|
Personally I'm trying to figure out if I should use my code piece as a bargaining chip or if I should create an elaborate series of games, puzzles and codes that would reveal my segment if you beat them all.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
That sounds like fun. I just made my guess for the day. Trying to figure out 13 seven letter words is hard. If anybody is actually able to just randomly guess a one of the code words, that would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
MildManeredManikin posted:Personally I'm trying to figure out if I should use my code piece as a bargaining chip or if I should create an elaborate series of games, puzzles and codes that would reveal my segment if you beat them all. That would be against the rules if you posted them in the thread: Poque posted:Communication in the thread is always allowed - but all posts must be able to be interpreted by all players. No encrypted messages or things of that nature. That's why I went with the simple "Ask me questions" approach. There are facts about a word that aren't specific to the word. Is it a proper noun? Is it plural? How many syllables does it have? Is it even a freaking word, apparently? There are things we can share as a basis of building trust without revealing the word itself, and I can say straight out that revealing the position of the word privately? The dumbest thing you can do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
I believe the encrypted messages thing meant like, no posting in code and then giving somebody else a way to break the code.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Yeah, I think games and riddles would be fine since everyone would have an equal shot. You just can't be like "my word is 73726262738484836262626 I will give you the cipher so you know I'm legit" or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
MildManeredManikin posted:I believe the encrypted messages thing meant like, no posting in code and then giving somebody else a way to break the code. winvirus posted:Yeah, I think games and riddles would be fine since everyone would have an equal shot. You just can't be like "my word is 73726262738484836262626 I will give you the cipher so you know I'm legit" or some poo poo Yeah, these posts are cool. I'm trying to avoid a situation where an alliance is made in which somebody gives somebody a way to learn the placement of their code if they're eliminated. They're free to tell somebody that outright, of course. Basically, say somebody's code segment was APPLE and it was placed sixth. and they told somebody something like "Let X be the number that corresponds to the first letter of my segment. The Xth number of my first post on page 5 is my code's placement." and then made their first post on page 5 "6 5 7 10 1 2 8 9" or something. I wouldn't like that, because only that person would be able to decipher it AND it's contingent on the other person's death. If somebody wants to give away their placement, it must be done while they're alive. If somebody wants to do some kind of riddle thing and then sets up a line of communication in the following day to give away their segment/placement, that's totally cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
winvirus posted:The scenario where you somehow had more information than me, which wouldn't happen, because I'm smart, social and competitive. But you're playing Day 39 Survivor when it's only Day 1, so I agree with Byers that trimming the dead weight is likely the best initial strategy. Okay thank you ##vote winvirus. I know you probably have some words about why this is stupid, which is fine. I don't intend to engage on it though. I do not see myself winning against anyone other than 'dead weight' so I am inclined to take as many of those players to endgame as possible. Thanks & Godbless. MildManeredManikin posted:I've been thinking about the role of alliances in the game. The tricky point is that like survivor, nobody wants to put themselves at an equal chance of winning with somebody else. People probably will want to manoeuvre on top. A large alliance that everybody was very committed to could give everybody in it an equal shot at winning but also isn't very realistic. I admire your sense of sport, I'd like to communicate with you because I'm fairly certain you'd play straight in any deals. However, the purest way to play a game is the way that makes the most sense. I think it's worth playing a game in the way that you're most likely to win, otherwise it's sort of a silly exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
We could, of course, simply mass claim words, since there are what, something like 500,000,000 orderings possible? Unless my math is way off
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Okay thank you ##vote winvirus. I see this as a direct attack against the group of players that I exist in. Put simply, anyone that Somber would think he can't beat straight-up just became his hit list. He's called me and winvirus, specifically, out. I know that he holds at least merk in the same light. I'm pretty sure players like Hal would be tehre as well. Our vote today now becomes one of survival; we need to remove the threat of Somber failing his way to a win. ##vote Somberbrero
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
winvirus posted:We could, of course, simply mass claim words, since there are what, something like 500,000,000 orderings possible? Unless my math is way off Yes, but it takes me two days to get the exact position once I have a word, and I think with a bit of imagination I can decode two words' positions at a time. The possibilities reduce fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Yes, but it takes me two days to get the exact position once I have a word, and I think with a bit of imagination I can decode two words' positions at a time. The possibilities reduce fast. That's a very good point. I will join in for my (our) obvious survival, also. ##vote Somberbrero
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:I see this as a direct attack against the group of players that I exist in. Put simply, anyone that Somber would think he can't beat straight-up just became his hit list. He's called me and winvirus, specifically, out. I know that he holds at least merk in the same light. I'm pretty sure players like Hal would be tehre as well. Our vote today now becomes one of survival; we need to remove the threat of Somber failing his way to a win. That is completely fair Byers, and it's a great way to establish an early and effective alliance. However, my strategy isn't likely to actually work since I don't know everyone and there are bound to be some awesome dark horse players here. I'm usually really awful at the social aspect of mafia, it's rare that I can get someone killed even when I'm consistently right, so if you push for me today it will probably go through. I've been antagonistic and rude enough to start that it won't be hard. However, that's exactly why you should keep me around. If you want to take your chances within the 'tester' circuit, by all means. It seems poor game sense to me to bring your best competitors into lategame though. By the same token, isn't this an attack on anyone outside of your tester group? I dunno, dividing into groups like that seems as counter-productive as not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
winvirus posted:I will join in for my (our) obvious survival, also. Actually, I'll go a step further than just our survival. There is one and only one group of people that should not vote for Somber today. That's people who are convinced that they can beat him heads up, but can convince him that they're incompetent at the same time. His vote shows that he plans to eliminate anyone that he thinks can beat him. It's an implicit admission that he will only work with people he's decided he can beat, hands down, in a straight-up logic-off. So if you don't think you can beat him, you don't want him working with you ebcause he's going to be actively setting you up to fail. If you think you can beat him, and that you won't be able to hide your skill at puzzles/logic/etc., you need him gone for sheer survival. The only way you can justify not voting him right now is if you truly believe that you can beat him, but you also believe you can fool him and hide that fact so that he will work with you and not target you. This is a game about building some form of trust and cooperation amongst a small group (say 3 to 5 players) to build out the knowledge base needed to win prior to being eliminated due to the daily vote; Somber's already fired the first salvo in creating an alliance where he and only he has the slightest chance to come out on top. So if you're cleverer than him and socially adept enough to lie, maybe you can turn the tables on him. Otherwise, his play is anathema to you winning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
You're right that you don't want to bring strong players to the end, but at the same time, if the strong players just keep eliminating strong players they won't have a majority anymore. If Byers sees me as part of his group of strong players, he would want my assistance in trimming dead weight players before turning on me or before I on him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:That is completely fair Byers, and it's a great way to establish an early and effective alliance. However, my strategy isn't likely to actually work since I don't know everyone and there are bound to be some awesome dark horse players here. I'm usually really awful at the social aspect of mafia, it's rare that I can get someone killed even when I'm consistently right, so if you push for me today it will probably go through. I've been antagonistic and rude enough to start that it won't be hard. I'm making an assumption that might be false; most players are going to be testers, out to actually play the game and win. You can't lump all of the testers into one big alliance, you really need to work in smaller groups. Notice the reason I said we want to remove lurkers and identified jokers; it's to free up their words from the vaults of PM. early game, everyone's number one goal should be building knowledge bases. You've just established a strategy where you keep those words locked away until anyone you think would be faster at decoding than you is gone. It's a strategy of disinformation, or withheld knowledge. Why would I keep someone around who is committed to a strategy completely at odds with what I see as the best strategy to pursue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
winvirus posted:You're right that you don't want to bring strong players to the end, but at the same time, if the strong players just keep eliminating strong players they won't have a majority anymore. If Byers sees me as part of his group of strong players, he would want my assistance in trimming dead weight players before turning on me or before I on him. This. Look at it from a Survivor perspective; there will be a time when the alliances made early fall to backstabbing, but not before they do the work necessary to put the alliance members a position to win. In Survivor, it's winning challenges. Here, it's building out the known words and word positions. In my first strategy post, I even laid out when it would be time to turn on the big threats. That betrayal is a foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:Actually, I'll go a step further than just our survival. There is one and only one group of people that should not vote for Somber today. That's people who are convinced that they can beat him heads up, but can convince him that they're incompetent at the same time. Just as a point of order, my goal isn't the elimination of all superior players. That's impossible to determine and has some weird connotations. I do think that I would probably lose any kind of logic puzzle game to you, winvirus, or merk, so it seems like poor play to try and work around that. I don't know anyone else here well enough to make that kind of determination about them, but I'm willing to take my chances because I signed up for this  I think maybe you're misconstruing what I've said for sake of some convenient rhetoric disguised as game logic, or else I'm misunderstanding and I apologize. I don't think there's anyone here who won't take the game seriously, 'lurkers and jokers' as you say, is there? Can I ask who you're thinking of? I'm also not sure where I advocated for restricting information, although I did express concerns over trusting any public information. Winvirus flip will have a code sequence, just like mine. I just don't feel confident enough in my game to try and play next to some of the players I mentioned earlier. I'm still excited to try and puzzle my way through this, although I have to admit I don't like my chances even if I succeeded in my elimination strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Goddamn, that's a lot of replies very quickly. I'm half-convinced we would have been better off starting during the night, because to my mind, the private communications seem very important. Byers has already started building an alliance, which makes him immediately dangerous, as Sombrero points out (same with winvirus). On the other hand, Byers makes some good points against Sombrero, as well. Generally speaking, I feel like the first-day vote is halfway random, anyhow, since we're making it without a lot of knowledge. I'm withholding my vote for now, due to not wanting to commit to screwing over someone with the tiebreaker rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Just as a point of order, my goal isn't the elimination of all superior players. That's impossible to determine and has some weird connotations. I do think that I would probably lose any kind of logic puzzle game to you, winvirus, or merk, so it seems like poor play to try and work around that. I don't know anyone else here well enough to make that kind of determination about them, but I'm willing to take my chances because I signed up for this Ok, so a few points:
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Byers, I can't help but feel like you're arguing to argue! If I think someone is about to solve the game or is much closer than I am, of course I am going to want them out of the game. Don't you feel the same way? Am I just misunderstanding your point? Why would this ever not be true? If there are people you think won't win the game, why would it make sense to vote them out? More information will help you, but also all of your competitors, so I'm not sure why you're saying there's an advantage there. Is the idea that you're smart and social enough to do more with their flip than your other smart and social opponents? I dunno, if you have the idea that I'm going to try my hardest to make sure the game descends into poo poo-posting, then that's not true. It's a little intense at work this week so I can't keep up with the back-and-forth and might be missing something here. Sorry! If your name isn't Byers or winvirus and you're reading this wondering why you should vote Byers or winvirus, it's because it's a no-lose proposition for you. I have no doubt they'll contribute extensively to the puzzle. However there's already a strong de facto alliance set up, I think every successive day will make them more dangerous. As far as I can tell, Byers is actually just voting me in hopes of eliminating someone opposed to him, which is perfectly sensible and valid for Byers but not for very many other people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Whoa, I thought there was going to be a night zero communication submission, this kinda shakes things up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
I like how you call it a "de facto alliance" when you literally forced that situation. You're targeting players like me, and Byers, and merk, and etc, through your own admissions, because you believe they're stronger or smarter than you. When you literally name multiple players you think are threats they will all fire back at you. You can't call it a de facto alliance when you've literally engineered this situation. Stop spinning garbage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Hrm. Withholding my vote for now. I'd like to see how things shape up. I'm not a tester, a joker, or a lurker. I don't know where that leaves me, but I can't help but feel that Byers just alienated a few people, including myself. As well, I don't trust Somberbrero. I guess I'll find out soon where the leaves me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Nevermore214 posted:Hrm. Withholding my vote for now. I'd like to see how things shape up. I'm not a tester, a joker, or a lurker. I don't know where that leaves me, but I can't help but feel that Byers just alienated a few people, including myself. As well, I don't trust Somberbrero. I'm kinda curious why you'd feel alienated by what Byers said - why don't you think you'd be considered a tester?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Lol somber and Byers have the same strategy just done in a different order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Byers, I can't help but feel like you're arguing to argue! This is not the position you started with; you're voting for people that you think you can't beat, right now. No one is close to solving the puzzle right now, but you're voting for the people you feel threatened by, which in turn allows people who will never share any information to remain. That's been my point this whole time; my first post was about eliminating people that would not share early, but your strategy is to let them linger while voting out threats. If you're willing to target winvirus and me, especially when I was one of the people who started trying to start dialogue early, it shows you're not going to be cooperative or collaborative in any way. You'll withhold information from anyone you think might be able to beat you, and your strategy leaves similar uncooperative players in the game so you can further your "kill the clever ones" agenda. I was pretty clear several times, there's a point where you turn to attack the players in positions of power. You're doing it right away, trying to ensure that you're left in a game where no one but you has power. That is why I think people should vote you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
MildManeredManikin posted:Lol somber and Byers have the same strategy just done in a different order. Yeah, I think that's a pretty bang-on summation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
winvirus posted:I like how you call it a "de facto alliance" when you literally forced that situation. You're targeting players like me, and Byers, and merk, and etc, through your own admissions, because you believe they're stronger or smarter than you. When you literally name multiple players you think are threats they will all fire back at you. You can't call it a de facto alliance when you've literally engineered this situation. Stop spinning garbage. Right, I don't disagree with that assessment of the situation. De facto just indicates that, whether or not you and the other folks joined in a Formal Alliancetm, you're in the same boat together now as a result of my earlier post, apparently. I fully appreciate why I'm being voted by Byers, it only makes sense to eliminate someone who is a perceived threat. It's just a question of whether people want to vote out an outlier with a low chance of winning who lost a bunch of friends day one, or a self-professed Strong, Smart, Competitive player in a group with a couple other such players.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Somber, have you watched the Genius Game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:I'm kinda curious why you'd feel alienated by what Byers said - why don't you think you'd be considered a tester? I read into it too much. Basically, anyone who's a Tester but has middling skill can side either way (if we choose to separate ourselves by Byers v Somberbrero) and be relatively safe for the early game. I jumped the gun. Sorry, Byers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Nevermore214 posted:I read into it too much. Basically, anyone who's a Tester but has middling skill can side either way (if we choose to separate ourselves by Byers v Somberbrero) and be relatively safe for the early game. I jumped the gun. Sorry, Byers. The way I interpreted it is that if you're trying to win whatsoever, you're a tester. Jokers are just trying to slow others down, lurkers aren't doing anything but keeping their information guarded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
I hit 0 for 13 on my word list. Rip
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Byers2142 posted:This is not the position you started with; you're voting for people that you think you can't beat, right now. No one is close to solving the puzzle right now, but you're voting for the people you feel threatened by, which in turn allows people who will never share any information to remain. That's been my point this whole time; my first post was about eliminating people that would not share early, but your strategy is to let them linger while voting out threats. Okay, I agree that I am voting people I feel threatened by. I do not agree that I am promoting a no-information strategy. You can infer that from my posts if you want, but it's not what I'm trying to say. It's not a question of eliminating strong players and leaving weak players, that sounds kinda lovely. It's a question of eliminating the strongest players. I don't think anything about my level of involvement indicates that I'm going to be uncooperative or collaborative. I'm personally really excited about the social aspect of this game. Power of Pecota posted:Somber, have you watched the Genius Game? Nope! It looked good + cool though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
imo everybody should rally around me
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Nope! It looked good + cool though. You're pretty much suggesting the announcer's alliance from season 2, which made the season lovely + boring
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:You're pretty much suggesting the announcer's alliance from season 2, which made the season lovely + boring Aw man, but I feel like this game is already super interesting. Byers is yelling at me, people are too timid to put down votes, and there's a ton of early posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:The way I interpreted it is that if you're trying to win whatsoever, you're a tester. Jokers are just trying to slow others down, lurkers aren't doing anything but keeping their information guarded. This was my intent in the post, as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
winvirus posted:I hit 0 for 13 on my word list. Rip I whiffed on everything but my personal word too  I had no idea how Poque could resist using CORNCOB
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
I definitely like the idea of voting out the lurkers first. Someone who isn't posting will also probably be incommunicado via PMs as well, and so voting them out is the only way to get their information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Isn't it silly to guess your personal word?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:18
|
|