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 don't know why this game is causing reading comprehension issues for me.
IT'S ALL RAVENVII'S FAULT!
IT'S ALL RAVENVII'S FAULT!
Yeah, yeah and he got you arrested in the first mission too - it wasn't your mistake at all!
You have a sick, twisted sense of humour?!
Oh god - please no. I don't think I can cope with a DP behaving as erratically as Twietee is.Well done agents!
Off to dinner
Planning to pull a twietee
Well done agents!
Off to dinner
Planning to pull a twietee
lol
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's one glass of (good) vino bianco for you. Enjoy it!
Hmm... this seems too easy. Fenris put the first team together and it succeeded so the early assumption is that he is an agent. Wood and Twieetie were on the first mission and voted for success so the early assumption is that they are agents. If the new mission fails then DP is the obvious suspect. With all of this being fairly simple logic it's odd to me that @twietee would vote against the team.
Too much napping during the day = up all night!
And yes, that's what I thought.
YAY, again!
Well it leaves DP as the obvious suspect if the mission fails right? We can confirm an infiltrator. I suspect that the infiltrators will allow DP to be caught since this is the second mission and they probably wanna aim for at least one failed mission.
On top of that, the people that said yay could very well be infiltrators too. How does them saying yay clear them?
Even if there was at least 1 infil on that first team of 3, I could see him/them conceding a win for the agents. 1/3 shot with 3 plots aren't the best odds.
So, while it's logical to say DP would be the obvious suspect, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the other 3.
We'll see what happens with 4. Hopefully we get good plots so we can start clearing people!
The reasonning behind the group making is good. But a fail will not point to DP sadly...
Hopefully this time we will get better cards.
yay
Hopefully this time we will get better cards.
yay
The more I think about your post Techgod, the more I think that if we get 1 fail on this team, you and one of the last team will be an inflitrator, because you suggested to have only a fail to get the heat on DP...
Like any spy stuff, I think My brain is working way too much for nothing...
Like any spy stuff, I think My brain is working way too much for nothing...
It really is...I'm an agent, if anyone has a way to clear me then I wouldn't mind being scanned.
The reasoning of mscriv and TechGod isn't convincing - as was pointed out by others already. It's exactly the other part of why I thought the first mission will succeed no matter who got assigned as it easily creates a fall guy. Not saying one or both of them are bad guys but when I can see that coming day one, everybody else could too.
If TechGod wanted to (semi-)clear DP it would have made much more sense to pick QoS since she
a) can eavesdrop on him (Eavesdrop is more likely to appear than Open Up) and
b) voted YAY (which neither DP or mscriv, next possible person to eavesdrop on him, did).
As for those that voted YAY last match without being on the mission themselves: of course no one is cleared because of that, but one shouldn't exclusevly apply the soso working QoS rule with only three assigned agents but also acknowledge that traitors want a list of 100% agents to be declined just as well. And since TechGod and mscriv both treat those on the first mission as semi-cleared, it's extra odd to take one player on board that voted NAY.
If TechGod wanted to (semi-)clear DP it would have made much more sense to pick QoS since she
a) can eavesdrop on him (Eavesdrop is more likely to appear than Open Up) and
b) voted YAY (which neither DP or mscriv, next possible person to eavesdrop on him, did).
As for those that voted YAY last match without being on the mission themselves: of course no one is cleared because of that, but one shouldn't exclusevly apply the soso working QoS rule with only three assigned agents but also acknowledge that traitors want a list of 100% agents to be declined just as well. And since TechGod and mscriv both treat those on the first mission as semi-cleared, it's extra odd to take one player on board that voted NAY.
Yay
I think we should keep the core as similar as possible since the first vote succeeded.
If this vote fails, then
1) the new components--specifically DP--will be the obvious target of suspicion. We can then use our close eye plot card to verify how he voted.
2) It could be that the spies took note of what I said my strategy would be, and have implemented it. (Voting to pass the first mission no matter what) If this is the case, then no one part of the first mission can be trusted, but it also doesn't add much suspicion to DP.
Twietee has, correctly, pointed out that the first mission created a path for a fall guy in DP, but I don't see how QoS would have been a better choice to clear DP? The logic is predicated on QoS getting the Eavesdrop card. We aren't sure if anyone is clear yet, so advocating for specific people to clear players doesn't make much sense. Right now, we do have a close eye card that can be used to verify a vote, should this mission go forward.
Let's see what plot cards we get this mission, and then we can formulate a plan on how to deal with the results of the vote.
I think we should keep the core as similar as possible since the first vote succeeded.
If this vote fails, then
1) the new components--specifically DP--will be the obvious target of suspicion. We can then use our close eye plot card to verify how he voted.
2) It could be that the spies took note of what I said my strategy would be, and have implemented it. (Voting to pass the first mission no matter what) If this is the case, then no one part of the first mission can be trusted, but it also doesn't add much suspicion to DP.
Twietee has, correctly, pointed out that the first mission created a path for a fall guy in DP, but I don't see how QoS would have been a better choice to clear DP? The logic is predicated on QoS getting the Eavesdrop card. We aren't sure if anyone is clear yet, so advocating for specific people to clear players doesn't make much sense. Right now, we do have a close eye card that can be used to verify a vote, should this mission go forward.
Let's see what plot cards we get this mission, and then we can formulate a plan on how to deal with the results of the vote.
TechGod's (odd) reasoning suggested that he'd liked DP to be cleared - and I pointed out that it would have made more sense in that case to assign QoS since there are two plots that could semi-clear him that way (Eavesdrop) instead of one (Open Up). And why did he not - like everybody else did the game before - post a non-bolded list so we could discuss that choice? I won't even mention that the way TechGod described the situation wouldn't confirm nor clear anything at all.
In general I think one should always aim to try to clear players (instead of focussing on finding the baddies as in the WW games, little difference but still worth pointing out I think) and assign only those that raised the least 'suspicions' (or indications of being treacherous). Wouldn't you agree? So assigning a player that voted Nay the first round when there were other choices, and with QoS even one where he could still opt for a semi-clearance, sure looks strange and TechGods reasoning afterwards didn't make it look better.
Only my 2 cents though.
I guess I'm still confused as to why you picked QoS specifically. You're right that we need to clear players. At this point in the game everyone is still suspicious, so to pull a name and assign her the responsibility of clearing a player strikes me as odd--especially when any of the other nominated players can do the exact same thing
As for the rapid bolding, I did the same thing last game. When you are the mission leader you can either take input from everyone, or you can make your own decisions and put it to the vote. There is nothing in the rules that requires the team leader to listen to others before nominating a team. That's the whole point of the voting system. (I've never actually played where people are more afraid to name their own teams than we are!)