Jump to content

Archer

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3779

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Archer

  1. Archer
    well it was worth a shot Valid risk but the elims can't easily negotiate with anyone. I think the risk of a PoE elim death is great enough that they'll try to avoid it. Your win probability tanks after losing half the elim team. I keep forgetting the elims are split. I won't believe there's three though, not with eight players. By the way, I forgot win is at parity, so some of the coinflip things are wrong in my previous analysis. TL;DR for confused people, we're trying to analyze the rules to guess which distribution version the GM decided to run and how we might benefit from future kill possibilities. It's not necessary information. I like TUN's suggestion. It's effort prohibitive anyway, and we are trying to break the game. Mat, I got such strong elim signaling vibes from that. I'd be down to murder Xino though if nothing better comes up. Like killing you. :P. (Hoid) Mat
  2. Archer
    smh stop trying to break the game, Kas With va being village faction A, and vb being faction B: Let’s assume it’s 3va:1e+1e:3vb. No defectors. We exe a va, they NK a va. Now it’s 1va:1e+1e:3vb. At this point we mass claim identities to figure out who those last two in the va doc are. Now assuming there’s one elim in that pair, we exe one and hope it’s an evil doer. If so, with a NK hitting vb, we get to 1va:1e:2vb. We exe exclusively from the vb doc, maybe resulting in 1va:1e (coinfliop for the win) or 1e:1vb (coinflip) or the win. Either way there’s 50% odds of an elim loss. Or it goes 0va+1e+1e+2vb. Exe the elim for 1e:2vb. Again, 50% chance of an elim loss. Where it gets tricky is village factions may lose from this. But my quick gaming this out seems promising if the elims indulge us with a pair of kills from the same doc.
  3. Archer
    I think the best play here is to maintain strict doc anonymity and hope the elims NK someone of the same faction as the exe target. That sets up a counflip exe to catch an elim, the result of which is either an elim down and a villager who will be left alone, or a guaranteed elim the next round, who will face down I think two villagers in the final round. But the other scenario is better because it's confirmed villager vs an elim versus one unconfirmed villager. Two people sharing a doc vote each other, then it's on the last guy to guess correctly. Or leave it to the 50% chance. If we just want to brute force this small player count game, that's gonna be the play. This analysis ignores all of the roles and assumes one elim in each doc. *rereads rules* Darn. I think my working assumption is going to be that Defactors either don't exist, or Devo was a big softie and made one doc two elims and two defactors. The dead talking element is fun. I suggest we crowdsource some questions for the dead to answer. Hello, new people! Stop ninjaing me, Hoid
  4. Archer
    With regards to the QF ruleset: My brain always blanks on what the precedent here, so I'll ask how it'll go this game. If you're Assassinated before you submit say a Bribery action, does the vote manip still go through? (I think no because your bid is nullified) I don't mind the possibility of multiple elims and losing the Thief, given the need to streamline it to run as a QF. You didn't specify if the elim kill is an action or not. For higher player counts, I'd consider putting a hard cap on the number of boxings you can gather from Active on the Floor. I worry about the risk involved with Blackmail, because if a bunch of people go inactive, it can lead to lots of death. But it's a QF and you can easily collect enough boxings to give yourself a buffer so this is fine. Just talk to your IM about your plan if say a bunch of people miss C1 for an unanticipated reason. Speaking of IMs, I recommend reviewing how BT1 went because there's now some similarities. Also you should prep the action availability list in advance in your notes. Some GMs like to improvise it, but I feel it's fairer to make it in advance so you're not influenced by how the game plays out. If something isn't bought, does it remain in stock or does the supply list reset every cycle? Are people told if they succeed in buying things and what their boxing total is? I'd like it specified when bought actions apply. Do I buy a Bribe in the round I want to use it in, or a round in advance? And I imagine exe candidates will blow their savings on Assassinations, so the extra cost won't be much of a deterrent. Not sure how those affect the balance - the impact of vig kills is a good conversation to have with an IM. I'm quite impressed by the ruleset and I think it pulls together some fun elements while being simple enough for the format. Good job. You have my approval. I'll ping Araris to see if you can get a second. @Araris Valerian I hope the BT will run as scheduled, but be prepared to bump your start date back if it's delayed. (Turns out the best way to break that game was a stubbornly low player count. :P)
  5. Archer
    The catch with Safes is while that increases the number of people who could be the elim, those who robberies succeed against will still be confirmed village. I think people get excited enough about the prospect of a personal kill ability that you could make that the top tier. It'd also help lengthen a small player count game. The rest of your responses are reasonable. Once you decide how each of the suggestions you're considering will end up, let me know and I'll reread through the doc again. By the way, the elim wincon should be parity, not outnumber, in my opinion. I'd hate to see them get to the end and lose to a coinflip exe. Or maybe move the NK to before the exe in the Order of Actions (which you should write out in the rules). I'm trying to remember if there's a reason people don't normally put NK before exe
  6. Archer
    Hey! Where's the Copper?? :/ (Answer: it was Araris, but still grrr) No worries. At that point I'd decided we had the luxery of assuming a four person elim team, which put the Synod kill at risk if we didn't use it that round. In a 4 elim world, you pretty much had to be evil, so by not disputing my assassination very hard, I directed the generic kills towards you, which theoretically both gave me an elim flip for my troubles and saved me the hassle of having to fight an exe that was going to be largely influenced by reasonable PoE. I was okay taking the lazy way out in that situation. :P. Good game, all. Shoutout to the players that carried the team. I feel like I didn't try very hard in the rounds when I knew my vote didn't matter and then - well I'm glad y'all didn't follow me onto Araris. Looking at those actions, we should have submitted more kills N1, ouch. What's up with that elim kill on Steel? Anyway, thanks for running this GMs and IM. I had fun
  7. Archer
    In as Angry, an emoji that lives in spoiler tags and glares at anyone who enters his home uninvited. Are we running this in place of the QF or before it? Edit: anytime works
  8. Archer
    This request has been logged on the doc. For the record, TJ and Illwei have declined, but Fifth expressed soft interest. I'd rule out Szeth since they haven't been on in months, so if @Fifth Scholar wants, it's theirs. If they pass, Xino will run the game. Welcome! I encourage you to 'follow' the subforum so you're notified when new threads are posted. New games are often pinned to the top during the week of signups for them. Upcoming GMs, please make a mental note to ping the newcomers on the BT signups when you post the next games. * Steeldancer has expressed interest in running the next LG, but I need to ping the people ahead of them in line. That's you, @StrikerEZ (I think you're passing, if I'm reading your previous post right - let me know if that's the wrong read) @The Unknown Novel @Lotus @Kasimir @Random Bystander Reminder to Steeldancer and anyone planning to run a game to PM the committee with your ruleset to obtain approval.
  9. Archer
    @xinoehp512 --The Thief can identify Investigatior because they won't get boxings from them. Their wincon is survival and there's one elim, so identifying and killing the single elim is the quickest path to victory. So they're best off aligning with the village and serving as an alignment scanner. I suggest patching this by having the elim give a couple boxings of bank money to the Thief instead of giving nothing. --Perhaps limit people to not being able to win Loudest Voice multiple times/in a row. Obviously spam should be discouraged through some guidelines, but the bigger problem is actually that as a driver of discussion, it fails to motivate people much once it becomes clear that one or two people have developed a solid lead in that department. Ideally you'd have some kind of contribution ranking system, but anything you do will be gamed or be too much work to be worth it. Best idea I can come up with is doing something that prioritizes interaction over individual content production. Something like you get a point for every interaction you have with another person's post, such as group RPing or responding to ideas. It'll be GM work intensive though --If I vote Player X, then vote for Player Y, but in the meantime someone votes for Player X and that becomes a big train, I don't get credit for starting that train, right? --Senators paying their hush money should be a passive action to avoid accidental deaths to that. --If the Thief needs to earn 5 boxings C1, they can't do that without winning Loudest Voice or starting a train. Unless the theft money they steal can go into their hush money payment in that same rollover? --Thief will kill someone C1 by robbing them of enough money to pay the hush money expense --The inherent flaw of single elim games is the elim must be an active player, so GM selection bias can be predicted. And if an elim kill ever goes through and someone hasn't been around that round, they're automatically cleared. Personal preference is that an elim kill is always submitted on a random target as a passive action, then the elim submitting the kill overrides that choice. --And don't underestimate player frustration with what will be a LOT of village flips. They know to expect it in this set up, so that's good, just keep an eye on the thread mood --Can boxings ever be transferred besides by the Thief theft? --you should run the numbers on whether Bodyguard can be abused by the minority alignments to forcibly win the game. Or make it so it can't be used twice in a row. Or add a fun auction element where people bid for that ability and only the highest bid takes it. I'm zeroing in on that one because it blocks the exe --I'd also look into what's your ideal player count and how you plan to adjust the game for less or more participants. Stuff like rampant kills might be bad in a small group Edit: if the thief is removed from consideration, 2 people that alignment scan each other are guaranteed to be good. That's when you divert your efforts towards giving them all the boxings so they can spam Bodyguard (allow them to win Loudest etc) . Eventually you're left with 2 guaranteed goods vs 1 elim, and they'll win the exe. Both sides use vote manip, so it cancels each other out. Do you really need an alignment scanning option?
  10. Archer
    hey Ashleye, that's not what I meant when I said develop a killer instinct I... I don't even know what to say. Here's me thinking Illwei misinterpreting the Thug role was the biggest big oof That's hilarious XD.
  11. Archer
    On the bright side, this will probably save the skyeels from extinction :D. Good game, elims. Thanks for running it, GM, IM
  12. Archer
    would have been nice if you'd come around sooner maybe I'm evil... maybe I just wanna bonk you on the nose, you'll never know. Until D3. Then you'll know. But until then. Mystery!
  13. Archer
    Player List, From Villagest to Evilest Alvron – Indisputably village for sniping elim power role N1. Illwei – Strongly pushed JNV yesterday. Elandera – JNV voter. JNV’s self-pres vote. Araris – JNV voter. I think I probably misread them… Matrim’s Dice – Was meaningfully voted on by Stick D1. But went for Elan CW yesterday. * Xino – Undercut by Striker NK, e/v interactions. Ashbringer – It’s always the quiet ones. Steeldancer – Self-centered analysis and strongly pushed me as an alternative exe yesterday. *Archer – I’m a vote manip with partial control over the Synod and I appeared to protect JNV. I’ve therefore gathered three Synod votes and will be killed. I strongly encourage you to generically Protect the top of this list, because we want the final showdown to be between our very villager people and someone left over by PoE. If you’re a villager among Xino/Ashbringer/Steeldancer, this especially applies to you. You dying helps us get through the list of suspects quicker and provides more certainty than if our top clears die, so selflessly shielding is the best play. Besides, we all know Alvron is itching to snipe someone again, so he’s got the kill covered. If this goes on longer than expected, mass claiming and coordinating generic actions to try and head off the NK are good approaches. Use your PMs! If we kill from the bottom of the list to the top, I think we have enough reasonable clears to pull off the win. It’s best to have padded margins here, in case some people are still filling or the elims have vote manip. So if there’s a debate between say Ashbringer and Steeldancer, just consolidate and come back to the second one the next Day. Reminder that JNV took the first stab at explaining the vote breakdown N1, which makes sense since the elims needed to do that anyway. Fun quote: “I feel like for some reason there was just this hyperfocus on Steeldancer for a long time which seems weird”. Intriguingly, JNV didn’t vote that Day. I think my elims didn’t care/weren’t on to mess with the vote theory stands. I’m fairly certain that Steeldancer is the final elim, based largely on PoE. He also appears to be the Synod member suspiciously pushing my death, but hasn’t confirmed their identity yet. Once that kill is used, I encourage the Synod members to reveal themselves and discuss what went down there.
  14. Archer
    Yeah, y'all can kill me now. I was waiting to rail against people (like Synod's headband) for jumping to murder for an e-e connection without verifying the primary evilness of the link (JNV), but I ended up on the wrong side of that flip. I'll disclose that I am Jeff in the Synod doc and am aware that the group has elected to slay me tonight. So you can save your generic kill shots. The only reason I can think to keep me alive is that I'm a Sparkler with a full metalmind, so I can potentially see who submits the NK if you spare me until next Night. But that requires me to guess the person who submits it, which is a longshot. Let's see. 9 minus 2 today is 7. So maybe 5v:2e. Exe to 4v:2e. But you have to guard against a seized Synod doc, which is a possibility with 2 elims in it and well placed kills. Okay. Do what you gotta do. Also, if you think there's one elim left, is there much harm in roleclaiming next Day? Copper Mat especially. And if you could all focus your energies towards assuming I'm going to flip village, that'd be fabulous. Kill me, but don't waste time looking for connections and stuff like that. There's an actual elim or two out there that you need to catch. Also someone should RB me because that's the smart play. Edit @Fifth Scholar can we get an order of actions for generic role block and the three types of kills?
  15. Archer
    Hey howdy. I forgot to mention that I'll be very busy today and so last night was me trying to solidify where my vote will land and likely stay for the remainder of the round. Unfortunately I'm in an awkward position because I'm partially basing my vote on Secret Information. But between my shortlist pointing there and my other suspects acting downright villagery, I'm going to take the opportunity to stab Araris in the back. :P. No seriously I'm 90% positive he's evil. He's a PMer. Filled D1, which means no teammates on the line. But then he burned all his charges and PMed me (and someone he won't identify) during the Night. I asked why not wait until 5 charges, he said I'm Araris, I hate PMs. (So why'd you PM me...) Then I asked if he planned on charging up any more and he said no, I want my vote to count. But guys. He hasn't really been using the PM to bounce ideas off me or anything. It's mostly been me asking him questions. So why not play silent rounds and then see at the end if your vote is needed or if you can fill. Remembering that there's a role that needs to be PMed as well. And leaving yourself the option of filling allows you to drop your vote secretly. I think he's actually wary of filling because it means he can't talk in the elim doc. He's playing this role in the most elimmy way, so it has my hackles up. Anyway, I will also mention that I caused my own vote to disappear D1 but somebody put one back in its place. So there's a chance the elims were actually uncomfortable with the way the exe was going and tried to hit Alvron. But what I can't understand is why Alvron Again, info dumping here because I will not be around, so good luck!
  16. Archer
    Mat, I voted Elandera because Araris and her voting JNV without much explanation seemed weird in light of them both being on my sus shortlist. By the way, I remembered that I was suspicious for Araris making an in case I die post last Night, since that's out of character for him. That wording especially, it feels performative. Steel, you didn't even make my first list of clears, so ready assured, you're near the bottom of my village tiers. :3 It's largely a matter of convenience, pending further information. Just to annoy you, I'm giving you village points now for arguing against village reading you. Xino, I was wondering if Alvron's tiny text was him setting himself up to fend off a counterclaim by saying its possible two people submitted the same kill. I see where people are coming from with the JNV thing but I had the opposite read of it. My gut is actually most interested in Araris still, so let's do that (Elandera) Araris
  17. Archer
    It's based on the theory that if the elims were in danger of being killed D1, they would have created certainty by making a multi-vote wagon. Instead, Stick voted alone on Mat. They seemed content to let the massive tie go through, implying they felt the odds of one of them dying were low enough that they were comfortable with the risk. If you speculate e!Araris, I think you have to guess that there was no elims up for exe D1 (except maybe for Ashbringer), because why would they fill instead of keeping their vote in place to solidify the exe? (Assuming Araris lost their vote to filling.) Now, they could have had say one elim up for exe, and they took the odds from say 1 in 3 of them dying to say 1 in 6 by adding side wagons. But if it had been multiple elims, I think the risk would have become too great, especially knowing that some of those votes were likely to disappear as people filled. A 2 in 6 chance could become 2 in 3, for example, which is an unnecessarily high level of risk. Especially when you have vote manip on your team, assuming Stick had charges or they have another one on the roster. It's possible they failed to anticipate the Ashbringer wagon failing, but I think it's more likely that it was a mostly village list of candidates. So it makes sense to kill them now that we've realized that. If Striker got identified in the doc, even better for them.
  18. Archer
    Darn, I read Illwei's post and thought it was very insightful and had some good clears and then I read Mat's post and got whiplash. I agree with: -Steel is village for that one post -The Stick didn't need to correct the Xino mixup =v!Xino. I'm less confident in it than Illwei is, but it tracks -Striker may have been killed so the elims can seize control of the Synod Alvron, I'm guessing they're treating such people as more cleared than you normally would people who attracted votes. That C1 was full of very lukewarm votes, not serious suspicions, so followup pressure was less likely. I'm not a big fan of these naked votes on JNV. Speaking of Araris, when I said Araris seemed to be pushing the pace D1, I was thinking of similarities to LG82, which featured the following posts D1: Started with an RP paragraph leading to a stab vote. Pinged people to ask their thoughts. Does vote analysis. Pings people again. Early D1 this game, I got similar vibes, although my reread indicates it's not as aggressive as LG82 was. Less pinging, more quoting and follow-ups. The parallel isn't actually as strong as I thought it was. Illwei's level of effort is making me suspicious of them, but the substance is clearing people more than it's laying suspicions, so I'll overlook my paranoia that the analysis is too good. (Illwei) Elandera
  19. Archer
    Time for an Ashbringeresque POE. Removing Alvron and Mat for previously discussed reasons. Removing... oh wow, that's everyone who started N1 with a vote on them either dead or cleared. I'll broaden that to people who ended D1 with one. Removing Ashbringer and myself. By the way, I think Striker was likely killed because they were voted on D1. Removing JNV because of Stick's interaction with them although my distancing alarm bell keeps dinging. Killing Striker after Xino voted them feels a bit on the nose for the elim team. That leaves Steeldancer, Elandera, Araris, and Illwei as my shortlist of suspects. Might as well start with Illwei because they voted for v!TUN, an exe that Stick also supported at one point.
  20. Archer
    Stann's mop of blue hair bounced to an imaginary beat as they obsessively poured through their flipbook. They were just getting to the good part when they got the news. "What? Fullmetal Alchemist is dead??? Noo... oh. Well. Whatever, no one liked the Full Feruchemists anyway." * Good job, Alvron. Did you receive confirmation of your successful kill or could multiple people have submitted attacks on Stick? Either way, my first thought is that this carves out a balanced way for a v!Copper to exist, perhaps even with some initial charges. If Alvron is the Copper, I'll be very disappointed at the lost clear potential. Technically this was also an e!vote manip flip, but Stick's vote on Mat stuck and was not added to so I doubt that much happened on that front. By the way, between their potential to be a Copper and Stick's vote on them, I'm very committed to v!Mat right now. Also willing to ignore JNV since Stick pestered them to vote. Less confident about that one though. Anyone want to claim intentionally moving a vote to Stick D1?
  21. Archer
    I have independently verified that JNV's vote count was correct. I'll take it a step further by speculating about the nature of the vote manipulation. The added vote to Stick put them in danger, but not meaningfully so. It therefore looks like a randomly redirected Copper vote to me, because expending a charge to have an outside chance of killing someone seems like a waste of resources. Here's the vote manip that might exist: -Iron Ferring: negates a vote on themselves. Can tap to change an external vote, but why would they today -Tin Ferring: loses their own vote, must vote -Pewter Ferring: "cannot vote"... I assume this means voting would cause the fill to fail, not the vote to disappear -Zinc Ferring: loses their own vote, must vote. Can tap to change/add a vote -Copper Ferring: vote is redirected, must vote -Full Feruchemist: wild card The other three votes that were removed were off of candidates with OOG reasons to be spared (I forget when Ashbringer died in the anon game, but he doesn't play much so I can understand not wanting to kill him C1), making me wonder if two of Mat, Araris, and Alvron were being performative this round with their votes. It might also explain a lack of urgency late in the round to move votes or cast good ones. If so, I don't think it's necessarily evil-indicative. Unless they were casting imaginary votes on their evil teammates, knowing people are unlikely to break the appearance of a tie because voters love parity. Otherwise it's a requirement of their fillcon, so messing with an exe no one seemed very committal to seems like a small hindrance in the grand scheme of things. This brings me to the awkward realization that my theorized Copper Ferring has been narrowed down to three people. But that's honestly more than I was expecting based on how the votes shook down, so. Might wanna Protect those lads. Or maybe it's an e!Copper ferring and everything is fine. :D. I'm also inclined towards Steel's conclusion that the elims didn't really care about who died. I think a reasonable amount of risk to assume would be having one elim in contention, maybe two. But I'd certainly bet on at least one of Mat/Alvron/Striker being village. Really going out on a limb there, I'm sorry JNV sometimes obvious things need to be said :(((.
  22. Archer
    I had a gut dislike of Araris' level of engagement, because the last time I caught e!him was because he was pushing the pace. Things like questioning my stab's viability irked me coming from him specifically. But I'm against exing people C1 for discussion driving. Alv and Mat have cast genuinely suspect votes so far, so I think that's what I'll hone in on. Alvron misconstrued satire and positioned himself as untouchable by logic, so that deserves a protest vote at the very least. I also had a gut ping from Elandera but I think it was just for casualness Alvron (Araris)
  23. Archer
    Actually I always try to pocket people, despite that being an irrational course of action for a villager to take, so any suspicions relating to that are meritless. I'd ask you all to judge me by something more substantive than what I say this round, like my looks.
  24. Archer
    I agree that Alvron is a talented, witty, and formidable player. And I too am entirely against any attempts at pocketing. Mat should know better than to cast a vote like that abomination on Steel. And changing their mind that quickly makes me think they're overly self conscious of it. Hey Xino, why am I in the good bucket? Same question about Elandera too.
  25. Archer
    As I said before, I don't want to assume the distribution has lots of vote manip until we've seen how a round of voting gets altered. I'd missed the no names thing though, so that's an interesting boon. I'm sure it will not at all lead to GM mistakes ever. :D. Copper choosing not to fill would likely be a direct result of not having enough available cover. As for voting, yeah, I like voting. Highly recommend it for the reasons you stated. But we can do without one vote this round. By the way, I appreciate people bringing up lines from the rules because I seem to have missed a lot of details despite my best efforts.
×
×
  • Create New...