Orlok Tsubodai
-
Posts
1473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Orlok Tsubodai
-
How do you propose finding something to go off, Rae, without generating discussion now? Even if we don't catch anyone, it provides us material to compare later opinions to.
-
The first thing I'd say, @Amanuensis, is that I think that making any single player a hub of information would be a counterproductive idea. At present, if people do contact you, you're a likely convert for the seer on turn 2. Whilst you'll be lynched the following cycle, the information you'd give the seer would provide them a markedly clearer view of the game. Certainly were I the seer in this situation, I'd accept the loss of one atium to either gain knowledge of valuable roles, or to significantly narrow down the list of potential locations of valuable roles. A slightly paranoid part of me is of the view that it's entirely possible that you are the Seer yourself, and that you have, say, four beads. Announcing that you plan on dying D3 provides justification for the lack of an attack on you beforehand, and gives you converts on N1, N2, and N3, before we lynch you D4, whilst simultaneously leading to two days of limited productive discussion. If you are village, I think you'd be more useful analysing the game over a longer period of time than becoming a short term hub of information. I'd quite like to here your explanation of why you think that giving you information whist planning to kill you is a good idea. Whilst actually lynching players may not be useful, creating discussion through fear of a lynch is, and I'd argue that the loss of one or two players in order to encourage discussion is a worthwhile trade. Players' views, and how they evolve or are adhered to through the game seems to me to be the most effective way of finding eliminators, and I think that creating an incentive to discuss through using the lynch is a sensible measure to increase discussion.
-
The initial point stands, Roadwalker. It's an awful lot of work for the eliminator team to put me in a position of tentative trust, and at the cost of two kills. Adding a level of recursion to it doesn't really deliver a benefit, and costs a kill. Fear-killing, as attacking experienced players for their experience alone has been known, certainly used to be more common as a tactic, but was mitigated by the propensity of lurchers to protect experienced players. This tendency has diminished in recent games, which has made fear-killing a more effective strategy once more. That said, there aren't many players in this game who will have seen that trend, and I don't think anyone holds a serious grudge against me - indeed, I hope not. @randuir, it's somewhat interesting that you raise that accusation against Roadwalker (which I think has some credibility), but then pivot towards something similar to a poke vote on Asterion - or at least a vote that would reveal limited information should he be lynched. Why is this? @Roadwalker, given I'm certain it's not a WGG, and given I have scrutiny on me, what do you expect me to do other than to defend myself? I'm minded to find myself agreeing with Randuir's thought that your pushing this narrative is an attempt to get my lynched, given I have guard protection and so can't be killed. I do intend to do a read through of the game, but for now, Roadwalker. -
Quick Fix Game 25: A Sundered Sky
Orlok Tsubodai replied to Elbereth's topic in Sanderson Elimination
It's been more than a month since the end of the game, so this is well overdue being closed. Whilst the aftermath was contentious, I think most people greatly enjoyed the game, and would like to express gratitude to El for running a game with such an interesting twist, and to all the players for contributing to such an exciting game. As always, if anyone would like to try their hand at running a game, just get a hold of Wilson, Alvron, Seonid, or myself. Not only will we get you added to the list (and the GM PM group), but we'll be more than willing to help out in any way we can. You can also post game ideas, ask questions, and get feedback from everyone over in our Art of Game Creation thread too. With all the games that we've run so far, we have plenty of experienced GMs that can help you refine any game you're working on. Thanks again to everyone who played, and we look forward to killing seeing you in future games! -
Personally, I think that the eliminators thought that a guard was unlikely to protect me two cycles running, and sought to take advantage of it. Whilst you clearly shouldn't take my word for it, I'd point out that the loss of two kills, and degree of scrutiny that brings upon me would be a bizarre move for an eliminator team when the first attack on me would have sufficed, were it a WGG.
-
Finger of Suspicion - it means he thinks semi active players are suspicious. More thoughts to follow later - currently with a friend.
-
Am I interpreting you correctly as saying that whilst you think Doc had reasons to vote for you, and addressed a number of players before coming to the conclusion that he should do so, Steeldancer seemed to promote you to consideration without considering other players too? Your ploy certainly produced information, and you don't necessarily need to vote on one of the people who targeted you for it to have born fruit, but I do think a case exists for lynching Steeeldancer.
-
@Megasif, would you care to add your own thoughts on the rest of the lynch? I do appreciate your own thoughts on Randuir, as it is alignment indicative, but not engaging in the rest of the thread because other players are generating discussion doesn't help ongoing discussion. What are your thoughts on Alv, Steeldancer, Manukos, Roadwalker, and Randuir? Sure. I presume you consider yourself rational. Why are you not considering Manukos similarly rational? If something wouldn't be a sensible strategy for you, as a player with some experience, it's probably a strategy other players with some experience will also consider not terribly sensible. I'm not arguing that he should be cleared, merely questioning your own rationale for voting. Interesting. I hadn't read his post in that sense. I think it could be a typo of secret rules (which have been confirmed, given the Ring), or it could be an assumption that given secret items exist, secret roles must also exist. Why do you think possession of a secret role is necessarily something that warrants a vote, though? A secret role doesn't mean that he must have an evil alignment, although I suppose it might be more indicative of a serial killer type role.
-
So, if you don't think it's a ploy you'd use as an eliminator, why do you think Manukos is using it as an eliminator? THat strikes me as contradictory. Why keep your vote on someone you think is "almost cleared", and who is pursuing a strategy you think is too aggressive for an eliminator to consider?
-
@Steeldancer, it's not important whether or not Manukos' strategy was effective. What is important, and alignment indicative, is the mindset that produced his strategy. Why do you think eliminator Manukos would pursue this strategy? Edit: My apologies for the double post. I had technical issues editing a new quote into my previous post.
-
@Doc12, Alv's posts mostly express sentiment, rather than meaning, at least to me. Steeldancer being an Ent, and Alv talking of black branches and black brambles gives me a sense that he's expressing an opinion of Steeldancer being evil, for instance. From my own perspective, I am (clearly) not voting on Steeldancer for the same reasons as Alv. I don't know why Alv thinks Steeldancer is evil. I think that Steeldancer hasn't contributed anything of note, has been inconsistent in his position on Alv, and I think he's posting fluff that makes it seem like he's contributing without actually doing so. Unlike Mestiv's position, I think Roadwalker has the experience to know better. @Manukos, would you explain why you're voting for Steeldancer? What convinced you to vote on him beyond bandwagoning on the votes from Alv and I? Frankly, I don't think Manukos' ploy makes sense for an eliminator. I think it has brought an immense amount of scrutiny down on him, and don't think the confusion advantages for eliminator!Manukos. Indeed, the reactions of players to his ploy has generated information, and I don't think eliminator teams want to increase available information, given it increases the accuracy of lynches. @Sony, I agree on your reading of Alv's post. This particular manifestation of Alv's playstyle is new, but I'm reading it as normal, given he typically plays games trying to make himself deliberately hard to read, regardless of his alignment. I think he's looking for those who attack him as an easy target, those who ignore him, knowing he's not evil, and that he's just having fun. I don't see your reasoning for being suspicious of Roadwalker from that which you've posted. Would you mind setting that out? As I said above, I'm of the view that Manukos' actions are more likely to come from a villager than an eliminator. I don't think he was expecting anyone to take him at his word when he said he wasn't an eliminator, but that he was just clarifying his earlier ploy, which involved claiming that he was an eliminator.
-
@Mestiv, speculation on why I was tracked in that sense doesn't really contribute much. Yes, it was certainly fortuitous that a guard decided to protect me, although no more surprising than my being attacked. What do you think about my being attacked in the context of last cycle's discussion? How does it fit, of you, with a vote being placed on me last cycle? Interestingly, I have it better now than I did when I was less experienced. At one point I had a string of six or seven consecutive C1-2 deaths, which was not fun. @queensteph, given you should now have more time, what are your thoughts on the votes for Alv last cycle? Do you think that this could indeed be the expression of Nobles disagreeing with Lemonelon's lynch on the basis I set out yesterday, confirming Drake's theory? What do you think on lynching Alv this cycle? @Alvron, uncertainty on Roadwalker, as well as suspicion on Steeldancer, or was this indicating suspicion of Roadwalker? @Manukos, was this intended to draw out opinions, no create discussion, or merely to amuse yourself watching who worked out the secret message within it? Do you have any actual thoughts on the state of the game? @asterion137, also manifestly trolling us. He may well be evil, but I certainly don't believe this is a admission, and the likelihood of players misinterpreting it as you have makes me think that an eliminator wouldn't take that risk, so I believe him to be more likely village than eliminator. @Steeldancer, this seems similar to Mestiv's post at the beginnng of the cycle, except you have th experience to know that you really should be trying to add insight to the thread. What are you thoughts on the game, and players opinions, beyond expressing disappointment in what is obviously an unhelpful situation? Why did you vote on Alv last cycle, and why are you not voting on him this cycle? You claimed to be scrutinising him, yet merely voted, and didn't try to engage. This cycle, I'm struggling to see any opinions from you, yet it seems like you're trying to appear active. For now, I'm going to join Alv. Steeldancer. @Alvron, glad to see that you too caught the meaning. If you feel able to try to convey more specific sentiment, that would be useful. @randuir, even if Alvron is village, as I think very possible right now, there's advantage for the eliminators in keeping him alive. His attempts to convey meaning through sentiment rather than wording clearly obfuscate his position, and reduce the value of analysis performed on him. Having us spend a cycle considering lynching him delivers little advantage to the village, and limited information should we actually lynch him. @randuir, I'm firstly minded to give Mestiv some benefit of the doubt, being a new player, but if Mestiv is evil, come from the position that his post was intended to make it seem like he was happy I survived, rather than indicate that the attack was because I'm village. Clearly I come from a position of knowing it wasn't a WGG, though, and so have the privilege of not needing to factor that into my analysis. Mestiv is a new player, and as such I don't know whether such a post is in keeping with his normal behaviour, and as such I'd be minded to watch him a little longer before considering lynching him over that. @Straw, interesting, and thank you for revealing that to the thread. I don't see any advantage of using the Ring, given this - a 25% chance of death for a 50% chance of invulnerability to actions certainly does not seem worth it. That you'd reveal that nothing happened has likely prevented a couple of deaths, which I think is more likely to be a village actions than one of an eliminator. Given you're active, would you mind contributing your thoughts on the discussion? @Mestiv, why are you suspicious of Alvron's ramblings?
-
It certainly makes sense, but so too does DA being a random target, that happened to be a noble. Whilst I can certainly see Drake's analysis being true, it's also complicated, and requires a number of assumptions, whilst not being evidenced. I think that Lemonelon's actions constitute actual evidence of suspicious behaviour, which drives me towards scepticism as to Drake's suggestion. I'm not going to ask any one to step forward, but suspect that we might have seen a counter-vote with greater impetus had other nobles seen that which Drake suggests, and this hasn't materialised, which to me constitutes some (albeit relatively weak) evidence against his proposal. As such, I'm minded to keep my vote on Lemonelon.
-
BST refers to British Summer Time, or GMT/UTC +1. We're currently five hours ahead of EST.
-
@Lemonelon, would you mind rephrasing that, and explaining which of the two targets your thought process would lead to? I'm not following the argument you set out above. Given the lack of information generated so far, I think it would be useful for everyone to give their thoughts on the present situation. As such, with my apologies: @Jondesu, @Steeldancer, @Sony, @Alvron, @asterion137, @Doc12, @queensteph, @Drake Marshall, @Manukos, @Sami, @Mestiv, @Roadwalker, @Straw, @BrightnessRadiant, @Megasif, your thoughts on the outcome of last cycle, and predominately on this cycle's discussion of it, would be appreciated.
-
I apologise for not being clear, Lemonelon. I'd like to understand why you think a village politician would have cast a secret vote last cycle, or, if not, why you think it would be balanced to give the eliminators two secret votes?
-
Frankly, Mestiv, I have no idea. Isengard is a real possibility, though. My argument centres around a belief that using a secret vote on day one is far more likely to come from an eliminator than a village, as I can't identify any advantages to the village arising from killing either Brightness or DA. No discussion was produced, I don't think either of them were overly suspicious, and as such limited analysis was available. This, combined with my belief that two Mordor politicians would be overpowered, depriving the village of its predominate ability to respond to the eliminator kill, leads to the conclusion that the two politicians must be in separate factions, yet likely neither village.
-
Interesting. Why do you make the assumptions you do regarding numbers, and what do you think about the likelihood of a third faction existing?
-
Would you set out your position as you see it for clarity of discussion, having realised that you'd mistaken what had happened? I believe my point on your leaping straight to the conclusion that we have one village and one eliminator politician acting still stands, does it not?
-
What advantage does this pose? There's nothing to analyse, confusion generated for the village, and the loss of a village role without discussion. Lynch discussions are useful because of the threat of the lynch forcing players to interact, not because of the lynch itself.
-
@Lemonelon, would you direct me to where Randuir claimed to have a scanning ability? Further, being the "first mover" on something like that is strategically sound regardless of alignment, and so not alignment indicative. Would you explain why you think a village politician would essentially try for a C1 vigilante kill, based on remarkably little information?
-
@Lemonelon, why the reliance upon Randuir's reasoning, here? We're all capable of our own critical thought. You're right to identify that we only have evidence of two politicians voting (and, indeed, village politicians are much less likely to have voted), so why the deference? This strikes me as being unwilling to challenge players, which I think is weak evidence for your being evil. The other thing I don't like about this post is the assumption that the politicians who voted must be Gondor and Mordor aligned. Whilst two Mordor politicians would probably be broken, giving them effective control of the lynch, there exists evidence of a third faction existing, from the Lieutenant of Mordor's scan, and the two politician votes serve to reinforce this, I think. I don't see the rationale for a village politician to have voted on C1. Given your eagerness to press for the conclusion that a village politician must have voted, I'm minded to suspect that you belong to this third faction, and given the absence of other credible lynches, will vote on you. Lemonelon. @randuir, I'm of the view that Alv is having fun at the moment. Whilst it's certainly not conducive to analysing him effectively, I'm not sure that the need to end his fun is significant enough at the moment to warrant threatening a lynch, and don't think that lynching him will yield any valuable information.
-
It's all ok, Alv. Just sign this document - it's merely giving me power of attorney - nothing to worry about, and it will all be fine.
-
Well, at least you're making an insanity defence easy if I have to represent you against the GM again...
-
Alv, is there anything we can do to help you regain your sanity?
