Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

[A] The Agency - GAME OVER -- SPIES WIN

Don't panic said:
i subbed techgod with moyank per twietee and fenris suggestion, and the two of them are a 'pair' just because they are next to each other. no other implication.
i have no specific indication for them to be bad or good. their posting is consistent with them being agents, but it would be anyway so that's not much of a clue.
i realize i rushed the team a bit, but i was on my way out to theater dinner, and didn't want to make everyone wait till morning, especially since it seemed to me the discussion had stalled (i see it has now picked up again)

in any cases i really had only two options: excluding QoS or excluding mscriv/wood. i went with the odds.
i decided not to include koodauw because of the failed mission and because the success in mission 1 has no real value anymore, since it is obvious there was a spy there.

gotta go, i'll check back in the morning. hopefully i have more time to get on the discussion.
Click to expand...
Ok - i dont remember suggesting replacing TechGod with Moyank - I remember agreeing with Twietee that he is very absent and questioning why Twietee seemed to link that with suspicions of mscriv and Wood.

The mission 1 success I don't think has much value any game now tbh - with 3 people in the team, its probably always going to be sensible to hide if your a spy.

I'm not sure the odds are any better for mscriv/wood being a spy than QoS being a spy tbh, possibly even slightly less likely. I'm going to sleep on it and decide how to vote in the morning but I'm leaning towards Nay so we can see what team QoS proposes.
 
mscriv said:
The bolded above makes little sense to me. DP is a primary suspect right now. Why would we trust him to give accurate results for the Open Up card? And, with him being a primary suspect using something like Establish Confidence for double verification would be very helpful. The problem is that if he is the team leader and a spy then he will surely give it to a spy whom he put on the team. I don't get this whole "chain of trust" notion. Since in this updated version of the game all reveals are done via PM then we have know way to every know if a chain is trustworthy.
Click to expand...
DP is a secondary suspect - its less likely that Kooduaw/DP are both spies than QoS or you and Wood.

Anyone who is part of the chain knows more about the state of the rest of the chain. i.e. Wood knows for sure about you, Koodauw knows for sure about DP, extending it helps that chain of trust and gives you more trust of the people at the end of the chain - it is better than lots of short chains where you have no idea of which could be a bluff. I agree with the change to the rules adding to the end of the chain isn't the best option - adding a link to the beginning would be more useful! i.e. someone who can eavesdrop on Wood or Koodauw would be more useful as it would give us an idea about the people confirming DP / mscriv as agents. It was a real shame the 1st team was so spread out that we couldn't create a chain using both eavesdrop and establish confidence.
 
Why the anger? Part of the plan? I don't really get it.

Anyway, Fenris: I put tech into the same paragraph with mscriv and wood since the reason dp had for doing so was that he could then eventually check on qos. which reminded me on the twietee/mscriv dispute about who should receive the establish confidence plot. probably a bit jumpy, sorry.

and yep, aside from some minor observations, which i'm not going to share, that mscriv list and distribution + what we exchanged afterwards is the main reason why i suspect that combo more than others as it is right now. unfair? I don't know, we have next to nothing to go on and have to use literally everything that could indicate something. but i'm well aware that even if that'd be true there are still two more spies out there which i have zero clue about who it could be.

tech is totally absent, like the first game where he was a spy, so i don't really understand the argument of wood
we would focus on active players only and punish them for doing so.

i got a good gut feeling about qos and moyank, but that's it. fenris i'll never trust unless he's 100% clear :p
we're at a disadvantage with how under surveillance works now (as mo pointed out it renders no confy useless), so unfortunally i agree with wood not being on the team < big difference to how we had koodauw always on the team during the first game.

not going to yay just yet
 
Think I never got an answer for that question in the first game, if I did I can't recall it, so please excuse me if you clarified already, @ravenvii, but who can I (the last on the list, equally mscriv as the first one) eavesdrop on?? Only Fenris or also mscriv? Could mscriv eavesdrop on the last on the list (me) as well as the second (Koodauw)?

I think that would make sense, since I assume we'd also just move on/repeat from the beginning (mscriv) in case my list gets nay'd (maybe you could clarify on that too).
 
Triple post FTW! :D

mscriv said:
If Wood is a spy in hiding then how does that serve to further implicate me? You folks appear to be lumping us together as either both innocent or both guilty.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear: I suspect WoodNUFC because of you, not the other way around as that wouldn't make much sense indeed.

WoodNUFC said:
Your willingness to overanalyze details--both within and outside the game--would make me laugh, if it wasn't so sad.
Click to expand...

I see mscriv talking about analyzing "outside the game" as well when he wrote about my playing style (for the lack of a better word) before. What does that mean exactly? If someone in the real-life version would start to snicker once you put her/him on the crucial team you'd take this into account as well, no? Is that outside the game as well? If someone brought up real-life excuse after excuse each day within a WW game why s/he couldn't vote we'd eventually take that into account as well at some point. That isn't unfair or moronic even if that person would have always told the truth! That's just an inevitable part of these games as far as I see it.
 
FenrisMoonlight said:
Ok - i dont remember suggesting replacing TechGod with Moyank - I remember agreeing with Twietee that he is very absent and questioning why Twietee seemed to link that with suspicions of mscriv and Wood.

The mission 1 success I don't think has much value any game now tbh - with 3 people in the team, its probably always going to be sensible to hide if your a spy.

I'm not sure the odds are any better for mscriv/wood being a spy than QoS being a spy tbh, possibly even slightly less likely. I'm going to sleep on it and decide how to vote in the morning but I'm leaning towards Nay so we can see what team QoS proposes.
Click to expand...

the odds were more in the sense that if it is wood/mscriv it is two spies 'frozen', while if it is QoS it is one, which would make the odds of putting a 'good' team together better.
in terms of actual chances, it is very close pretty much 50-50 as i mentioned above, and the variations depends on subjective interpretations and hard-to-quantify corollary scenarios.

i just wonder, if i had put together a team of wood/mscriv/fenris/twietee (which was my other alternative) would have it much more chances? i doubt it.

but since this seems to be doomed, i am also curious on what tema QoS will put together. not as easy as it seems :)
 
Ok.

I'm seeing things like this :

IF Wood, Mscriv and Koodauw are SPYS on the first game, wood and Koodauw voted sucess

second day

Since the new member is Mscriv and wood under surv, Mscriv knew he had to vote fail and would be alone.

I'm not sure tho that a spy would put 2 spy buddies in the first round, unless the second leader is a spy.

Soo next time on first and second mission we need to get closer people on the list to chain check....


Best scenario is simply DP is a spy.


I'll NAY your team then.
 
ninja'd: ?? Sythas, why should all of them be spies??

Alright, I'll do the kick off and YAY it.

In case we get that Spy plot which could shed light on mscriv (and hence somewhat clear both, mscriv and woodNUFC) I strongly suggest we abort the mission and play the plot first.

There is no reason for me to trust QoS more than DP so it doesn't really matter I guess. One could argue about inlcuding Wood, since he his under surveillance, but since his vote is disclosed after everything is said and done I can't really make up my own mind about what is better. All we know is he voted twice success, but that still doesn't prove a lot imo.
 
twietee said:
One could argue about Wood, since he is under surveillance, but since his vote is disclosed after everything is said and done I can't really make up my own mind what is better. All we know is he voted twice success, but that still doesn't prove a lot imo.
Click to expand...

@ravenvii, we really need clarification on this. Will Wood be voting publicly once the mission phase starts or will he be PMing his vote to you and it not revealed until the end of the mission phase?
 
mscriv said:
@ravenvii, we really need clarification on this. Will Wood be voting publicly once the mission phase starts or will he be PMing his vote to you and it not revealed until the end of the mission phase?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately he did alread in #428

I don't agree that this is a minor change, and I certainly don't agree with Sythas that this is the best way to play it (for the agents) since under surveillance somewhat implies that the agents are one step ahead in terms of what's happening and could react accordingly.

But it is as it is I guess. And I don't want to pick another bone with our GM. ;) edit: still would be important to know whether I (last on the OP list) am a dead end or could possibly eavesdrop on mscriv?
 
So, I've heard many people talking about putting the team through to get the cards assigned and then having QOS No Confidence the mission. If that is the plan then wouldn't we want people on the team for which we need further clarification as opposed to new players who we know nothing about?

I'm just not very comfortable with DP's team. He knows that basically starting over with 3 new players is a big risk with little reward.
 
Sythas said:
Ok.

I'm seeing things like this :

IF Wood, Mscriv and Koodauw are SPYS on the first game, wood and Koodauw voted sucess

second day

Since the new member is Mscriv and wood under surv, Mscriv knew he had to vote fail and would be alone.

I'm not sure tho that a spy would put 2 spy buddies in the first round, unless the second leader is a spy.

Soo next time on first and second mission we need to get closer people on the list to chain check....


Best scenario is simply DP is a spy.


I'll NAY your team then.
Click to expand...

at least you voted!

it's unclear to me, however, why would you think wood, mscriv AND koodauw are all spies. not impossible, obviously, but not likely either.
and why would you not consider QoS a possibility as a spy?

we know that
(at least) one of wood, koodauw, QoS is a spy
AND
(at least) one of mscriv, dontpanic and QoS is a spy

with some connections between wood-mscriv and koodauw-don'tpanic
so (at least) on of this groups contains a spy:
  • mscriv-wood (either both spies or wood a spy)
  • koodauw-dontpanic (either both spies or koodauw a spy)
  • QoS

from mission2, i know one of mscriv or QoS is a spy. 50-50 (sort of)
since mscriv being a spy comes with a gift of another spy, i went with that and picked qos with the team.
does not mean qos is 'clear'
and i certainly understand why you'd include me in the leist, since from your perspective you can't exclude anyone
 
mscriv said:
@ravenvii, we really need clarification on this. Will Wood be voting publicly once the mission phase starts or will he be PMing his vote to you and it not revealed until the end of the mission phase?
Click to expand...

twietee said:
Unfortunately he did alread in #428

I don't agree that this is a minor change, and I certainly don't agree with Sythas that this is the best way to play it (for the agents) since under surveillance somewhat implies that the agents are one step ahead in terms of what's happening and could react accordingly.

But it is as it is I guess. And I don't want to pick another bone with our GM. ;) edit: still would be important to know whether I (last on the OP list) am a dead end or could possibly eavesdrop on mscriv?
Click to expand...

I saw what he said in post #428, but prior to that he had given no indication that we were changing the way this card operated and many of us questioned it, myself included in post #431. Since that time he has made no further clarification. I know he has been running a lot of this game from his phone as he has told us and that has delayed his summary responses. It appeared to me as if that was somehow a factor in how all of that went down since Wood asked him if he was supposed to PM the vote. I think last games' PM missteps have everyone a little guy shy about things as no one wants to make a mistake. That's understandable, but let's not change game dynamics or neuter game cards to the point that they lose some of their usefulness. @ravenvii, can you please give us a "final answer" on how the Under Surveillance card is going to operate for the remainder of the game.
 
mscriv said:
I saw what he said in post #428, but prior to that he had given no indication that we were changing the way this card operated and many of us questioned it, myself included in post #431. Since that time he has made no further clarification. I know he has been running a lot of this game from his phone as he has told us and that has delayed his summary responses. It appeared to me as if that was somehow a factor in how all of that went down since Wood asked him if he was supposed to PM the vote. I think last games' PM missteps have everyone a little guy shy about things as no one wants to make a mistake. That's understandable, but let's not change game dynamics or neuter game cards to the point that they lose some of their usefulness. @ravenvii, can you please give us a "final answer" on how the Under Surveillance card is going to operate for the remainder of the game.
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone PMs me their success/failure votes, and I disclose anyone under surveillance or under the spotlight in the results post. A couple of players PMed me with the suggestion, and a couple more agreed with this in the thread -- it keeps with the actual IRL game more closely. I've also edited the OP to reflect this.

Remember, the aim is to stick as closely to the original game as possible, so we have a good base to build off later. I wish I used this ruleset during the first game so players won't complain as much, but I only came upon the official rules after the fact.

@twietee the list wraps around, so yes you would eavesdrop on either FenrisMoonlight and mscriv.
 
Hm, this seems to be taking a while - understandably but we won't get that much more info (if any at all) by this so may I suggest QoS presents her list so we could possibly discuss/wager pros and cons and then move on.

FenrisMoonlight said:
I agree that one of mscriv, DP and QoS is a spy but I don't see where you get one of wood, koodauw, QoS is a spy from.
Click to expand...

The other way around makes more sense (or makes it look logical):

one of mscriv, dontpanic and QoS is a spy, that means:

if dp is a spy = koodauw is a spy
if mscriv is a spy = woodNUFC is a spy
if QoS is a spy = QoS is a spy ;)
 
That's the formular, patent lawsuit incoming?

What about voting for a change though?! :D

1x yay (twietee)
1x nay (sythas)

still to vote: all the others except dp (who is already searching the backdoor I reckon)
 
ravenvii said:
Yes, everyone PMs me their success/failure votes, and I disclose anyone under surveillance or under the spotlight in the results post. A couple of players PMed me with the suggestion, and a couple more agreed with this in the thread -- it keeps with the actual IRL game more closely. I've also edited the OP to reflect this.

Remember, the aim is to stick as closely to the original game as possible, so we have a good base to build off later. I wish I used this ruleset during the first game so players won't complain as much, but I only came upon the official rules after the fact.

@twietee the list wraps around, so yes you would eavesdrop on either FenrisMoonlight and mscriv.
Click to expand...
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I think after this game we might consider revisiting the balance of things. Like you say we need a good base and then to tweak from there.

ravenvii said:
Let's vote on Don't panic's team. Deadline is tonight at 9 PM.
Click to expand...

My vote is NAY. I am an agent and don't have a good feelings about things. I'm suspicious of Don't Panic and it's still possible that QOS is a spy as well. We do need to keep in mind how the next round will work. I doubt QOS is going to be open to No Confidencing her own mission.
 
why wouldn't she? it'd highly incriminate her if she wouldn't when the right plot pops up.

i thought you gave her no confy since she successfully used it already before (woohoo! :D)? ;)
 
mscriv said:
Why is it less likely? I haven't heard a reasonable theory yet?
Click to expand...
I'd already explained that - Koodauw/DP being spies together requires luck on the part of the spies (as how to play the Eavesdrop was forced on Koodauw) whereas if your a spy its very likely you would have given the Establish Confidence to a fellow spy so as to not blow your cover. It's not impossible that Koodauw/DP were lucky like that it just feels less likely than the other possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back