I love that people feel obliged to say this.
Kl3mnop
322
robthomasson has seen all your tapestries and raised you Classic Rock lyrics!!
Yes, Team 1a is jostly, clyve and myself.
The Overheard card really helped - now we know that clyve is good (and that Kl3mnop is also good or possibly evil), or that clyve is evil (and that Kl3mnop is also evil or improbably good). So this team will do to get a reading from the assembled Round Table.
rowe33
324
So basically we don’t know anything, yay…we also know that I’m either good or evil, and that Christien is either good or evil…and jostly is good or evil, and Dave is pretty much evil no matter what.
Gregory: “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
fire
326
Knights! I hereby declare that I am accepting all votes.
I’m in the Perkins School of voting yes on early teams, so my opinion may not help. I think sending quests gives us more information than compiling columns of no votes. BTW, I had no idea you were the mastermind behind VNFI! Is that a real thing or were you joking? Were you in earnest when you said that above? I just don’t think it works in this game, as you can see from our last couple of rounds.
Anyway, you’re probably right about the rob thing. Although I fear I’m being incepted.
-xtien
clyve
329
I don’t think I was the mastermind but it sure stuck to me! In the first game it did seem to help but once it was a thing, the spies just used it against us.
CraigM
330
I take credit/ blame for VNFI. It is something picked up from the physical game as well as BGG. So I brought it in here. It is definitely a dominant strategy in regular Resistance. As in you are literally doing it wrong by voting yes to the first team. Lots of statistical analysis, but in short if you are good there is almost 100% reason to vote no on the first 2-3 teams in the game (note does not apply as strongly in rounds 3-5).
But as with all such things you get some game theory type hive mind, and the purity of information is… diluted.
But…that makes no sense here, in a game that will take a couple of weeks where people are socking away all of the information. I mean, apart from the idea that “you are literally doing it wrong by voting yes to the first team” making…literally*…no sense, to your other statement about 100% reason to vote no if you are good for the first two to three teams. I can sort of see that theory at the table, but here, it’s nonsensical. I mean, if that’s the case, should we all just agree on 10 no votes for three rounds as a stipulation and then start the actual game-play after that?
-xtien
*Thank you Rob Lowe.
I orally agree with Xtien, which is no surprise. Also, I typed totally and my phone put orally.
CraigM
333
I agree, which is why I wasn’t sure how it would translate. I certainly didn’t want it to be taken as gospel here, merely pointing out that there were good reasons to vote no for a team, even if you have no specific knowledge. Early on it was correcting an imbalance in the other way, people were too eager to approve any team, and things swung to the other extreme.
I don’t know that voting no hurts in that case, just that it may not help as much. The dynamics are appreciably different on a forum than face to face, so admittedly some of the strategy has evolved.
Plus as more games complete here the ‘base’ strategies become less useful. We have started to evolve the game into some fairly sophisticated bluff/ counter bluff/ deceptive voting/ outright nuttiness plays. At this point the plans almost have to be created custom to this group. I’m sure that if I tried to use the same tactics with friends in the area they wouldn’t work the same at all.
Basically: it was a starting point, and I never meant it to become some etched in stone thing.
clyve
334
I don’t know why you two are always so willing to send teams forward when you are suspicious. Obviously rob’s card distribution was weird…
I’ll admit, I’m entertaining the idea of sending it just to learn but I’m having a really hard time saying yes to this team.
Kl3mnop
335
Clearly it’s a different game which has been discussed in other places (where these stats are quoted from). I mean, this is a hybrid of two games, right? Mixing Avalon and Resistance.
Plus, we now have some information. This is not a completely blind event. I have been shown clyve’s allegiance to GOOD and faithfully reported it.
I will mark each vote as an informed vote. People can try to hide behind “game theory” but that’s smoke and mirrors to me in this specific circumstance. Which is suspicious in and of itself. And orally.
Vote yes or vote no. But you can’t vote “I have absolutely no idea therefore I vote NO because the interwebz says so”.
(Peanut gallery)
This is a much different game around a tabletop. If people theorized like this at a table, I’d probably kick them out of my house. Just observing!
(/Peanut gallery)
Kl3mnop
337
Sadly we now have more input from the peanut gallery than either (not even a)Blips(on the radar) or annie(hasn’t made much of a)peeps.
I think this team should be rejected. Rob’s card distribution suggests he’s evil and the knights adjacent to him are good - else he would have been comfortable letting them verify his loyalty. So let the leadership move to annie & let her pick some safer team members. I’m voting no.
Blips
339
I’ve been posting. I thought I had made my thoughts clear: I don’t trust this team.
- I know I am good.
- I don’t know the qualities of anyone on the team.
- Therefore as far as I’m concerned, any team without me is an unnecessary risk until additional information is made available.
Kl3mnop
340
Was your opinion in the form of a tapestry? Those image files don’t always display on my various devices. Sorry if I missed it.
There were a couple of image-only posts earlier that I didn’t pick up but I assumed from responses that they were all “Funsies”.
