Is this your way of saying that you are an agent? 3 + 2 = 5 and you make the 6th?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter ravenvii
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is this your way of saying that you are an agent? 3 + 2 = 5 and you make the 6th?
That's why the call me God. TechGodI hope your tech skills are better since if you don't hack the surveillance this mission isn't going to go well.
I'm trying to remember if we actually got useful info from voting data / team leader data on the early missions that were nayed in the last game. Didn't we get most of our usefull info from the plots once we put missions through?
A bit. Never really enough to make a strong case - or if you can, the game is basically over anyways I'd guess. No Confidence and the multiple plot distributions aside, I'd say e.g. WoodNUFC had to be strongly suspected last game once Astroboy was found out because of Astro's list(s) to some extent but still mostly because of his plot distribution. But it could have been a (well made) ruse just as well.
You're one early bird, Moyank!
Still going to lock this. One agent of my caliber may be even enough, I go 1v2 on a daily basis. Mission's supposed to be a no-brainer anyway.
YAY
Fenris, your hacking device has a minor deficit in registrating the correct voting-data. Please let our TechGod from IT have a look at it to fix it asap.
YAY
Fenris, your hacking device has a minor deficit in registrating the correct voting-data. Please let our TechGod from IT have a look at it to fix it asap.
I assure you, I'm fairly certain that the amount of knowledge I have regarding this stuff is well and beyond 99 percent of the population. Besides, I didn't have a job before otherwise I would have built a PC a long time ago;P
yep , it would seems @TechGod himself is sandbagging the system's performance in order to ensure the need for his own intervention to 'fix it'.
IT 101.
kid's future career seems anchored on solid grounds.
on the other hands, not sure this bodes well for the current mission
as far as voting, while i agree that the changes in the missions structure makes it less obvious than before to vote nay in a mission planning when one (if agent) is not included, I am with @mscriv that there is information in looking at who people selected as team leaders and what people voted, more so now as we won't be able to milk the plotcards as effectively as before.
This seems like an odd choice of people I would NAY
I agree. If it weren't for me being part of the crew I would have nayed as well. Three roles tops per mission take a lot of steam off of No Confidence so to nay a mission or two should be of no concern atm.
That said: I'm quite confident that the mission will succeed. There are max 2 spies on board: they really have to gamble about who votes fail/succeed. I can see them hiding the first mission anyway (depending a bit on plots we receive and what possible info they generate of course).
forgive me if i don't take you at your word, at least for now
more so after this post.
^ lol. but true, at least when there's one failure vote you'd at least think I voted success, right?
Mission is green lit (majority locked) already.
For the choice: appears only odd on the first sight and makes quite some sense imo.
well, that, or that you gave instructions to the other spy to hide:
as far as the team selection, why does it make quite some sense? looks the opposite to me
more so after this post.
I was aware of that. But still: if I'd be a spy I would hide in plain sight the first match (and not talk about it like I do now).
The choice makes sense since the players that can be 'cleared' (as far as that's possible at this stage) are the next to present a list. If woodNUFC eavesdrops on TechGod and he comes up a baddie we wouldn't risk to go on a mission he's leading.
ok this make (some) sense. (don't get too comfy, i am still looking at you)
the reason i don't like the pick is that if we (that is, you) clear thew mission, then we can't use the 3 semi-cleared players together in the next 3 teams
I agree although we don't HAVE to do that since we could nay a mission or two and I personally think we should assume the agents much less semi-cleared, even in case of a success (during the very first match) than in the first game where it was much easier for a spy to cover up a failed vote since there were four others to look at as well.
But yea, of course it's a day one guess by Fenris and I neither can speak for him nor my assigned colleagues. That was just a thing I noticed.
But they are not. What could I possibly obfuscate?
All I said was/is that I think it's quite likely that the first mission won't fail and that this gives little indication whether the team was all clear or not - at least much less than the game before. And that I think that the list by Fenris has some possible 'advantages' - while DP is right of course with his assessment as well. And like I said, I would have porbably nay'd the mission just as well, if I wasn't on it myself (reverse QoS rule one could say).
The mission is a go!
Here's your cards @FenrisMoonlight;
Close Eye
Strong Leader
Opinion Maker
The team, PM me success or failure.
Here's your cards @FenrisMoonlight;
Close Eye
Strong Leader
Opinion Maker
The team, PM me success or failure.
Yeah I see - he bolded his own name. Idiot!
I need to make my script a little more aware of which game it's playing - currently it's simply the same script adding 'yay' and 'nay' as allowed things to vote for so it will pick up bolded names as votes.
Good point - I hadn't thought of that. In hindsight maybe I'd have been better off picking the last 3 agents on the list.
did you have to make twietee the opinion maker? now we are never going to shut him up!
You think we could shut him up anyway?! At least he's more active than the others so less likely for it to slow the game down!did you have to make twietee the opinion maker? now we are never going to shut him up!