. Furthermore, the Eliminators would not be able to kill this person, as we would probably have a Guardsmen protecting him. However, this plan has some serious drawbacks. One of our Guardsmen could become corrupt, which would accidentally kill our new verified good. Furthermore, any enemy Couriers would love to extract information from a "private" conversation. On the other hand, I still think this is a good plan. There's a 95% chance that an Assassin isn't corrupted, and the Eliminators are just shooting in the dark when it comes to corrupting Guardsmen. I'd love to hear your feedback on this idea. I admit there are some cons to this plan, but the benefits vastly out weigh them.

[RavenRadient7 she/her]

Winter Cloud, I thought that your profile page said that you were on about, 9 hours ago, I think. I can't go back and check now that you are on because, of course, your profile will now say you as being active right now. It's entirely possible I read the data wrong, and you hadn't been on since the cycle started. I've been wrong before. Or, if you left the page open, it triggered my view as being online, and that's why I thought you had been active.

 

Of course, it's also entirely possible that I was right, and you're now trying to discredit me by placing a vote on me. I have no idea. I'm hoping that my removal of my vote will help because, to be quite frank, I'm poke voting people. I want to see discussion from the people who had been silent, and I thought poking people who had been on would be better than poking people who haven't had a chance to see their roles yet.

 

Winter, I'm not accusing you of being an eliminator. Believe me, I've had bad reactions to seeing my name come up when I've been away from the game for a while, and this is only my second game.

 

A smart guy, thanks for dropping on in. I'd probably have dropped a vote on you sooner rather than later, because of trying to get discussion from other players. At this point, I'm not going to drop another vote on someone, because I really, really don't want a repeat of this.

 

Edit: And since I forgot to say this earlier, Winter, thank you for coming on and posting your thoughts. Each piece of information helps.

 

Edit2: You said that "I've said nothing with as many words as possible." I can understand that view, especially since I do tend to post a lot of my thoughts. I tend to just say what I think about the game, whether or not it's completely helpful. To me, saying what I think, and then seeing how others respond helps me learn the game better. At this point, we haven't had a kill or lynch, so we can't work off of that. We've talked about role distribution, and I've given my thoughts on that, but I feel that others who have played in games with roles, which I haven't, have a better idea about that then I do. Really, there's not much more to go off of than those, other than the extra vote on Wilson, which, again, others have a better idea of what that means than I do.

Edited August 21, 2015 by RavenRadient7

[little wilson she/her]

Now I want to talk about the role distribution. We know that there are only 8 roles this game. 2 of which (Assassin and Guardsmen) would grant them an additional kill, which would be way too dangerous for the eliminators to have. Since we've received confirmation that the Assassin kill is different than the Eliminator kill, we could theoretically verify all Assassins as good guys by having them shoot inactives tonight, provided they announce it during the night thread. While it's not ideal to have a verified good who can't tell who is evil, it would allow us to gather information on who is claiming what role. Furthermore, the Eliminators would not be able to kill this person, as we would probably have a Guardsmen protecting him. However, this plan has some serious drawbacks. One of our Guardsmen could become corrupt, which would accidentally kill our new verified good. Furthermore, any enemy Couriers would love to extract information from a "private" conversation. On the other hand, I still think this is a good plan. There's a 95% chance that an Assassin isn't corrupted, and the Eliminators are just shooting in the dark when it comes to corrupting Guardsmen. I'd love to hear your feedback on this idea. I admit there are some cons to this plan, but the benefits vastly out weigh them.

 

I'm vehemently opposed to this plan, as it requires far too many people to role reveal and mass role reveals are never a good idea. Particularly in a game like this where the eliminators probably have an Artifabrian who they will corrupt just to spread that little bit of extra corruption and chaos. This plan requires not only the Assassins to reveal but also the Guardsmen, and while it can be bad for the Assassins to be known, it can be infinitely worse for Guardsmen, since they will kill the person they're trying to protect, and they won't know they're corrupted until their target is dead. Sure, then they can use their ability as a kill role (assuming they weren't targeted by a corrupt Artifabrian), but that's still problematic since that's still one protection role down.

 

Plus, who are they revealing to? Some random person that they choose? That the group chooses? Who's dictating who kill whom and which Guardsman protects which Assassin? Who's calling the shots in this plan, and why should we trust them?

[RavenRadient7 she/her]

At this point, I have to agree with Wilson. Revealing roles in any situation means that a player could be targeted for a kill by the eliminators. In this case, the eliminators also have the chance to corrupt their targets, meaning that any player who gives their role could then have it reversed, and used against them. We'll probably be better off with discretion, even if it means we don't have a good idea of what the eliminators might have for roles.

 

Also, you're asking the assassins to kill inactives. Sure, it might vertfy that the assassins are villagers, but I'm seeing two easy problems. First, that one of the eliminators is an assassin, and participates, leading us to trust someone we shouldn't. Second, we might play into the eliminators' hands, if they happen to all be active. In that case, the assassins would end up killing villagers, and miss a bunch of eliminators.

[Sart he/him]

You're overthinking the plan. The only person who needs to reveal is a solitary Assassin. They get to decide who they want to kill. I would prefer it to be someone who is inactive, but it's their choice. They only have to kill tonight. After that, they will be verified. Once they reveal who they are going to kill, all of the Guardsmen target the Assassin. It's highly probable that at least 1 Guardsman is uncorrupted. Even if a corrupted guardsman attacks the Assassin, a second guardsman could nullify that kill. I'm betting there are at least 2 guardsmen, but even if there is only 1, there's only a 5% chance that the Traitors managed to blindly corrupt him. The traitors won't know if they corrupted a protective role. It's more than likely that this plan will result in the Assassin being double protected, so would they really risk wasting their kill? After the Assassin reveals he will probably be corrupted, losing his killing ability, but he will be 100% verified. And to those of you who think the Traitors might have an Assassin, why would they? That would be immediately giving them 2 kills right off the bat! That's ridiculously overpowered.

[RavenRadient7 she/her]

It would be ridiculously overpowered. That's half the reason I'm worried that the eliminators might have one. I agree, it does seem unlikely that they would have one, but... *shrug*.

 

Either way, I'm assuming your plan involves the guardsmen not revealing themselves, right? So what happens if the eliminators do have a guardsman, ignoring for the moment that it seems odd they would, considering that it could possibly give them a kill as well.

[Clanky he/him]

Also why should we be wasting all our guardsman to protect the assassin? The assassin isn't the most important of roles this game. If we want to ensure protection on someone it should be the Ardent. 

 

Having two guardsman protecting the assassin means that one less villager is protected as well allowing the eliminators an easier time killing the rest of us since they would know not to target the assassin and the guardsman are all wasting the defence on him/her.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Clanky

[Bort he/him]

Last game I played, Shallan didn't come onto the website until after she was lynched, Day 1. It's possible that something similar is happening here.

 

I'd think there was some connection between her being inactive and her being an eliminator in that last game, if it weren't for the fact that it was clear she hadn't even read her role before she was lynched. Not saying that she is or isn't an eliminator, since I have no idea, just supposing based off the only game I've played with her.

 

Last game we played, I was an Eliminator with Shallan. She had barely posted in the eliminator doc (if at all, come to think of it, I think all she did was claim a colour and ask about time zones) by the time she was executed. I think her inactivity is more of a time thing, rather than hiding something.

 

As for why I've not been on, I've got a nasty ear infection at the moment, which has spread to include toothache, and has given me a pretty much permanent headache, as well as (and out of it all, this is the worst part) this really annoying, constant ringing in my ear which throws me off whenever I try to concentrate. As a result, I have no clue what is going on, so nothing really to say.

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Lopen and Honey Badger are two who are, for some reason, sticking out to me. I'm putting my vote on Honey because even though they said that they support D1 lynches, they didn't throw out a vote. They said, "just lynch an inactive" and then didn't put a vote on an inactive even though they said that they won't be available for the rest of the day. That just doesn't line up at all.

 

I'd also like to call out Vin Elendel to join us. He is on the Shard other places, just hasn't shown up here.

[STINK he/him]

We have metal! Vin!

[RavenRadient7 she/her]

Bort, thanks for posting. You were another who I'd considering placing a vote on, if just to get you involved in the discussion. Thanks for explaining why you haven't bee active.

[Amanuensis he/him]

Is it just me, or is it suspicious if a player PMs you shortly after you suggest they might be an Eliminator in order to build a repertoire and then after a few messages asks for you to tell them your role in exchange for him telling you his?

Edited August 21, 2015 by Alvom

[RavenRadient7 she/her]

Probably, especially since a few of us have said that giving up role information would probably be a bad idea. But who really knows, in this game. Along those lines: are we allowed to reveal who we're in a PM with, or not?

[Renegade he/him]

...are we allowed to reveal who we're in a PM with, or not?

 

Yes, if you so wish.  However, you cannot copy-paste anything from your conversation(s) into here.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Renegade

[Clanky he/him]

I think it is a bit suspicious for anyone to be asking for roles at this point in the game. Role reveals should only be done rarely and with very good reasons. Not just as a trade especially day one.

 

 

EDIT: Ninja'd

Edited August 21, 2015 by Clanky

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Probably, especially since a few of us have said that giving up role information would probably be a bad idea. But who really knows, in this game. Along those lines: are we allowed to reveal who we're in a PM with, or not?

Considering Alvom has only stated suspicion of me and STINK, it must be STINK.

[Clanky he/him]

He also said Lopen was suspicious based on his association with STINK

[Macen he/him]

Checking in. I'm trying to read up, but most of my time that I've had for this has been spent reading or in PM's. I'm not lurking, just busy at work and leaving for our work FAC (we do it like 2-3 times a year). I'll post more soon!

[Clanky he/him]

Also even asking for an exchange of roles in a PM means you probably do have a role. So asking that question as a villager makes it quite likely for you to be the target of corruption should an eliminator find out. So once again BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY IN PMS!

[STINK he/him]

The paranoia in this game is higher than the moon

[Mailliw73 he/him]

The paranoia in this game is higher than the moon

That's kind of the point...

 

Role exchanges are always up to you, but I don't encourage them very often at all.