Long Game 100 - Death is Lighter Than a Feather

[Mat he/him]

1 minute ago, Kasimir said:

I don't think we should go into a locked D2 by any means. It's a waste of tempo and will suck even more if, e.g. Bee's Aes Sedai gets hit tonight or something. We just shouldn't be wasting time.

Agreed yeah. That was mostly to say I'm comfortable with a Null(-) read, there are more than enough alternate possibilities to e!Forsaken!Aet to explore.

[Aeternum they/them, he/him]

21 minutes ago, Mat said:

Agreed yeah. That was mostly to say I'm comfortable with a Null(-) read, there are more than enough alternate possibilities to e!Forsaken!Aet to explore.

Thoughts on other possibilities?

[Aeoryi she/her]

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

And this is specifically Earthquake which seems pretty value-for-money but likely needs a link to reduce complexity and someone with a high Earth statblock

What's the chance of a successful earthquake when linked?

 

[Kasimir he/him]

50 minutes ago, Aeternum said:

Going back to RBM - I doubt he'd fakeclaim. Doesn't fit the profile, in my opinion.

I'd agree with this but I also finished relooking D1 and other thoughts that lean me slightly in favour of V!Bee (sadly, Bee also did things that make me feel sus so slight is where I am atm)

-Weird bandwagoning deviates from E!Bee tendency to sheep (+)
-Not really solvy (-)
-Weird fixation on rules or extra-game statements to avoid saying much else - reminiscent of LG99 (-)
-Train stability - was lead train for a decent chunk of cycle and no one cared. Pivot with Stick and me and Stick is unlikely as Bee's teammate (soft +) 
-Warder claim (if true, Warder seems to lean a bit more V than E.) (soft +)

Other things that came up to me:

-Bee train stability indicates overall ok with vote spread. In a game with E!Forsaken, this is especially interesting because suggests general Elim dgaf (Forsaken's vote doesn't count so Forsaken pulling a vote with Compulsion is net weaker than E!Aes Sedai pulling a vote.) 
-Even in a game without an E!Forsaken, some amount of dgaf I think. Little train competition. Certainly possible an E!Aes Sedai decides to just focus Compulsion and votejack off the train I guess, only to get shut down by CadCom.
-Mat or Stick asks why Bee has a Wierdo thing but doesn't vote Wierdo. Looking at the votes makes it pretty obvious IMO:

Quote

CadCom (1): Araris
Bee (3): Stick, Mat, Kas
Mat (2): CadCom, Bee
Araris (1): Aeo

...Bee was self-pressing. You could ask why specifically Mat instead of CadCom or Araris, tbf.

-

On 5/28/2024 at 11:31 AM, Araris Valerian said:

I’d say I’m suspicious of Mat for his comment that he wasn’t defending CadCom, and for mentioning the extra life thing. CadCom’s statement wasn’t significant enough for me to sit out and listen when there was active discussion to engage with. Nobody else really commented in between.

Araris says this, which I don't really understand and would like clarity on. I'd also like to know why you wanted to wait for responses if you weren't interested in presenting the analysis anyway.

-I don't super like this post:

On 5/28/2024 at 8:22 AM, Mat said:

I wasn’t protecting you, CadCom, I was disagreeing with Araris. I already said that. I don’t really agree with your mech analysis and don’t see much of a reason to read you either way, but Araris’s push didn’t make sense. Besides. So what if I do v read you, I’m allowed to defend my trusts :P.

This is in response to CadCom saying:

On 5/28/2024 at 7:57 AM, CadCom said:

Now I know I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't played at all with many of you and others were years ago. But I personally didn't like how mat jumped right in to protect me (softly) read like an elim trying to buddy up to a villager to me, so on that note, as mat still has no votes Kasimir, Mat. 

I tentatively like this. Yes, I have CadCom as V for the Circle reason, but I like the wariness anyway. Mild Village points because this screwed me over with toph (Draaaaaaaake.)

I guess the main thing I don't like is...yes you're allowed to defend your trusts but isn't the whole point that there wasn't much to go off at that point?

[Kasimir he/him]

Edited to add:

21 minutes ago, Aeoryi said:

What's the chance of a successful earthquake when linked?

H'okay, let's see. Earthquake is a complexity 4 weave, so that means raw success is 15%. Keep in mind Circle of Frost is also complexity 4.

@The Unknown Ajah Can linked players concentrate? What happens if half the link concentrates and the other half doesn't? Or do you count on the basis of whether the player spending an action concentrates?

Physical actions subtract 5%. Complexity 3 and higher weaves subtract 20%. For every example, I'm going to assume no physical action because not worth having that 5% involved.

What this means IMO:

1. Concentration is required, if possible. (This means forgoing any physical action.) Concentration raises the success rate to 40% for weaves with a complexity higher than 3. This means, I think:

40% - 20% = 20% 

@The Unknown Ajah Is this correct, based on the rules?

Holy chull that's really bad odds for Circle???

2. Linking decreases weave complexity by one. So Earthquake becomes a complexity 3 weave. This means:

40% - 20% = 20%

@The Unknown Ajah I think I'm applying a rule wrong somewhere, because you have an example with Lightning with a higher success rate.

Quote

Lightning on Player 4 4 complexity - 1 for linking = 3 = 40% - 15% = 25%

I still like the 4 player physicalblock but this looks like bad odds tbh. Let's try the contrast then:

Harden Route:

Harden Air is a bit more guaranteed, but:

Quote

Harden Air:

Air

3

2

Physical block a player○/●

You can use the same Weave twice I think with not so many issues.

Quote

t Performing the same weave twice in a turn increases the Complexity by 1 for each repeated weave.

So two Hardens gets you:

Harden1 = 60% - 10% = 50%.
Harden2 = 40% - 20% = 20%.

Harden2 ain't great but Harden1 is still a coinflip. 

...Say you link to do this. Linking reduces the starting complexity by 1.

Harden1 = 85% - 10% = 75% (Complexity 1)
Harden2 = 60% - 10% = 50% (Complexity 2)
Harden3 = 40% - 20% = 20% (Complexity 3)

You get half the physicalblocks, but better odds. The bright side is Harden Air requires 3 Air which is theoretically more achievable in a statblock than a 5 Earth.

@The Unknown Ajah Does this remotely make sense? I think the rules are worse than law class

Edited to add 2:

Sorry Elan, I'd edit this but it'd just be long and I think I'd rather the weave maths be separate as I might need TUA's help here.

Edited May 29 by Kasimir

[Aeoryi she/her]

Just now, Kasimir said:

Edited to add:

H'okay, let's see. Earthquake is a complexity 4 weave, so that means raw success is 15%. Keep in mind Circle of Frost is also complexity 4.

@The Unknown Ajah Can linked players concentrate? What happens if half the link concentrates and the other half doesn't? Or do you count on the basis of whether the player spending an action concentrates?

Physical actions subtract 5%. Complexity 3 and higher weaves subtract 20%. For every example, I'm going to assume no physical action because not worth having that 5% involved.

What this means IMO:

1. Concentration is required, if possible. (This means forgoing any physical action.) Concentration raises the success rate to 40% for weaves with a complexity higher than 3. This means, I think:

40% - 20% = 20% 

@The Unknown Ajah Is this correct, based on the rules?

Holy chull that's really bad odds for Circle???

2. Linking decreases weave complexity by one. So Earthquake becomes a complexity 3 weave. This means:

40% - 20% = 20%

@The Unknown Ajah I think I'm applying a rule wrong somewhere, because you have an example with Lightning with a higher success rate.

I still like the 4 player physicalblock but this looks like bad odds tbh. Let's try the contrast then:

Harden Route:

Harden Air is a bit more guaranteed, but:

You can use the same Weave twice I think with not so many issues.

So two Hardens gets you:

Harden1 = 60% - 10% = 50%.
Harden2 = 40% - 20% = 20%.

Harden2 ain't great but Harden1 is still a coinflip. 

...Say you link to do this. Linking reduces the starting complexity by 1.

Harden1 = 85% - 10% = 75% (Complexity 1)
Harden2 = 60% - 10% = 50% (Complexity 2)
Harden3 = 40% - 20% = 20% (Complexity 3)

You get half the physicalblocks, but better odds. The bright side is Harden Air requires 3 Air which is theoretically more achievable in a statblock than a 5 Earth.

@The Unknown Ajah Does this remotely make sense? I think the rules are worse than law class

Wait so what's the percentage again

Give me a summary not a breakdown smh

[Mat he/him]

24 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

I guess the main thing I don't like is...yes you're allowed to defend your trusts but isn't the whole point that there wasn't much to go off at that point?

Sure, but at that point I also didn’t trust CadCom and wasn’t defending him. Nothing about that post had to do with CadCom specifically, it was meant as commentary on Araris. People keep mixing that up :P.

(Granted, if I had been defending CadCom off an instant village read, I’d still stand by that. I’ve never had a problem with gut reads, even though it’s caused me trouble in the past.)

Edited May 29 by Mat

[Kasimir he/him]

1 minute ago, Aeoryi said:

Wait so what's the percentage again

Give me a summary not a breakdown smh

Lol sorry. The summary is that I need TUA to confirm for me.

But assuming no one in the link does physical actions, the success rate should be 20%. TUA has it as 25% in the example so I'm waiting to hear from him. I'd note CadCom's Circle also had 20% odds of succeeding so IDK if that changes my view of D1 or not.

So I found an alternative:

If linked players use Harden Air instead and triple up the weaves, again, assuming no one does physical actions, you can get three physicalblocks off at: 75%, 50%, and 20% respectively. I don't expect block #3 to succeed but #1 and #2 look okayish. You are probably committing to half the size of an Earthquake but it's not the worst at this game size.

[Mat he/him]

1 hour ago, Aeternum said:

Thoughts on other possibilities?

Sorry, missed this until now. Other Forsaken possibilities are Forsaken!CadCom (unlikely given his unrefuted claim), someone else as the Forsaken with action shenanigans covering it up (this might not actually be possible, I haven’t run the math, unlikely either way), or no Forsaken at all (most likely alternate option).

The question for me mostly becomes matching my read of you with the likelihood of a Forsaken not being included. The latter is kind of unknowable so idk. What do you think?

[Kasimir he/him]

7 minutes ago, Mat said:

or no Forsaken at all (most likely alternate option).

Araris has suggested this in PMs. His reasoning is it's too easy for the Amyrlin to discover by votejacking. Not sure how true that is, but I guess anyone with Compulsion could also discover? Either way, I did check LG88 and noted that none of the distros had Amrylin and Forsaken together.

Edited to add:

Would also advise to take all the calculations there with a pinch of salt because Araris and I disagree on how to read the complexity tax rules and I'm not sure if this is the ruleset getting shifted from LG88 or if I'm mistaken about how complexity tax works.

This also has implications as if I'm correct, there are about 3 forbidden weaves which can never be performed in this game because they're mechanically impossible, and there's less incentive to link for high complexity weaves because you get the same success chance as if you just concentrated. Asking about all that, but this highlights the high number of uncertainties present at the moment, sorry about that.

Ideally this should have been something I asked about before this game when we were going over the ruleset but I rejoiced when Araris told me I didn't need to read the weave rules and now I am paying for it, mea culpa >>

Edited May 29 by Kasimir

[Stick. she/her]

@Aeternum

how did u go from this (directed towards me)

On 5/27/2024 at 10:35 PM, Aeternum said:

Where is this coming from...? My two basically barely related to the game posts? I don't follow your thinking here.

to this?

On 5/27/2024 at 10:35 PM, Aeternum said:

Stick seems mostly cool for now

(these are from the same post lol)

 

u cant follow my thinking and FYPOV im throwing random takes together and putting them out into the thread - the way youve phrased ur question towards me seem accusatory tone-wise as well. how did u arrive to what looks like a village-lean on me then?

[Aeoryi she/her]

Any vigilantes in chat?

[Stick. she/her]

On 5/28/2024 at 3:38 PM, Stick. said:

@Aeternum do u play mafia elsewhere? just curious

u forgot to answer this question 

[Aeternum they/them, he/him]

47 minutes ago, Mat said:

Sorry, missed this until now. Other Forsaken possibilities are Forsaken!CadCom (unlikely given his unrefuted claim), someone else as the Forsaken with action shenanigans covering it up (this might not actually be possible, I haven’t run the math, unlikely either way), or no Forsaken at all (most likely alternate option).

The question for me mostly becomes matching my read of you with the likelihood of a Forsaken not being included. The latter is kind of unknowable so idk. What do you think?

I think I flip tomorrow regardless. My flip would clear the possible Forsaken world, because CadCom is probably not Forsaken, which leaves just me as the only other option. Insert a sad gif here

7 minutes ago, Stick. said:

@Aeternum

how did u go from this (directed towards me)

to this?

(these are from the same post lol)

 

u cant follow my thinking and FYPOV im throwing random takes together and putting them out into the thread - the way youve phrased ur question towards me seem accusatory tone-wise as well. how did u arrive to what looks like a village-lean on me then?

I'm assuming I read your posts and decided "not a today problem", despite the slight ping. I don't remember, and wim is dead.

2 hours ago, Kasimir said:

I'd agree with this but I also finished relooking D1 and other thoughts that lean me slightly in favour of V!Bee (sadly, Bee also did things that make me feel sus so slight is where I am atm)

-Weird bandwagoning deviates from E!Bee tendency to sheep (+)
-Not really solvy (-)
-Weird fixation on rules or extra-game statements to avoid saying much else - reminiscent of LG99 (-)
-Train stability - was lead train for a decent chunk of cycle and no one cared. Pivot with Stick and me and Stick is unlikely as Bee's teammate (soft +) 
-Warder claim (if true, Warder seems to lean a bit more V than E.) (soft +)

Other things that came up to me:

-Bee train stability indicates overall ok with vote spread. In a game with E!Forsaken, this is especially interesting because suggests general Elim dgaf (Forsaken's vote doesn't count so Forsaken pulling a vote with Compulsion is net weaker than E!Aes Sedai pulling a vote.) 
-Even in a game without an E!Forsaken, some amount of dgaf I think. Little train competition. Certainly possible an E!Aes Sedai decides to just focus Compulsion and votejack off the train I guess, only to get shut down by CadCom.
-Mat or Stick asks why Bee has a Wierdo thing but doesn't vote Wierdo. Looking at the votes makes it pretty obvious IMO:

Interesting points.

3 minutes ago, Stick. said:

u forgot to answer this question 

Missed it, sorry. Yes.

I might double post in a second here to respond to Mat's post from earlier

[Stick. she/her]

 

On 5/28/2024 at 6:03 AM, Aeternum said:

On 5/28/2024 at 3:25 AM, Aeoryi said:

So it was a misunderstanding? I feel like e!Araris wouldn't end an argument this way, so + town

Claims that no one really understands the rules, just a vague impression. + Real

And

On 5/28/2024 at 3:25 AM, Aeoryi said:

ELIM: Araris (for sure)

Are not matching up for me.

Oh but later down you do have more elim points for Araris, it just does NOT match up nicely to me and I dislike that

 

Spoiler

 

 

EDIT

4 minutes ago, Aeternum said:

I'm assuming I read your posts and decided "not a today problem", despite the slight ping.

you seemed to village-read me enough to say this to aeoryi:

On 5/28/2024 at 12:48 AM, Aeternum said:

On 5/27/2024 at 11:48 PM, Aeoryi said:

What if I don't townread Stick

Why?

Stick's posting is ok enough for me to lightly townread for now

"not a today problem despite the slight ping" doesnt seem like the case here? that would amount to more of a null read, no?

[Aeternum they/them, he/him]

7 minutes ago, Stick. said:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

EDIT

you seemed to village-read me enough to say this to aeoryi:

"not a today problem despite the slight ping" doesnt seem like the case here? that would amount to more of a null read, no?

I'd put you in the catergory of slightly above null.

[Stick. she/her]

cadcom, kas, royalbee, stick --> villagers

mat, aeoryi --> maybe

araris, aet -- 

[CadCom he/him]

So first off, I am glad that my claim has been able to generate a decent amount of discussion. Part of me wished I had held off on releasing the information, to see if I could have gotten more information from that initial claim

From what I remember, it is very hard to consistently use play style as an indication of alignment, and I haven't played with any of you for so long, so I don't know where I would even start with that. So instead I'm going to rely on my wit and ability to decipher claims and information. 

I'm trying to remember all claims that have been publicly made so far.  I remember mine, and the one I kindof accidentally publised about Kas. 
 

Mat claimed LoL Day 1, but qualified that with a JK, so probably not serious
Theres chatter that royalbee claimed warder? Is that right? I must've missed that claim. 
Any other public claims that I missed? 

My kid just walked away with my phone to use it's flashlight, which had my rule doc on it, so I'm going to cut my analysis off there for now. When I either regain possession of my phone or bother to open up a new tab, I might come back.

[Aeternum they/them, he/him]

Kas claimed Amirlyn I think?

[Stick. she/her]

yea, kas claimed Amyrlin Seat (also is the only way he couldve vote manipped with water weaves being blocked) and royalbee claimed Warder (their linked aes sedai is unknown rn)

[CadCom he/him]

Alright so, if out of 9, there's most likely 7 good guys.
Out of 8 remaining, there's six. 

This analysis relies heavily on other peoples analysis, and not my own for initial claims, after that I will build on it, but feel free to questions everything

Cadcom, Kas, and RBM have claimed specific good guy roles or actions or been tentatively cleared as such.  RBM needs another Aes Sedai with them, who they already know. This means a possibility of a 4th. Can the Amerlyn have a warder?  I imagine they could. That could be RBM's Aes Sedai. If not, then it is either me, or a 4th. (I'm not claiming my role) 

That leaves Aeo, Aet, Stick, mat, Araris. (One of which could be RBM's aes sedai)

Most likely two of which are bad guys. I don't have time now, but hopefully tonight, or if not, tomorrow (if I survive) I'll Do a big in-depth analysis of these 5. 

Sorry if some of you had already reached this conclusion and I'm not adding much for you. This was mostly for me to process what I know. 

[Aeternum they/them, he/him]

I'm RBM's Aes Sedai. Might as well claim since everyone else is.

[Stick. she/her]

so no forsaken in the game. was kinda leaning towards that anyway

 

think the claim looks good for royalbee, not sure if it says anything about aeternum's alignment? mechanically speaking

 

EDIT

wait brainfart lol forsaken can have warders

[Aeoryi she/her]

1 hour ago, Stick. said:

u forgot to answer this question 

They've played in the game I hosted with Raindrops and Neil on MU, but other than that, nothing I know of.

 

[RoyalBeeMage he/him]

5 hours ago, Aeternum said:

Kas/Aeo either very paired or very unpaired, and I can't decide.

I want to say unpaired as one moment kas was annoyed with aeo the next he was trying to link with them 

 

27 minutes ago, Stick. said:

so no forsaken in the game. was kinda leaning towards that anyway

 

think the claim looks good for royalbee, not sure if it says anything about aeternum's alignment? mechanically speaking

 

EDIT

wait brainfart lol forsaken can have warders

yeah that last bit crossed my mind a few times. Mechanically speaking there is nothing in the rules that says only good guys get warders