[Resistance] Marvel - Mission #5 - It's a wrap! - Spies Win!

[Adaham]

20 % doesn't sound like really great odds to me, but then again it's never going to be really random anyway.

I haven't read the last game, so I don't know what your argument covered at length was, but I agree that we're anyway not at this stage yet.

 

[Catholic]

Checking in.

From what I've gathered, statistically speaking it should be rare for the Resistance to actually get together a team with no spies, around 20% like Hulk said. As such, the spies have a pretty good incentive for sabotaging missions instead of passing up, which does mean that if the first mission succeeds it's best to re-use the same team.

I have little analysis on players so far. I'm suspicious of Adaham - he's really playing the "look at me I'm new!" card. Not buying it. I'd assume the guy would at least read parts of the last game, making a lot of his questions this game shockingly stupidly obvious.

 

[MaHuD]

Well, there is about a 20% chance of randomly picking three innocents for mission 1.
Secondly, the part about not knowing if one is a spy is what I covered in my argument at length. Basically, even if we can't know if there's a spy or not, it's still better to renominate the team, because picking a new team has a much higher probability of failure.

Anyways, that's neither here nor there and we can cross that bridge when we get there. Let's hear who everyone wants on the team.

last game you lucked out pretty hard. That system only works if you exactly don't pick any villains, which as you said is a pretty small chance.
It's far better to pick a team of new people, in order to get information on everyone. Otherwise you will have to make blind choices for the 4th and 5th player.
You really are being fishy here.

 

[Phonemelter]

Hulk may be right, but I don't like the way he came out and immediately patted himself on the back. Gaining leverage with past achievements rather than what is going on in a current game is an easy way for a bad guy to try and sneak into a higher standing. I think he shouldn't go on the first mission.

As far as anyone else goes, I'm not sure as of yet (aside from me).

 

[Catholic]

Quickly, allow me to do some maths.

There are 4 spies. There are 6 resistance members. The chance of, on the first mission, getting three straight resistance members?

Easy multiplication. 6/10 * 6/10 * 6/10 = 21.6%.

I have already explained why it would be stupid for the humans to deliberately fail to sabotage the first mission. As such, we're going to run on the assumption that the 3 members are Resistance members.

Your new chances are 3/10. Why 3? Because you removed 3 resistance members from the pool. Whether this is 3/7 or 3/10 I don't actually know (since you technically removed 3 from the pool), but both are lower than 6/10. Let's run the math for both.

.42 * .42 * .42 = 7.4%

3/10 * 3/10 * 3/10 = 2.7%.

Your math is wrong, you are wrong and you are suspicious. HULK is right.

 

[Phonemelter]

Why would it be dumb for a spy to not sabotage the first mission? True, it would make it harder for them to win, but similar to voting for a wolf as a wolf in WW, can't it also be a way of gaining trust that can be used to create confusion later in the game and to cause those missions to fail?

 

[Adaham]

I have little analysis on players so far. I'm suspicious of Adaham - he's really playing the "look at me I'm new!" card. Not buying it. I'd assume the guy would at least read parts of the last game, making a lot of his questions this game shockingly stupidly obvious.

Part of me posting a lot of crap here is that nothing is really going on in the other game. And that is also the reason why I haven't read up the first Resistance game - I've been busy with the WW games. Part of me also probably enjoys being the new kid on the block for once, so I don't blame you for getting that impression. It's been a long time since people didn't expect me to be insightful right off the bat.

That aside, don't worry, I've already started picking up bits and pieces and have also stated my first suspicions. The whole "I'm new thing" is not gonna last very long.

On other news, I'm terrible at math, meaning my head starts spinning at the moment you wrote 21.6%. If this game is going to be mostly about calculating percentages, I will probably not be much of an asset.

 

[Phonemelter]

Also, screw your WW game, imma post all I want in it! At least I'm more active than a few other players in it. 

 

[MaHuD]

Quickly, allow me to do some maths.

There are 4 spies. There are 6 resistance members. The chance of, on the first mission, getting three straight resistance members?

Easy multiplication. 6/10 * 6/10 * 6/10 = 21.6%.

I have already explained why it would be stupid for the humans to deliberately fail to sabotage the first mission. As such, we're going to run on the assumption that the 3 members are Resistance members.

Your new chances are 3/10. Why 3? Because you removed 3 resistance members from the pool. Whether this is 3/7 or 3/10 I don't actually know (since you technically removed 3 from the pool), but both are lower than 6/10. Let's run the math for both.

.42 * .42 * .42 = 7.4%

3/10 * 3/10 * 3/10 = 2.7%.

Your math is wrong, you are wrong and you are suspicious. HULK is right.

Playing the game by chances will not really cut it. + I agree with Amontadillo.

 

[Adaham]

Also, screw your WW game, imma post all I want in it! At least I'm more active than a few other players in it. 

That is true, which reminds me I should ask Austropaio to send a prod to Hawk, who hasn't been active in days. That'd be something if you replaced him 

The game isn'T really about calculating percentages, and the other Resistance game is really quick and easy to read through quickly, Ada.

I'll see if I can find some time to go through it, might be helpful after all. Since things have been quiet on the WW front, I might use the time before the next ****storm happens.

 

[Phonemelter]

I should probably read it too. Only 12 pages or so, which is a breeze.

 

[Catholic]

To clarify, nobody actually said the odds of picking an all resistance team were better when picking a new team, unless I've missed something.

What has been said is that it's impossible to know whether the first team are actually all mutants, and that it's better to pick a new team to gain more information on everybody, and that it's not that likely to pick an all resistance team in the first place.

You should go for whatever option gives you the largest chance of getting a Resistance win. What "new information" do you gain from choosing an all-new team? Not only did you practically guarantee-lose the mission (7.4% and 2.7%, respectively) but you still don't know who in that group is the saboteur. I don't buy into vague terms. I buy into win percentages.

Why would it be dumb for a spy to not sabotage the first mission? True, it would make it harder for them to win, but similar to voting for a wolf as a wolf in WW, can't it also be a way of gaining trust that can be used to create confusion later in the game and to cause those missions to fail?

1) If you can get a huge leap ahead, you take it. You're taking a pretty big risk by not sabotaging, especially when 3 successful sabotages (right?) wins you the game. In Werewolf, you have quite a few day/night cycles where it's worth it to be innocent all along. Here, it's three.

2) As I've mentioned above, you gain actually little information from a failed mission. One of the three is a saboteur, and that's all you know.

There is ALWAYS a chance that a saboteur on the first mission won't sabotage, or the possibility that there's two saboteurs on it and they both sabotaged or neither did or whatever. However, these percentages are rather miniscule and even when they aren't they don't play a particularly large role in the outcome.

In other news, I'm terrible at math, meaning my head starts spinning at the moment you wrote 21.6%. If this game is going to be mostly about calculating percentages, I will probably not be much of an asset.

A lot of people don't like math and aren't good at it. For me, if I can rely on cold numbers that are true or on random "gut instincts" or the ways that people refer to other players, I will. However, both elements most definitely play a very important role, and I accused you based on your bull**** newbishness and not on my statistics of you being a spy.



The other game should be evidence for why you should rely on stats. You had an all-resistance team, you re-used it, and you re-used it again and sure enough you won. Let's keep that idea in mind.

I'm off to work, will post tonight.

 

[Catholic]

I answered both. Read again.

 

[Adaham]

I don't buy into vague terms. I buy into win percentages.

With sentences like these, you should go into politics. 

A lot of people don't like math and aren't good at it. For me, if I can rely on cold numbers that are true or on random "gut instincts" or the ways that people refer to other players, I will. However, both elements most definitely play a very important role, and I accused you based on your bull**** newbishness and not on my statistics of you being a spy.

I know you didn't accuse me based on your stats and I didn't claim so. By putting these two together in one sentence you're making it look like I defended myself by attacking your math. Not only are you misrepresenting my defense, you are also ignoring the part in which I addressed your accusations of "bull**** newbishness". Whether you believe me or not is another thing.

Right now I don't have so much a problem with your math, as rather with how you're accusing me of playing dumb. On the last two pages I made some serious posts which even Ninja'd similar posts of Amontadillo and Nipple. I don't need a medal for that, but I think I'm getting the hang of this rather fast. It's not entirely honest of you to paint me like I'm playing the noob-card.

The other game should be evidence for why you should rely on stats. You had an all-resistance team, you re-used it, and you re-used it again and sure enough you won. Let's keep that idea in mind.

As I said, I'll have a read through it, probably I'll start later when I'm walking the dog.

 

[Xardob]

Wow, you all sure like your spam. 

Ok, first things first, Eternal sucks at math. It's not a simple (6/10)^3. It's 6/10 * 5/9 * 4/8, which gives us 16,7% chance of randomly selecting an all resistance team.

Every mission leader should place himself in the mission team. Baring a few exceptions, there's really no good reason for a resistance leader to not choose himself. I mean, he know he's one of the good guys, that makes it easier to secure the mission.

Another thing is that everyone should nominate their preferred team to go on the mission, not stick to choosing just one player. Nominating yourself is a no brainer, it's your nomination of others that will give us information about your role.

It's still a little early to nominate team members, we still have a few players to check in, but I obviously want to be in the team. I also think Hulk should be in it. There's no reason to not include him right now, if I become suspicious of him, I'd rather reject the team he proposes than not having him on the team. I like the idea of having Adaham on the team as well. So that's who I'd pick right now.

 

[HULKSMASH]

We still have some players yet to check in, yes?

 

[Catholic]

Doesn'T actually answer why you accused all of us of having wrong maths and being suspicious when nobody actually made that claim.

Just MaHuD, actually. And since I've deconstructed the argument of "we gain information!" I'm assuming the last remaining stance is maths, which doesn't hold.

In case you want me to deconstruct it more:

Probability that random person is spy: 4/10.
Probability that person in a sabotaged mission is spy: 1/3, or 3/9.

Notice how the probability change is marginal, and how deliberately damaging your chances of having a second successful mission by a large margin just to get a whopping 7% increased probability is not logical?

In particular, I singled out MaHuD because he ran a game. He should know this. I understand if new players don't see it since they're still getting a hold of the game, but MaHuD should.

Also, you're ignoring the part where there's NO WAY TO TELL whether you got an all resistance team.

Here:

1) If you can get a huge leap ahead, you take it. You're taking a pretty big risk by not sabotaging, especially when 3 successful sabotages (right?) wins you the game. In Werewolf, you have quite a few day/night cycles where it's worth it to be innocent all along. Here, it's three.

2) As I've mentioned above, you gain actually little information from a failed mission. One of the three is a saboteur, and that's all you know.

There is ALWAYS a chance that a saboteur on the first mission won't sabotage, or the possibility that there's two saboteurs on it and they both sabotaged or neither did or whatever. However, these percentages are rather miniscule and even when they aren't they don't play a particularly large role in the outcome.

since Eternal is so fond of math perhaps he could work out the liklihood of any one of those being a bad guy, hmmmm?

...... 4/10??

Ok, first things first, Eternal sucks at math. It's not a simple (6/10)^3. It's 6/10 * 5/9 * 4/8, which gives us 16,7% chance of randomly selecting an all resistance team.

As embarrassing as this is, this calls for an update to my other maths too.

Swapping out an all-Resistance team for another team? 3/7 * 2/7 * 1/7. That's 1.7% of having a second all-Resistance team, and thus succeeding in the mission. Guys, I'm done throwing statistics at you, but you should realize there's definitely a strong case to be said for it. We need to look at a variety of different factors, including how players interact with one another, and stats play a role in that. My next posts will be about player interaction since I think I've driven my point home.

tl;dr if you succeed in first mission keep the team.

By putting these two together in one sentence you're making it look like I defended myself by attacking your math. Not only are you misrepresenting my defense, you are also ignoring the part in which I addressed your accusations of "bull**** newbishness". Whether you believe me or not is another thing.

No, and I didn't mean to. If you feel I tried to misdirect the argument, then I apologize.

Right now I don't have so much a problem with your math, as rather with how you're accusing me of playing dumb. On the last two pages I made some serious posts which even Ninja'd similar posts of Amontadillo and Nipple. I don't need a medal for that, but I think I'm getting the hang of this rather fast. It's not entirely honest of you to paint me like I'm playing the noob-card.

This, however, I meant. Your point about supporting Amontadillo and Nipple is a point for my case. You're contributing to the argument and the hunt while posting questions you should know from the start. You know what you're doing and you know how to do it.

 

[HULKSMASH]

I wish grimmend would check in, I think it may be good to have him on the mission team, as he is spearheading the second mission, and it would be good to get a read on him before he starts proposing a team.
I also considered this strategy last game with Konig as the 2nd mission leader, but it didn't matter because we guessed right on all of our tries. I'd like to see if it actually provides an advantage.
If he doesn't come online soon though, I won't be able to get a feel for him and see if I want to nominate him officially. As for the third member, I'm not sure yet. I'll talk more about my ideas later, but I want to see what people think about having grimmend, assuming he shows up.

 

[Xardob]

As embarrassing as this is, this calls for an update to my other maths too.

Swapping out an all-Resistance team for another team? 3/7 * 2/7 * 1/7. That's 1.7% of having a second all-Resistance team, and thus succeeding in the mission.

Still wrong. It should be 3/7 * 2/6 * 1/5, which is 2,8%.

tl;dr if you succeed in first mission keep the team.

The only scenario we should consider completely ignoring the first mission team is if there's more than one Spy in the team. If there's only one, it's still statistically better to keep some of them around.

I wish grimmend would check in, I think it may be good to have him on the mission team, as he is spearheading the second mission, and it would be good to get a read on him before he starts proposing a team.

I was wondering if you would suggest this again. I'm not sure if this gives us that much information, but it isn't a worse choice than any other, right now.

 

[HULKSMASH]

Well, if something extrordinary happens on the first mission, like two spies or something, it probably would be best not to pass his mission team suggestions.