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
I was absolutely SWAMPED with homework. When signing up, I really didn't expect this much homework to come through because my teachers were relatively quiet before.
Besides, I know I'm a very sucky player for either team I end up in so I shall refrain from joining further Agency games. I'm extremely sorry to all the people that have had to tag me to get me to vote.
Besides, I know I'm a very sucky player for either team I end up in so I shall refrain from joining further Agency games. I'm extremely sorry to all the people that have had to tag me to get me to vote.
I don't understand how everything went this night, but unlike ww we have 6 agents 4 spies, the Agents control the majority, sooo I really don't understand the all online at the same time which is a quite sad tactics.
Okay, that was fun. I agree with many of the comments above -- but I have one question: at the beginning of this game, I wanted all card plays and votes to happen "simultaneously", but there was a lot of whinging about that so I reverted it to the "live" style -- why?
@Don't panic this is different from the WW games. The reason the 1-1 rule is in place is not because of 'I-voted-first!' it's because it's impossible for the villagers to reach majority. It's as simple as that. Yes, with the 'deadline' games, there is a way around that (villagers vote, and the wolves are AWOL up to the deadline), but in an ideal world (where everyone participates), there is no way to reach majority. That's why the 1-1 rule exists.
There is no such "rigid" rule in the agency game -- in this game, there *was* a way out. If we introduce rigid, simultaneous vote and card play, and set out which cards play first, then a rigid rule could be introduced (i.e. if there is one more turnover remaining and a bad guy has No Confidence, game over).
One thing I will change next game is changing the rule that 5 nays leads to spy victory to 5 nays lead to a point for the spies. This helps avoid the play @Don't panic just did this game.
I enjoyed running the game, and hope you guys enjoyed it. I'll be in and out for the next three weeks, so I'll probably start up a new game sometime during the last week of August. Enjoy your summers, everyone!
@Don't panic this is different from the WW games. The reason the 1-1 rule is in place is not because of 'I-voted-first!' it's because it's impossible for the villagers to reach majority. It's as simple as that. Yes, with the 'deadline' games, there is a way around that (villagers vote, and the wolves are AWOL up to the deadline), but in an ideal world (where everyone participates), there is no way to reach majority. That's why the 1-1 rule exists.
There is no such "rigid" rule in the agency game -- in this game, there *was* a way out. If we introduce rigid, simultaneous vote and card play, and set out which cards play first, then a rigid rule could be introduced (i.e. if there is one more turnover remaining and a bad guy has No Confidence, game over).
One thing I will change next game is changing the rule that 5 nays leads to spy victory to 5 nays lead to a point for the spies. This helps avoid the play @Don't panic just did this game.
I enjoyed running the game, and hope you guys enjoyed it. I'll be in and out for the next three weeks, so I'll probably start up a new game sometime during the last week of August. Enjoy your summers, everyone!
Because it makes the live of an agent with no confidence so much easier!
Wish ya'll a pleasant summer as well!
Even you, DP.
Cards at the same time -- yes
Votes at the same time -- Yes
Cards and vote at the same time -- no
Aha, didn't think of that. Allow any/all cards to be played, THEN the vote. That makes so much sense. Damn, now that you bought that up, it's so obvious and I'm feeling slightly dumb.
some final considerations before i am off
first, the nature of my 'final post'.
second, the 'exploitation' of other players not being on line.
third, card play vs. rush-voting
), changes.
off to my plane,
take care everyone.
first, the nature of my 'final post'.
i could have waited for QoS to open up, and everyone to guess what that meant and what the next move was, and justify my strong leader move as a way to avoid mscriv to use it, and then not put wood in my team to make it more palatable and se if it could in fact be yay's, and so on. Just 'let it play' in other words, but it looked incredibly hypocritical to me, especially when there was already so much (mostly unjustified, in my opinion) bitterness on how the game was 'played'.
That, to me, would have been a truly 'dick' move.
As far as detailing the next course of events in the post , it was a necessary part of the game play, as i needed to No Confidence the game, and then to put in a team with two WW to put ourselves in a situation where it didn't matter if the mission was a success or a fail, because there was a failsafe mechanism (the 5th nay).
yes i could have split it in three different posts, and let it sink slowly, but i felt it would have been more 'insulting' that way, more like rubbing it in.
to me it was like declaring 'checkmate' at chess when it is check mate (which it was). it is a measure of respect to your adversary, not the opposite.
as far as the 'fist pic', i thought that was a fun way to close it thematically, since in the story line the Agency is in fact the bad guys, and the infiltrators are basically revolutionaries. i guess i was wrong.
That, to me, would have been a truly 'dick' move.
As far as detailing the next course of events in the post , it was a necessary part of the game play, as i needed to No Confidence the game, and then to put in a team with two WW to put ourselves in a situation where it didn't matter if the mission was a success or a fail, because there was a failsafe mechanism (the 5th nay).
yes i could have split it in three different posts, and let it sink slowly, but i felt it would have been more 'insulting' that way, more like rubbing it in.
to me it was like declaring 'checkmate' at chess when it is check mate (which it was). it is a measure of respect to your adversary, not the opposite.
as far as the 'fist pic', i thought that was a fun way to close it thematically, since in the story line the Agency is in fact the bad guys, and the infiltrators are basically revolutionaries. i guess i was wrong.
second, the 'exploitation' of other players not being on line.
apart from the fact that this is an essential tactic of the online games as we have always played, with no issues (think of blitzes by the WWs, or switcharoos at the deadline), it really played no part here.
there was really not much the agents could have done at that point, even if they were online, unless they already had a very precise plan of how to act at the get go.
certainly not QoS, Twietee, tech or sythas, since they had no cards, and not mscriv, since once i played the strong leader his same card would have been useless until the next mission phase (as it works on a first-come first-served basis, as ravenvii had mentioned in the thread and confirmed to me by PM).
the only one who could have maybe made a difference was Fenris. and it is a very big maybe.
He still couldn't play his card before the new cards where distributed, so he couldn't, infact, have nay'd the turn until moyank gave me the NC card, at which point it would have made very little difference. his only window was the time between moyank assigning the cards and me playing strong leader. i really don't think that was going to happen since i was planning for that, and he wasn't, and it still would have made most sense fro him to wait to use the NC (if he was going to play it at all) until QoS 'opened up'.
in any case, even if moyank had not taken his card, and he played it, the result would have been the same. instead of me NC that mission, it would have been him, and i would have kept mine (instead of moyank) for the final round, after my proposed team would have been nay'd.
so in a way, moyank's taking responsibility was redundant at that point, but i hadn't fully thought it out yet, and i already was in that frame of mind, since this was the reason i had given her that card in the first place, and this was going to be my strategy if koodauw and wood had nay'd the mission as i was hoping they would (which would have given us a victory no matter what the cards). thus my urging moyank to take it, but it wasn't really needed
there was really not much the agents could have done at that point, even if they were online, unless they already had a very precise plan of how to act at the get go.
certainly not QoS, Twietee, tech or sythas, since they had no cards, and not mscriv, since once i played the strong leader his same card would have been useless until the next mission phase (as it works on a first-come first-served basis, as ravenvii had mentioned in the thread and confirmed to me by PM).
the only one who could have maybe made a difference was Fenris. and it is a very big maybe.
He still couldn't play his card before the new cards where distributed, so he couldn't, infact, have nay'd the turn until moyank gave me the NC card, at which point it would have made very little difference. his only window was the time between moyank assigning the cards and me playing strong leader. i really don't think that was going to happen since i was planning for that, and he wasn't, and it still would have made most sense fro him to wait to use the NC (if he was going to play it at all) until QoS 'opened up'.
in any case, even if moyank had not taken his card, and he played it, the result would have been the same. instead of me NC that mission, it would have been him, and i would have kept mine (instead of moyank) for the final round, after my proposed team would have been nay'd.
so in a way, moyank's taking responsibility was redundant at that point, but i hadn't fully thought it out yet, and i already was in that frame of mind, since this was the reason i had given her that card in the first place, and this was going to be my strategy if koodauw and wood had nay'd the mission as i was hoping they would (which would have given us a victory no matter what the cards). thus my urging moyank to take it, but it wasn't really needed
third, card play vs. rush-voting
fenris, and to an extent others, argued that the proposed coordinated rush voting to prevent moyank from using the NC card, and my use of the strong leader at the beginning of the turn were equivalent.
i very strongly diasgree.
the cards are, by design, supposed to be played against each other. you can only play one strong leader per mission, the take responsiblity's very essence it to be played before the other card is played, the No Confidence locks card playing after it. thus the timing of playing the cards is critical, and it is an essential parts of that game device.
on the other end, the voting occurs 'at the end' of the mission to determine its result, not 'to end' the mission. to use it to de facto eliminate an entire phase of the game (the mission phase) is, in my opinion, completely wrong and contrary to the spirit of the game
fourth, participation.i very strongly diasgree.
the cards are, by design, supposed to be played against each other. you can only play one strong leader per mission, the take responsiblity's very essence it to be played before the other card is played, the No Confidence locks card playing after it. thus the timing of playing the cards is critical, and it is an essential parts of that game device.
on the other end, the voting occurs 'at the end' of the mission to determine its result, not 'to end' the mission. to use it to de facto eliminate an entire phase of the game (the mission phase) is, in my opinion, completely wrong and contrary to the spirit of the game
i fully reject the notion that i didn't 'participate', or that i used a MIA strategy. that is patently false.
i wasn't here 24/7, yes, but that is a completely different story than playing off it.
i voted, i posted, i made analyses exactly like i would have if i were an agent, just -obviously- with some slightly different content. and even the content was mostly 'true'. if i was an agent and QoS or mscriv were the spies, i still have come at QoS under those circumstances, since that what would have made most sense.
in fact i would have likely come at her more strongly in that case.
i am not responsible for the behaviour of others, so i will let this at that.
fifth, deceit.i wasn't here 24/7, yes, but that is a completely different story than playing off it.
i voted, i posted, i made analyses exactly like i would have if i were an agent, just -obviously- with some slightly different content. and even the content was mostly 'true'. if i was an agent and QoS or mscriv were the spies, i still have come at QoS under those circumstances, since that what would have made most sense.
in fact i would have likely come at her more strongly in that case.
i am not responsible for the behaviour of others, so i will let this at that.
this i truly don't get. deceit and lying is the CORE of this games. this specific game much more the the WW games.
you cannot play an effective spy without lying and doing repeatedly and vigorously, if under attack.
in fact, you OWE it to your teammates to do it.
that said, i don't think i was ever particularly 'aggressive' or 'personal with it. i would like to see the posts were i allegedly did that.
i suppose we could play a purely strategic, 'silent' game, where no one talks excepts for game actions, but that would completely eradicate the social aspects of the game, and i don't think it would be as much fun
sixth, balance and gameplayyou cannot play an effective spy without lying and doing repeatedly and vigorously, if under attack.
in fact, you OWE it to your teammates to do it.
that said, i don't think i was ever particularly 'aggressive' or 'personal with it. i would like to see the posts were i allegedly did that.
i suppose we could play a purely strategic, 'silent' game, where no one talks excepts for game actions, but that would completely eradicate the social aspects of the game, and i don't think it would be as much fun
i think the game was a lot more balanced than agents seem to think, and i thought we were cornered and were doomed on multiple occasions (curious to know the other spies shared the feeling). it was pretty clear to me that one of the few ways for us to win was to use the five nay's strategy, which in part worked because clearly the agents hadn't thought about it enough, since nobody ever mentioned it, an no one took precautions against it.
in this context, it would be in my opinion a mistake of overcompensation to change the rule and eliminate the spy win at 5 nays. mostly because it is one of those strategies that work well once, but it is exponentially harder to pulloff later on, when people are the wiser to it, and also because it is by design one of the main spies' threats. finally it would have changed nothing in this game, since it was the third point anyways.
in terms of gameplay, i think people played mostly well, especially the agents, and infact i thought fenris' now 'disgraced' arguments were actually quite sound, they just happened to be wrong, but they could have been right. if anything from my perspective the only real 'mistake' (sort of) by the agents was mscriv insistence that he was 'the most cleared' even after wood's coming out as spy. from his POV that was true, obviously, but from an external POV it was a very weak argument (in my mind at least) that allowed to turn the "DP vs QoS" narrative into an "anyone could be it" scenario.
we did ok, we were locked into a very tight space from the very beginning, and didn't manage to get any sort of understanding going on. a mostly defensive game, which i doubted we could win except with some sort of quick counterattack (soccer style) like the 5 nay's.
seveth (and last in this context, it would be in my opinion a mistake of overcompensation to change the rule and eliminate the spy win at 5 nays. mostly because it is one of those strategies that work well once, but it is exponentially harder to pulloff later on, when people are the wiser to it, and also because it is by design one of the main spies' threats. finally it would have changed nothing in this game, since it was the third point anyways.
in terms of gameplay, i think people played mostly well, especially the agents, and infact i thought fenris' now 'disgraced' arguments were actually quite sound, they just happened to be wrong, but they could have been right. if anything from my perspective the only real 'mistake' (sort of) by the agents was mscriv insistence that he was 'the most cleared' even after wood's coming out as spy. from his POV that was true, obviously, but from an external POV it was a very weak argument (in my mind at least) that allowed to turn the "DP vs QoS" narrative into an "anyone could be it" scenario.
we did ok, we were locked into a very tight space from the very beginning, and didn't manage to get any sort of understanding going on. a mostly defensive game, which i doubted we could win except with some sort of quick counterattack (soccer style) like the 5 nay's.
), changes.- the game needs to up its pace and eliminate the long dragging periods. the easiest way to do this is to use fixed deadlines.
- cards should be able to be played at any time that makes sense. for example strong leader determines the next mission leader regardless of whether the mission was yayd or nayd, or when it is played. No confidence should be playable as soon as a mission is yay'd, eavesdropping should be usable at anytime and so on.
- the under scrutiny, as played in this game is in my opinion the correct way to use it. i would keep it that way
- the way of playing the cards that @ravenvii introduced (at the end of the turn) and then pulled after complaints merit consideration (although i favor the anytime approach). the complaints were not because of what was proposed, but because the change was being implemented mid-game, without prior knowledge. that the result of some cards (like under scrutiny) is disclosed at the deadline is fine.
- i think success/fail vote as it is now is fine. i would just always disclose the results at the deadline (no 'locking in" the day), to allow a more even play of the cards
- i would favor (as i said already pre-game) the yay/nay voting by PM, and the disclosing (including who voted what) at the planning deadline (also would make whatever card we had the last half game meaningful)
- as discussed above, keep the 5 nay's rule as is. it won't be that easy next time
- fenris proposed changes sound intriguing, but for now i would stick to the refinement of the current rule-set
off to my plane,
take care everyone.
I for one was mostly trying to provoke a reaction by my MIA comments re DP. But unfortunately our 'core agents' (that weren't on 24/7 as well, at least I have been super busy last two weeks and week-ends) were too much involved fighting each other. But I can't say we played bad too - except that non-participation really disturbs this system more than the WW. If this endless brooding can be stopped by rules somehow, deadlines or whatnot I might play this again.
Still think I'm digging bigger WW games more though - more relaxed, less incestious and less discussions led ad nauseam. And there is something inherently satisfying in voting Pluto off.
Still think I'm digging bigger WW games more though - more relaxed, less incestious and less discussions led ad nauseam. And there is something inherently satisfying in voting Pluto off.
I fly back to England next week and will be there for most of August so that works for me
Meanwhile if anyone want to practice and wants some quicker games, I found there is a Resistance Online where you can play this game with or without plot cards (or the Avalon variant) http://www.theresistanceonline.com/ - could be fun for some shorter games if a group can arrange an hour or so to be online together.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't know how I could have been more clear in my analysis and when I pointed out the flaws in the theory that I was a spy who gave Wood the Establish Confidence and Koodauw the Eavesdrop you even acknowledged that it was a sound argument. Since you have played a spy twice now you know that just because someone is a spy doesn't mean that you can't trust their word when it comes to the results of a card like Eavesdrop or Establish Confidence. That's why you guys kept insisting that we throw out Wood's clearing of me. The answers were right there in the voting record and the context of the card playing but QOS and Fenris just couldn't be swayed. To lay that at my feet as a "sort of mistake" I'm not sure about. I don't know what else I could have done to convince them. At one point I felt like I was arguing with someone about the the sky being blue. It's like they couldn't see the "forest for the trees" because they so wanted there to be this triple conspiracy between me, twietee, and Wood.
Wow long post - agree with most of it. A couple things I don't
I'm not the only that could have made a difference though - mscriv if online could also have upset things by using his strong leader to take the next mission. I'm also pretty sure we established somewhere that a second strong leader played would have taken the leadership from the first and then returned back to you after mscriv led a team so there were other options if people had been online.
Agreed - don't get these at all. If your not going to be lie, I'm just going to ask all of you at the start if your an agent or a spy and then its game over
Agreed - in fact its a fun game in that you can play it either way - the original has it being a group of resistance that has been infiltrated by imperial spies (so the spies are the bad guys) and similar in the Avalon variant. I thought the fist pic was fun.
I was going to play no confidence the second I could since I didn't want either anyone deciding to take the mission at that point - after my accusation of mscriv/twietee getting certain responses I'd decided it was you that was the spy. Whether I'd have been able to post 'no confidence' faster than you could 'strong leader' if I'd be online at that point - I have no idea.
I'm not the only that could have made a difference though - mscriv if online could also have upset things by using his strong leader to take the next mission. I'm also pretty sure we established somewhere that a second strong leader played would have taken the leadership from the first and then returned back to you after mscriv led a team so there were other options if people had been online.
Neither tactic would have worked in RL, but both could the way we are playing these games online. We both agree to that much? In that way I think they are comparable. Both no confidence and the vote being made end the mission phase, so although different, again the two are comparable IMO. I can see how you consider it different though.
See above regarding strong leader.
About timing of cards - do you really want to be strict about timing here? Strictly speaking Moyank's taking responsibility was misplayed since she PMd ravenvii with instructions before distributing the cards so at that point we were still in plot distribution phase not in mission phase. You replayed your 'strong leader' afterwards, moyank didn't replay the taking responsibility so if your being strict that means I should still have the final no confidence card, and could have asked the agents to yay your mission and made sure I was online to instantly no confidence it. Then I would have been team leader and no cards left to stop an all agent team being proposed.
I didn't bring it up at the time as I didn't think it was in the spirit of the game.
See above regarding strong leader.
About timing of cards - do you really want to be strict about timing here? Strictly speaking Moyank's taking responsibility was misplayed since she PMd ravenvii with instructions before distributing the cards so at that point we were still in plot distribution phase not in mission phase. You replayed your 'strong leader' afterwards, moyank didn't replay the taking responsibility so if your being strict that means I should still have the final no confidence card, and could have asked the agents to yay your mission and made sure I was online to instantly no confidence it. Then I would have been team leader and no cards left to stop an all agent team being proposed.
I didn't bring it up at the time as I didn't think it was in the spirit of the game.
Agreed, I didn't think you used a MIA strategy - you were a little less active than normal maybe. The only spy I consider was pretty much MIA was Koodauw.
Your analysis mostly made sense but you made an early strange move of considering mscriv more likely the spy than QoS when you choose your team, which made me think you were definitely a spy at first, and your distribution of cards made me think Moyank was a likely accomplice. However, when Wood was then revealed as a spy I thought that's ludicrous that 3 spies should be the same as the aborted game. The low probability of that combined with the low probability of mscriv as an agent picking 2 spies giving the 2 best cards to spies, establish confidence to Wood and eavesdrop to Koodauw (left the eavesdrop bit out of my analysis on purpose) made me put it down as very very unlikely for too long.
It was only the responses once I outright accused mscriv/twietee that made me reconsider it had to be you. But by which point moyank was leading the team and I knew we had to get past that and her having the take responsibility and you having strong leader - so i wanted to use the no confidence on her team to remove the possibility of my team being no confidenced and a spy strong leadering the last team choice.
Your analysis mostly made sense but you made an early strange move of considering mscriv more likely the spy than QoS when you choose your team, which made me think you were definitely a spy at first, and your distribution of cards made me think Moyank was a likely accomplice. However, when Wood was then revealed as a spy I thought that's ludicrous that 3 spies should be the same as the aborted game. The low probability of that combined with the low probability of mscriv as an agent picking 2 spies giving the 2 best cards to spies, establish confidence to Wood and eavesdrop to Koodauw (left the eavesdrop bit out of my analysis on purpose) made me put it down as very very unlikely for too long.
It was only the responses once I outright accused mscriv/twietee that made me reconsider it had to be you. But by which point moyank was leading the team and I knew we had to get past that and her having the take responsibility and you having strong leader - so i wanted to use the no confidence on her team to remove the possibility of my team being no confidenced and a spy strong leadering the last team choice.
Agreed - don't get these at all. If your not going to be lie, I'm just going to ask all of you at the start if your an agent or a spy and then its game over
As I've said - I changed from my initial view that I think you had too, that we needed a definite clear in the game. I think it was pretty well balanced.
I don't know about the other agents but I had certainly thought about the five nays - which was why I waited so long and let QoS use her no confidence the first time as I didn't want it kept in the hands of a possible spy. I knew the other one was safe with me unless Moyank was a spy. I was fully aware that a no confidence of my team combined with strong leader could lead to a win for you (or mscriv) which was why I Yay'd moyanks mission rather than Nay it so I could discard the no confidence before we hit mission 4. I didn't allow for the final no confidence coming out
I don't know about the other agents but I had certainly thought about the five nays - which was why I waited so long and let QoS use her no confidence the first time as I didn't want it kept in the hands of a possible spy. I knew the other one was safe with me unless Moyank was a spy. I was fully aware that a no confidence of my team combined with strong leader could lead to a win for you (or mscriv) which was why I Yay'd moyanks mission rather than Nay it so I could discard the no confidence before we hit mission 4. I didn't allow for the final no confidence coming out
seveth (and last
end of my treatise,
- the game needs to up its pace and eliminate the long dragging periods. the easiest way to do this is to use fixed deadlines.
- cards should be able to be played at any time that makes sense. for example strong leader determines the next mission leader regardless of whether the mission was yayd or nayd, or when it is played. No confidence should be playable as soon as a mission is yay'd, eavesdropping should be usable at anytime and so on.
- the under scrutiny, as played in this game is in my opinion the correct way to use it. i would keep it that way
- the way of playing the cards that @ravenvii introduced (at the end of the turn) and then pulled after complaints merit consideration (although i favor the anytime approach). the complaints were not because of what was proposed, but because the change was being implemented mid-game, without prior knowledge. that the result of some cards (like under scrutiny) is disclosed at the deadline is fine.
- i think success/fail vote as it is now is fine. i would just always disclose the results at the deadline (no 'locking in" the day), to allow a more even play of the cards
- i would favor (as i said already pre-game) the yay/nay voting by PM, and the disclosing (including who voted what) at the planning deadline (also would make whatever card we had the last half game meaningful)
- as discussed above, keep the 5 nay's rule as is. it won't be that easy next time
- fenris proposed changes sound intriguing, but for now i would stick to the refinement of the current rule-set
off to my plane,
take care everyone.
You played well. It was me thinking the DP scenario was more unlikely than you for too long that was more an issue.
As it was DP being a spy meant you as an agent had given the two clearing cards to the 2 spies that made this so unlikely. I'd left the eavesdrop part out as I didn't want DP thinking I'd considered it but that made the chance of that happening randomly considerably lower. I wont bother reworking out the %!
That combined with the fact I'd decided from DPs card distribution that if DP was a spy Moyank was likely a spy moyank (not sure if you'd realized that or not?). With wood being revealed as a spy this meant 3 spies were the same as the aborted game which was also pretty unlikely and something I didn't think ravenvii would have done and I discounted the DP scenario as very very unlikely for too long.
It was only once I outright accused you and twietee and something you said made me reanalyze mission 1 that I realized Wood's post mission 1 wasn't a misdirect to protect you, but a misdirect to protect DP by making sure the eavesdrop was in the hands of a fellow spy.
In actual fact your distribution of the mission 1 cards wasn't random at all but was in the nature of the conjuring trick where the magician 'forces' you to pick a certain card. You didn't really decide who to give the cards to, you gave them to the people Wood 'forced' you too. Once I realized that everything fell into place.
Last edited:
Hm.
So, at the end, just who were the spies, and who exactly were the agents? How was it that the spies won?
I followed this - but more by skimming and briefly glancing at it - rather than immersing myself deeply in it.
In the interests of fairness, or fair play, I am glad to see a 'spy' victory, - although I am perfectly aware that the rules had been tweaked - as, after the first game, I had concluded that it would be almost impossible for the spices to win, given that the agents had won so easily.
However, this is a game that seems to demand of its participants a huge commitment, both in time, thought, posting, defending, and sustaining a degree of creative deceit over a long period of time. Small wonder that some vanished for the duration, although, as with the WW games, I tend to be of the view that if you sign up, you owe it to your team to participate.
Moreover, I am struck by the sour note that seemed to be struck towards the end; granted, being on the receiving end of deliberate deceit can be a peculiarly unsettling experience.
So, at the end, just who were the spies, and who exactly were the agents? How was it that the spies won?
I followed this - but more by skimming and briefly glancing at it - rather than immersing myself deeply in it.
In the interests of fairness, or fair play, I am glad to see a 'spy' victory, - although I am perfectly aware that the rules had been tweaked - as, after the first game, I had concluded that it would be almost impossible for the spices to win, given that the agents had won so easily.
However, this is a game that seems to demand of its participants a huge commitment, both in time, thought, posting, defending, and sustaining a degree of creative deceit over a long period of time. Small wonder that some vanished for the duration, although, as with the WW games, I tend to be of the view that if you sign up, you owe it to your team to participate.
Moreover, I am struck by the sour note that seemed to be struck towards the end; granted, being on the receiving end of deliberate deceit can be a peculiarly unsettling experience.
The spies were @Don't panic, @Moyank24, @WoodNUFC and @Koodauw. They won essentially by exploiting the rule that 5 scuttled missions leads to spy victory. They waited until the players used up 3 nays, then basically forced a 4th and played a No Confidence leading to the 5th nay and hence a spy victory.
Even I was pissed they won this way, lol. But you gotta admit it was masterful.
It was masterful, and a very clever reading of how to play - and interpret - the rules.
Reading the thread, obviously, @WoodNUFC was a spy, and - as usual - @Don't panic played a superb game. The other pair, @Koodauw and @Moyank24 seemed to lie a little low, and remain under the radar.
In the WW games, if players fail to participate, this usually benefits the WWs; here, because the spotlight is so relentlessly strong, team spirit seems hard to build, and it seems to be fairly difficult to convincingly prove one's innocence remaining under the radar seems to be a useful strategy.
Still, they played superbly, and I was pleased to see a game that the spies were able to win, as, from the outside, I had thought that the agents would be hard to defeat.
I'm not so sure that it's a "useful strategy" as much as some of the other guys (mscriv especially) were almost talking themselves into look more guilty than they were. And Fenris was doing a hell of a job buying right into it.
One thing about this game is that if you aren't on a team or leading a team, you really don't have much to "prove". I felt like I was in that position. I was on a team early that got no confidenced, so I didn't have a voting record to stand on the back of. My name was linked as a spy mostly because of the process of elimination, not because of anything that I really did in the game. Whereas someone like QOS was on a team where 1/3 voted to fail, so she was in a position where she constantly had to defend herself. Twietee incorrectly pegged QOS and I as a team because of real coincidental timing (our YAY votes), but again, I think he found himself in a position where he hurt himself because of his explanation(s).
Also, I tried to look at this game from the position of an agent, and i think QOS did a hell of a job defending herself and mscriv gave just enough rope through his posts to almost hang himself. At some points I almost believed that he had voted nay, when I knew DP had, because such great arguments had been made.
Thanks for the detailed explanation of (the) thought process behind choices.
Re teamwork, it strikes me that it must be pretty hard to build team work - and a degree of trust - on both sides.
Agreed, I think that @Queen of Spades did an excellent job defending herself and arguing her case.
Moreover, I think that @FenrisMoonlight also played an excellent game, as did @mscriv. Inevitably, it was going to come down to a debate between @Don't panic and @mscriv; given their respective histories as excellent analysts in the WW games, the task of bluffing, or misleading and misdirecting, or, sheer simple persuasion - and giving a lead of some sort - was going to fall a bit heavier on those two than on some of the others….
Last edited:
We'd only used up 2 nays. The 3rd mission was a go. They used 2 no confidences and strong leader to finish it off.
I'd seen the possibility of the spies screwing the last 2 which was why I Yayed moyanks list, and was planning to no confidence it to give us another round breathing space. I'd missed the fact we had another no confidence to come out and that coming out meant they could control the last 3.
It was very well done. The annoying bit was it was exploiting the online nature of the games so DP/Moyank had full control of everything without anyone else being around to react. In RL it wouldn't have worked, DP gave them away prior to the cards being distributed so if mscriv and I had both been around the outcome could have been different with his strong leader put in play.
yeah - it was always going to be most dangerous with @mscriv or @Don't panic being a spy. I did suspect it might be @Queen of Spades for a while. In the end I decided to outright accuse one or the other to try to shake something out of them.
@ravenvii Damn you for giving us 3 spies the same as the aborted game - that combined with how unlikely mscriv's initial team and him giving eavesdrop and establish confidence to spies was if DP was the spy, had me thinking it was mscriv for far too long.
@WoodNUFC - your 'conjuring' trick forcing the cards mission 1 was masterful. It wasn't until Moyank was putting together her team mission 4 I finally saw your intention with that. Kicking myself for misreading mission 1 for so long.
Twietee shot himself too with that post about Wood failing the mission just before he did.
Please explain to me what was actually going on, and how and why you misread mission 1; what was @WoodNUFC's intention in Mission 1 - when one is not a part of this, one misses the finer points of plotting and planning……
I'll be honest; while I didn't read the thread very closely, I kept an occasional eye on it, and found it exceedingly difficult to get a handle on what exactly was going on….
Mission 1, mscriv picked Kooduaw, QoS, Wood as the team - so a team with 2 spies.
He gets the cards Eavesdrop, Establish Confidence, no confidence. Wood posts a message about using establish confidence / eavesdrop to double clear mscriv by giving eavesdrop to Koodauw and establish confidence to him.
After which we question about the double clear on mscriv and end up deciding it a waste of a card. However, we're misdirected by that but the idea of giving Koodauw the eavesdrop is placed - and agreed with - so Koodauw can eavesdrop DP.
To be fair, Wood's post in no way influenced me giving the Eavesdrop to Koodauw. I purposefully chose players for the team based on the possibility of getting that card because I wanted a scan on DP. Unfortunately for us it turned out that Koodauw was a spy.