[A] The Agency GAME OVER -- AGENTS WIN

[Don't panic]

i am thinking this would likely work better if votes are sent in by PM and the GG then discloses who votes what.
so that everyone is required to cast a meaningful vote.
the way it is set up now, it seems like a big advantage to wait to vote, particularly for the infiltrators

 

[twietee]

good job your not on the team!

 

[mscriv]

Okay, so we are just waiting on Koodauw to finalize his list at this point. Let me ask another question. Why are you folks voting nay already on the mission? (@Don't panic @twietee)

I guess I'm not clear on why we would ever vote a mission down, isn't that a point for the infiltration? Or, is not doing a mission not considered a completed turn, maybe that's it? The language in the OP is still a little confusing to me @ravenvii. As follows...

The game will occur in turns. There are a maximum of five turns -- each turn could end in a point being given to the Agency or the Infiltration -- the first team to win three points total wins the game.

1. The vote to proceed with a mission is via a majority vote.

2. A mission can only be voted down five times in a row. Five nay votes in a turn will immediately lead to a Infiltration victory.

Okay, I think I'm starting to get it. Forgive me for processing and posting at the same time. If we don't vote yay for a team to move forward with a mission then we go back to the beginning, but that doesn't count as a "full turn" and no points are awarded. A full turn is when a mission is attempted and points are awarded for either a success or a failure. We can cycle through the list of team leaders as much as we want voting missions down, but if we do that five times in a row then that gives the infiltration a game victory. So, we could literally, vote down four missions, but proceed with the fifth and that would reset the system. We could then continue to vote down missions after that as long as we don't hit that magic number of five in a row. Do I have it right?

 

[twietee]

Do I have it right?

Yep. That's how I see it.

 

[mscriv]

i am thinking this would likely work better if votes are sent in by PM and the GG then discloses who votes what.
so that everyone is required to cast a meaningful vote.
the way it is set up now, it seems like a big advantage to wait to vote, particularly for the infiltrators

I see what you are saying, but isn't the whole point of a social game to engage with each other? How could anyone attempt to influence another person's vote if all the votes are "secret ballot"? It's been a while since I played a WW game with you all, but from what I remember there was a lot of interaction, strategy, and speculation based on how folks voted (the timing of their votes, the wording of their votes, who they voted before and who they voted after, block voting, etc. etc.). Secret ballot sort of removes all of that, doesn't it? Sure, we can speculate after the fact, but there's no way to "plead your case" and try to get others to change their vote in the middle of a voting round.

 

[Queen of Spades]

In trying to understand the rules (never played this game before) my interpretation is the vote of "nay" would occur if you have reason to think the mission group, as constructed, would fail. You can be an agent but if you think there are infiltrators on the squad, you would theoretically vote "nay" so as not to waste a go round. Is that correct, @ravenvi?

 

[WoodNUFC]

I see what you are saying, but isn't the whole point of a social game to engage with each other? How could anyone attempt to influence another person's vote if all the votes are "secret ballot"? It's been a while since I played a WW game with you all, but from what I remember there was a lot of interaction, strategy, and speculation based on how folks voted (the timing of their votes, the wording of their votes, who they voted before and who they voted after, block voting, etc. etc.). Secret ballot sort of removes all of that, doesn't it? Sure, we can speculate after the fact, but there's no way to "plead your case" and try to get others to change their vote in the middle of a voting round.

I definitely agree with this. This is a social game, and a secret ballot would kill that. It works well in person because you can play one another on nonverbal clues. Since we don't have that here, voting needs to be done in the open.

 

[Moyank24]

I see what you are saying, but isn't the whole point of a social game to engage with each other? How could anyone attempt to influence another person's vote if all the votes are "secret ballot"? It's been a while since I played a WW game with you all, but from what I remember there was a lot of interaction, strategy, and speculation based on how folks voted (the timing of their votes, the wording of their votes, who they voted before and who they voted after, block voting, etc. etc.). Secret ballot sort of removes all of that, doesn't it? Sure, we can speculate after the fact, but there's no way to "plead your case" and try to get others to change their vote in the middle of a voting round.

Agreed.

 

[Moyank24]

In trying to understand the rules (never played this game before) my interpretation is the vote of "nay" would occur if you have reason to think the mission group, as constructed, would fail. You can be an agent but if you think there are infiltrators on the squad, you would theoretically vote "nay" so as not to waste a go round. Is that correct, @ravenvi?

This is how I understand it as well.

In the first round, there's no real reason to vote nay , as there is no history to go on, unless you're an infiltrator and you're not on the team.

 

[WoodNUFC]

In trying to understand the rules (never played this game before) my interpretation is the vote of "nay" would occur if you have reason to think the mission group, as constructed, would fail. You can be an agent but if you think there are infiltrators on the squad, you would theoretically vote "nay" so as not to waste a go round. Is that correct, @ravenvi?

You are right, there are important reasons one may vote "Nay". the important thing to remember is that the infiltration only wins if 5 mission groups fail to be approved in a row. Voting against groupings can be a useful strategy for both groups in this game. Just like, the spies don't necessarily have to fail a mission every time they are selected. There is a lot of strategies that can be tried here.
(Just remember, though, if you are a good guy/gal, you should never vote to fail a mission you've been selected for as this will lose you the round and lead to spy victory.)

 

[mscriv]

In trying to understand the rules (never played this game before) my interpretation is the vote of "nay" would occur if you have reason to think the mission group, as constructed, would fail. You can be an agent but if you think there are infiltrators on the squad, you would theoretically vote "nay" so as not to waste a go round. Is that correct, @ravenvi?

I'm glad I'm not the only one figuring this out as we play!

This is how I understand it as well.

In writing my last question post above it started to make sense to me as I quoted and read it over and over.

Voting against groupings can be a useful strategy for both groups in this game. Just like, the spies don't necessarily have to fail a mission every time they are selected. There is a lot of strategies that can be tried here.
(Just remember, though, if you are a good guy/gal, you should never vote to fail a mission you've been selected for as this will lose you the round and lead to spy victory.)

Yeah, I'm beginning to see all of the various nuance and strategy as my understanding of the game grows. I'm glad at least someone has played it before, the insight is helpful. Like @ravenvii said, I'm sure things will be tweaked along the way if this catches on like the WW games did.

 

[Koodauw]

I thought it would be a good idea to get some vets in there, seems like if the mission wasn't a success, we'd have some good suspects too look at. I am open to picking others for the mission, but id like to hear why people voted Nay first.

 

[Don't panic]

I see what you are saying, but isn't the whole point of a social game to engage with each other? How could anyone attempt to influence another person's vote if all the votes are "secret ballot"? It's been a while since I played a WW game with you all, but from what I remember there was a lot of interaction, strategy, and speculation based on how folks voted (the timing of their votes, the wording of their votes, who they voted before and who they voted after, block voting, etc. etc.). Secret ballot sort of removes all of that, doesn't it? Sure, we can speculate after the fact, but there's no way to "plead your case" and try to get others to change their vote in the middle of a voting round.

well, the votes would still be made public, just not during voting.
it just seems that it is even more of an advantage to use the wait and see policy, and you would always have a few people not voting (since the vote is always between just two alternatives, a majority would likely be reached every time before deadline.
just an impression, but it seems to me the WW model of voting favors the infiltrators a lot

 

[Don't panic]

Okay, so we are just waiting on Koodauw to finalize his list at this point. Let me ask another question. Why are you folks voting nay already on the mission? (@Don't panic @twietee)

I guess I'm not clear on why we would ever vote a mission down, isn't that a point for the infiltration? Or, is not doing a mission not considered a completed turn, maybe that's it? The language in the OP is still a little confusing to me @ravenvii. As follows...



Okay, I think I'm starting to get it. Forgive me for processing and posting at the same time. If we don't vote yay for a team to move forward with a mission then we go back to the beginning, but that doesn't count as a "full turn" and no points are awarded. A full turn is when a mission is attempted and points are awarded for either a success or a failure. We can cycle through the list of team leaders as much as we want voting missions down, but if we do that five times in a row then that gives the infiltration a game victory. So, we could literally, vote down four missions, but proceed with the fifth and that would reset the system. We could then continue to vote down missions after that as long as we don't hit that magic number of five in a row. Do I have it right?

frist, i was under the impression this was the actual list, otherwise voting shouldn't have even started. i don't think a list should be allowed to be changed after voting begins.

and i voted nay because it was getting a lot of yays.
twietee's and comeagain's yays were particularly suspicious.

EDIT: it should read astroboy, not comeagain

 

[mscriv]

Okay, another question... sorry

@Koodauw picked 5 people to be on the 1st mission team, but I don't see anywhere in the OP where it give a specific number of people who are to be selected. Did I miss that somewhere or is that part of the strategy of the game? Is the number selected at the team leaders discretion? If it is left up to the team leader then is there a minimum or maximum number to folks who can be selected for a mission? I see where it says 3 plots cards will be given for distribution, but from what I've read multiple cards can be given to one player, correct?

first, i was under the impression this was the actual list, otherwise voting shouldn't have even started. i don't think a list should be allowed to be changed after voting begins.

Gotcha, ravens addressed that in a post above, I think from this point forward Team Leaders will bold their finalized list.

and i voted nay because it was getting a lot of yays.twietee's and comeagain's yays were particularly suspicious.

Wow, I'm way out of practice if you folks are already picking up on clues this early in the game. Especially for folks who aren't even playing. Is ComeAgain in the game?!? I don't see his/her name on the player list?

 

[ravenvii]

Okay, so we are just waiting on Koodauw to finalize his list at this point. Let me ask another question. Why are you folks voting nay already on the mission? (@Don't panic @twietee)

I guess I'm not clear on why we would ever vote a mission down, isn't that a point for the infiltration? Or, is not doing a mission not considered a completed turn, maybe that's it? The language in the OP is still a little confusing to me @ravenvii. As follows...



Okay, I think I'm starting to get it. Forgive me for processing and posting at the same time. If we don't vote yay for a team to move forward with a mission then we go back to the beginning, but that doesn't count as a "full turn" and no points are awarded. A full turn is when a mission is attempted and points are awarded for either a success or a failure. We can cycle through the list of team leaders as much as we want voting missions down, but if we do that five times in a row then that gives the infiltration a game victory. So, we could literally, vote down four missions, but proceed with the fifth and that would reset the system. We could then continue to vote down missions after that as long as we don't hit that magic number of five in a row. Do I have it right?

Exactly.

 

[TechGod]

Nay
Don't know if that's a good idea

 

[ravenvii]

Okay, another question... sorry

@Koodauw picked 5 people to be on the 1st mission team, but I don't see anywhere in the OP where it give a specific number of people who are to be selected. Did I miss that somewhere or is that part of the strategy of the game? Is the number selected at the team leaders discretion? If it is left up to the team leader then is there a minimum or maximum number to folks who can be selected for a mission? I see where it says 3 plots cards will be given for distribution, but from what I've read multiple cards can be given to one player, correct?

The team must consist of five members (not counting the leader). The choosing of members is completely up to the leader's prerogative.

 

[Don't panic]

This is how I understand it as well.

In the first round, there's no real reason to vote nay , as there is no history to go on, unless you're an infiltrator and you're not on the team.

i see it exactly the opposite. the Infis know who the other Infis are, so as long as one of them is on the team, they would vote yes. odds that at least one is on are very high.

i

 

[Moyank24]

i see it exactly the opposite. the Infis know who the other Infis are, so as long as one of them is on the team, they would vote yes. odds that at least one is on are very high.

i

But voting yay is the only reason to get more intel. There could be 3 on that list who all vote for failure. Now instead of just voting nay and moving on to the next list, we now have valuable info for the next round.

 

[mscriv]

The team must consist of five members (not counting the leader). The choosing of members is completely up to the leader's prerogative.

Gotcha, you may want to add that to the OP for others who are following the game in hopes of playing in the future.

i see it exactly the opposite. the Infis know who the other Infis are, so as long as one of them is on the team, they would vote yes. odds that at least one is on are very high.

True, but with a 4/6 split and the clarified fact that a mission team always consists of 5 players the odds are always going to be high. How do you suggest we go about making a decision, whether it be for the initial mission or a subsequent one?

But voting yay is the only reason to get more intel. There could be 3 on that list who all vote for failure. Now instead of just voting nay and moving on to the next list, we now have valuable info for the next round.

A great point. It's not unlike the first vote in a WW game. There's really little to nothing to go on, but we have to start somewhere. @Don't panic, do you have strong feelings that someone should be removed from the team list? You mentioned some suspicious votes. (I'm still puzzled about the ComeAgain reference though )

 

[Don't panic]

I thought it would be a good idea to get some vets in there, seems like if the mission wasn't a success, we'd have some good suspects too look at. I am open to picking others for the mission, but id like to hear why people voted Nay first.

'vets'?
it's the first game ever!

But voting yay is the only reason to get more intel. There could be 3 on that list who all vote for failure. Now instead of just voting nay and moving on to the next list, we now have valuable info for the next round.

not the only way, every time a list is proposed and we vote, some information is gathered. we will still get the info from the fail/success vote

Especially for folks who aren't even playing. Is ComeAgain in the game?!? I don't see his/her name on the player list?

Uops,that should have read astroboy.

 

[Don't panic]

what happens if we reach the deadline before the team leader posts a list? new deadline or automatic fail?

 

[Don't panic]

A great point. It's not unlike the first vote in a WW game. There's really little to nothing to go on, but we have to start somewhere. @Don't panic, do you have strong feelings that someone should be removed from the team list? You mentioned some suspicious votes. (I'm still puzzled about the ComeAgain reference though )

again, it seems to me the other way: more votes=more informations. why would you NOT want it?

i have nothing against anyone specific on the team, but i have somehting against Twietee and astroboy quickly approving the list while not being on it

 

[Moyank24]

not the only way, every time a list is proposed and we vote, some information is gathered. we will still get the info from the fail/success vote

If nay wins, it won't come to a fail/success vote.