Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Hal Incandenza
Feb 12, 2004

Anomalous Amalgam posted:

I hosed up and killed asiina last night, my bad.

YOU MONSTER

(but I guess not a literal monster yet)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Anomalous Amalgam
Feb 13, 2015

by Nyc_Tattoo
Doctor Rope
Yeah, I got my torch, told myself I was about to solve the game, then Pig informed me that I had instead committed a murder most foul.

redneck nazgul
Apr 25, 2013

##vote Anomalous Amalgam

i have a good lucky feeling about this one, ladies and gentlemen

Anomalous Amalgam
Feb 13, 2015

by Nyc_Tattoo
Doctor Rope
##vote AA

I'm fine with it. I got the flamethrower and made a fubar. Test my blood if need be.

Hal Incandenza
Feb 12, 2004

hmmm but we know AA can’t possibly be the original virus so that seems counterintuitive but redneck sounds like he’s got something

Dick Bastardly
Aug 22, 2012

Muttley is SKYNET!!!

Anomalous Amalgam posted:

Yeah, I got my torch, told myself I was about to solve the game, then Pig informed me that I had instead committed a murder most foul.

What, may I ask, was the factor that lead you to believe Asiina was a thingy person?

Hal Incandenza
Feb 12, 2004

Dick Bastardly posted:

What, may I ask, was the factor that lead you to believe Asiina was a thingy person?

Kind of meaningless since we know AA was human when he got the flamethrower so it’s not like he had any nefarious reasoning

Anomalous Amalgam
Feb 13, 2015

by Nyc_Tattoo
Doctor Rope

Dick Bastardly posted:

What, may I ask, was the factor that lead you to believe Asiina was a thingy person?

the meta association with RF that I made up in my mind.

Both are Mafia vets and both are Canadian.

In my mind, the logic was infallible.

Toalpaz
Mar 20, 2012

Peace through overwhelming determination
lol AA, you missed your chance to have an excuse to kill me, another canadian. I'm no vet though.

redneck nazgul
Apr 25, 2013

Hal Incandenza posted:

hmmm but we know AA can’t possibly be the original virus so that seems counterintuitive but redneck sounds like he’s got something

Hal Incandenza posted:

Kind of meaningless since we know AA was human when he got the flamethrower so it’s not like he had any nefarious reasoning

yep. these are definitely some posts all right. some of them even have words!

Dick Bastardly
Aug 22, 2012

Muttley is SKYNET!!!

Hal Incandenza posted:

Kind of meaningless since we know AA was human when he got the flamethrower so it’s not like he had any nefarious reasoning

we can still cross reference the answer against later posts if we think AA has turned at some point i think. but WIFOM is a thing too and now that iv'e made this post maybe it's useless now. (probably useless the entire time :downs:)

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

I think we test someone else because AA is not the monster because he got given a weapon.

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

Nor was he infected at the beginning the night.

Dick Bastardly
Aug 22, 2012

Muttley is SKYNET!!!

hambeet posted:

I think we test someone else because AA is not the monster because he got given a weapon.

could be the monster now though?

Dick Bastardly
Aug 22, 2012

Muttley is SKYNET!!!
i don't think i follow you here beet

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

Actually how sure we get there still is a monster in play?

The op just says there's an n0 creature that infects a player. Flavour speaking the dog was the creature and the dog has been killed.

So is there a player that is the creature? or was it just a flavour mechanic thing created by cpig?

Dick Bastardly
Aug 22, 2012

Muttley is SKYNET!!!
beet are you drunk?

redneck nazgul
Apr 25, 2013

you sound awfully confident of AA's alignment there, hambeet

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

Dick Bastardly posted:

i don't think i follow you here beet
Ignoring the concept of the original monster for a second, We know for certain he wasn't infected at the beginning of the night. Because only the uninfected get a weapon.

So what odds are better?

The likelihood that aa got the gun and was also chosen to be infected on the same night?

Or the odds of testing another previously untested player who also may have been infected last night or on a previous night?


I'm not at my computer so I can't break the numbers down easily, but I would feel that the latter would have a greater probability of finding infected because they may have been infected on a previous night, where we know AA definitely was not.

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

redneck nazgul posted:

you sound awfully confident of AA's alignment there, hambeet

No, it's that I think we have a greater chance of finding an infected player if we pick someone else who hasn't already been tested.

I don't know if it's probability or whatever, I don't remember that much at high school maths.

AA could only have been infected last night. Someone we haven't tested yet could have been infected last night or a previous night.

redneck nazgul
Apr 25, 2013

hambeet posted:

AA could only have been infected last night. Someone we haven't tested yet could have been infected last night or a previous night.

incorrect

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002


Ok I'm all ears, why?

Hal Incandenza
Feb 12, 2004

redneck nazgul posted:

yep. these are definitely some posts all right. some of them even have words!

how rude!

redneck nazgul
Apr 25, 2013

so, all we have to go off of for AA's alignment is his claim which isn't provable. just because nobody's counterclaimed yet doesn't mean it's not a lie. astute readers will note that at no point did i counterclaim AA or insinuate that he was lying, i'm simply trying to draw attention to the fact that he can't actually prove anything so it shouldn't be taken as gospel.

you're not taking that lack of proof into consideration at all. at several points today, you have stated that AA can't be infected and we should move on. to be fair, if he's not lying about the nightkill, you're correct. the way you're going about it is in trying to look super helpful and interested in scumhunting. operative word there is "trying", because you're taking a very easy and safe position (the guy who did the kill can't be infected by the rules of the game) that few people are going to raise an eyebrow at.

on the other hand, you're also hedging your bets by saying "oh, well, he could have shot someone and then gotten infected" which is a convenient explanation if he gets tested today and flips infected.

this isn't the behavior of someone trying to scumhunt, this is the behavior of someone trying to look like they're scumhunting by taking the easiest possible position.

two things here jump out at me:

1. there's no danger in dying by votecount here. why are you trying to hedge your bets and play things safe?

2. how are you this sure about AA's alignment? there's only one way you can know his alignment with the level of certainty you're expressing right now, and that's if you're actually scum yourself.

##vote hambeet

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

redneck nazgul posted:

so, all we have to go off of for AA's alignment is his claim which isn't provable. just because nobody's counterclaimed yet doesn't mean it's not a lie. astute readers will note that at no point did i counterclaim AA or insinuate that he was lying, i'm simply trying to draw attention to the fact that he can't actually prove anything so it shouldn't be taken as gospel.

you're not taking that lack of proof into consideration at all. at several points today, you have stated that AA can't be infected and we should move on. to be fair, if he's not lying about the nightkill, you're correct. the way you're going about it is in trying to look super helpful and interested in scumhunting. operative word there is "trying", because you're taking a very easy and safe position (the guy who did the kill can't be infected by the rules of the game) that few people are going to raise an eyebrow at.

on the other hand, you're also hedging your bets by saying "oh, well, he could have shot someone and then gotten infected" which is a convenient explanation if he gets tested today and flips infected.

this isn't the behavior of someone trying to scumhunt, this is the behavior of someone trying to look like they're scumhunting by taking the easiest possible position.

two things here jump out at me:

1. there's no danger in dying by votecount here. why are you trying to hedge your bets and play things safe?

2. how are you this sure about AA's alignment? there's only one way you can know his alignment with the level of certainty you're expressing right now, and that's if you're actually scum yourself.

##vote hambeet

I have no qualms being voted, but you're approaching this from the wrong angle.

AA could not have been infected at the beginning of the night because he got the gun. Yeah? that's indisputable. Him trying to falsely claim he did it when it could be easily countered later on is frankly ridiculous. There is nothing to gain from that. I'm also not pushing for a lynch on someone based on flimsy evidence, I'm pushing for us voting in a way that presents the best opportunities for us.

You seem to be looking for scum play in a game that I don't think would actually have it. If I was infected and I knew there were two or three other infected as of today, why would I stick my neck out for one other infected? If they get tested today and killed tonight, we're still recruiting another one tonight so why risk outing two infected? That literally makes no sense.

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

DB I'll write up something about what I'm on about with the night zero creature later when I've got 5 mins.

I'll also break down the player list to work out if my idea for who next to vote actually seems to be the best play.

Toalpaz
Mar 20, 2012

Peace through overwhelming determination

hambeet posted:

DB I'll write up something about what I'm on about with the night zero creature later when I've got 5 mins.

I'll also break down the player list to work out if my idea for who next to vote actually seems to be the best play.

A lumpen list?

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

Toalpaz posted:

A lumpen list?

lol i guess.

not a list of scum though, so is it really a lumpen? no it's just be a list of elimination

redneck nazgul
Apr 25, 2013

honestly, the more i think about it, the more a completely RNG approach to testing is probably best.

any result that isn't "infected' is worthless. there's no legitimate way to clear anyone barring accidentally killing them at night.

##unvote

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

Dick Bastardly posted:

beet are you drunk?

When I posted that I was commuting, and I was going off my memory of the OP. So I've gone back and re-read the OP and I had made the wrong assumption about something. Instead of scrapping the post I'll put down here are what some of my thoughts were because it shapes what I was talking with redneck about on who to vote.

My understanding is the game started with a creature who infected another player and then another was infected and so on. I was asking if that original creature for the night 0 recruit was a player or was it just a mechanic for flavour ie the dog that
was killed and cpig picked the first infected. This mattered because if it wasn't a player creature on n0, then there was only one infected at the start of the game, not two. Yeah?

Redneck spoke about it yesterday, scenario A or scenario B. I didn't comment on it then, I'm bringing it up now though.

I was then going to talk about if we were hunting the original creature, (the n0 cult recruiter i guess you could say) or just playing whack a mole with the infected, but I had forgotten this part of the OP:

CapitalistPig posted:

Play will continue in this way until either the creatures have all been killed or until they have taken over the base (nothing can stop them from controlling the vote)

So it's whack a mole not 'find the recruiter' and the infected numbers depend on rednecks scenario A or B.

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

I'm bored at work so i'll put my thoughts down on what I was saying earlier, but couldn't as I was phone posting..

If we assume there were two infected on day 1 (RF and another, or two others and they recruited RF the night he was killed) it means there are three infected alive today.

With 10 players alive we have a 30% chance of getting an infected by picking randomly.


We know AA wasn't infected at the end of yesterday, so to angle back around to what I was suggesting earlier:

There is an 11% chance AA was infected last night out of the 9 uninfected players. The chances of him rnging the gun AND getting infected? Probably much lower again, but I suck at probability and cbf'd working that out.

So I was suggesting that if we remove AA from today's testing list, because it is probably unlikely that he got the gun AND was infected, could increase our odds of hitting an infected. That gives us a pool of 9 players to test, 3/9 = 33%. So removing him only increases us by 3% so I wrote all that for nothing. :sigh:



redneck nazgul posted:

honestly, the more i think about it, the more a completely RNG approach to testing is probably best.

any result that isn't "infected' is worthless. there's no legitimate way to clear anyone barring accidentally killing them at night.

##unvote

So ultimately, yeah...

GulagDolls
Jun 4, 2011

making snow angel.

GulagDolls
Jun 4, 2011

man its just impossible to give a gently caress in this game.

##vote keane

Toalpaz
Mar 20, 2012

Peace through overwhelming determination
nah that's true hambeet and a good thought. The people who haven't recieved a gun/been tested recently have more opportunities to have been infected. Each night they have a chance to become infected increases their chances compared to people who've been tested more recently. because there's an original scum and maybe a N1 scum, we should probably just test people who haven't been tested or received a gun.

Even though we might miss a new one we're more likely to hit old ones over time right?

GulagDolls
Jun 4, 2011

wine taste good

redneck nazgul
Apr 25, 2013

just random it

google's random number generator gave me 6

going down the OP's player list and taking out the dead, that gives us

##vote Hal Incandenza

GulagDolls
Jun 4, 2011

please recruit me. town is going to lose

hambeet
Sep 13, 2002

redneck nazgul posted:

just random it

google's random number generator gave me 6

going down the OP's player list and taking out the dead, that gives us

##vote Hal Incandenza

well even though he got a gun night 1, so we wasn't one of hte original 2, it'll let us know if they're recruiting previously assumed cleared peeps

##vote hal babecandenza

Rhjamiz
Oct 28, 2007

I'm down with random voting, it's the only real strategy we've got right now.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CCKeane
Jan 28, 2008

my shit posts don't die, they multiply

hambeet posted:

I'm bored at work so i'll put my thoughts down on what I was saying earlier, but couldn't as I was phone posting..

If we assume there were two infected on day 1 (RF and another, or two others and they recruited RF the night he was killed) it means there are three infected alive today.

With 10 players alive we have a 30% chance of getting an infected by picking randomly.


We know AA wasn't infected at the end of yesterday, so to angle back around to what I was suggesting earlier:

There is an 11% chance AA was infected last night out of the 9 uninfected players. The chances of him rnging the gun AND getting infected? Probably much lower again, but I suck at probability and cbf'd working that out.

So I was suggesting that if we remove AA from today's testing list, because it is probably unlikely that he got the gun AND was infected, could increase our odds of hitting an infected. That gives us a pool of 9 players to test, 3/9 = 33%. So removing him only increases us by 3% so I wrote all that for nothing. :sigh:


So ultimately, yeah...

Whoa whoa whoa hold the phone now.

Why is there an 11% chance?

  • Locked thread