Long Game 20: Warcamp Enigmas

[Elbereth she/her]

Unless you declare an heir, then swap your heir that night, so the GB think they know where your items are going...

  Point.

Tbh, I think you're all jumping on this Heir thing too much.

 

Like, to me, you're all going 'Wow this is suspicious cause it won't take one of your night actions' but to the eliminators (and I think DC said this already) it's more of a 'Well killing him is kinda weird, as we know he has a heir' (and that is if he even has items!)

 

So yeah, one of the people that so far have said it is sus is probably evil.

  

I don't think it's actually suspicious. There's not really much reason for an eliminator to do it in thread either (except to gain trust from whomever is heired, while actually heiring someone else, kind of like Macen pointed out). I just don't know that it's all that valuable of a choice

I was more interested in why you'd be needing a T1A slot free, but no mind now it seems.

T1A slots can be used for other things than the attack items. Artifabrians/Thieves/Spies can put their actions in there. So it's not necessarily for something damaging.

  

I'm not sure if it's Alv doing it (though it could be), but it definitely looks like the Shardblade wielder is taking out inactives. Which I can totally get behind. I'm more wary of whoever has the Grandbow. They're either going pure vigilante or they're a Ghostblood. HS seemed a little sketch to me last turn, but not enough to kill on Night 1. Maybe Night 2. Still, though, that hit doesn't really make sense for a Noble, so I'm actually thinking the Ghostbloods started with the Grandbow. Which is a little worrisome.

After thinking about this for a while, I'd tend to disagree. There's so much potential for Ghostbloods to get more items (including kill items) by killing people that one kill seems like plenty at the start. A grandbow seems much less likely, at least.

If I post anything more today (anything game relevant, anyway), I will have been bad and not doing what I should be doing (i.e. homework and lots of writing for various writeup/RP).

[Macen he/him]

Wilson, will you send me a PM? This worked last time, so...

[Master Elodin]

I see what you did there...

At least I hope you ... erm...

Yeah, that was intentional. Also, I think that people with Soulcasters should redirect a suspects killing/role/whatever it's called action to themselves so that if they're a Ghostblood they kill themselves. Unless you know that they are using a Painrial, which kind of clears them anyways. Edited April 26, 2016 by Master Elodin

[Kynedath]

Four outcomes

1. Eliminators waste a kill trying to kill him - Positive This is the only Negative situation. Which he has declared an heir for, so he mitigated the damage.
2. Eliminators attack someone else - Negative Positive. If he has items we don't want the eliminators to attack him. They are going to attack SOMEONE no matter what, so this can't be considered negative.
3. Eliminators attack someone else - Negative  Neutral - Worst case this is a failed ploy. As I said, the eliminators are going to kill SOMEONE, he was just trying to get them to waste an attack on him.
4. Eliminators waste a turn killing someone with little to no resources helpful to the village - Positive (from a utilitarian stance)

 

We therefore have a 50% chance of a good outcome. Unless we take into account the eliminators. This comes out to 2 positive situtations, 1 negative situation (which has built in mitigation) and one Neutral situation that effects the game 0%

Who is #1 negative for? The eliminators waste a kill on him because he can protect himself.

#2 and #3 are the exact same. Why did you put down one as positive and the other as neutral? Besides, we lose a player that way. The entire point of this is for less villagers to die.

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

Dang, so many posts already. Not a good time to go inactive.   Anyways, I've mostly read things up till now(skimmed the Night Turn, because it's a Night Turn), but I'd like to go over things a little more closely before placing a vote.

 

With regards to DC heiring, I think the fact that he did so so early doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, because it takes away even the threat of his vote, but I don't think it's that big of a deal really, since it's so early in the game, and making an Heir does make sense.

 

If I had been available earlier in the game, I probably would have mentioned my stance on kill roles killing early(which is that I'd rather they not kill this early), but oh well... Elbereth, are you saying you think it's more likely the Ghostbloods started with a Shardblade rather than a Grandbow? Because I would have to disagree with that. I believe it was Kas who mentioned earlier that it's a goal of the Ghostbloods to get a Shardblade, so along with the fact that the Shardblade killed an inactive and the Grandbow killed someone who's typically pretty active, my guess for a second Ghostblood kill would be the Grandbow, if one of them was a Ghostblood kill at all(which, isn't necessarily what happened here).

[Nyali she/her]

Alv has posted. Retracting vote. New inactive vote: Seonid. Can we have a post please? How do you feel about things?

[Elbereth she/her]

Elbereth, are you saying you think it's more likely the Ghostbloods started with a Shardblade rather than a Grandbow?

No, I'm saying that the eliminators didn't start with a kill item at all. Sorry if that was unclear.

[little wilson she/her]

No, I'm saying that the eliminators didn't start with a kill item at all. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

There are ways to balance a secondary kill even with the items gained from killing people... A significantly smaller team is the best way to do that. If they have another kill, they probably only have 4 players, which is an incredibly small team for a 28 player game, but again, with the bonus in items, it wouldn't be that bad. The counter to it on the village side would be a few more protection items than normal (and out of the 4 people killed so far, 2 of them had protection items, so that's looking possible right now), and a couple extra spies/emotion bracelet-users to check other players and see what actions they're using/how many items they have/what items they have. That's not something we have any indication for at this point, but the point is that it is possible for them to have started with an additional kill and that a vigilante Noble killing active players is a little less likely, in my opinion, than Maill making the game more interesting by giving the Ghostbloods an additional kill.

 

Wilson, will you send me a PM? This worked last time, so...

 

I'll see what I can do about that tonight.

[Master Elodin]

There are ways to balance a secondary kill even with the items gained from killing people... A significantly smaller team is the best way to do that. If they have another kill, they probably only have 4 players, which is an incredibly small team for a 28 player game, but again, with the bonus in items, it wouldn't be that bad. The counter to it on the village side would be a few more protection items than normal (and out of the 4 people killed so far, 2 of them had protection items, so that's looking possible right now), and a couple extra spies/emotion bracelet-users to check other players and see what actions they're using/how many items they have/what items they have. That's not something we have any indication for at this point, but the point is that it is possible for them to have started with an additional kill and that a vigilante Noble killing active players is a little less likely, in my opinion, than Maill making the game more interesting by giving the Ghostbloods an additional kill.

I'll see what I can do about that tonight.

I'm confused. If you can send PMs, why don't you send one to everyone? If you can't, why are you implying that you can? All this seems to be accomplishing is getting yourself killed and misinforming the village. Edited April 27, 2016 by Master Elodin

[little wilson she/her]

I'm confused. If you can send PMs, why don't you send one to everyone? If you can't, why are you implying that you can? All this seems to be accomplishing is getting yourself killed and misinforming the village.

 

I only barely got the chance to PM. Someone gave me a spanreed during the night. I can't activate it until tonight. And yes, I plan to PM everyone, not just Macen. I highly doubt the Ghostbloods will be very forthcoming with the Spanreed they got from Araris and if they have any other Spanreed, that's just less that we can use. We need comms up now. Not 2 cycles from now. And if the Ghostbloods try to kill me tonight....well. I'm willing to take that chance if it means we can get the village up and running.

 

Oh, and for any thieves wanting to steal from me again, good luck. It's a 1 cycle spanreed so go find someone else to rob. kthxbai.

 

Yes, yes, I know. I'm using a one-cycle spanreed to get comms up and running. It's the best I can do right now, unfortunately.

[Master Elodin]

I only barely got the chance to PM. Someone gave me a spanreed during the night. I can't activate it until tonight. And yes, I plan to PM everyone, not just Macen. I highly doubt the Ghostbloods will be very forthcoming with the Spanreed they got from Araris and if they have any other Spanreed, that's just less that we can use. We need comms up now. Not 2 cycles from now. And if the Ghostbloods try to kill me tonight....well. I'm willing to take that chance if it means we can get the village up and running.

 

Oh, and for any thieves wanting to steal from me again, good luck. It's a 1 cycle spanreed so go find someone else to rob. kthxbai.

 

Yes, yes, I know. I'm using a one-cycle spanreed to get comms up and running. It's the best I can do right now, unfortunately.

Ok, that makes more sense. Although, won't the one-cycle Spanreed only keep PMs up for one cycle?

[little wilson she/her]

Ok, that makes more sense. Although, won't the one-cycle Spanreed only keep PMs up for one cycle?

 

Correct. But one turn of communication is better than nothing, and nothing is what we have right now.

[yafeshan he/him]

this whole communication problem worries me. I am not that active in pm that's truth but this problem hurts people who is actually good at pm communication.

 

Why would nobles kill randomly? To get their items? That starting to sound more reasonable now if that;s the case.

[Elbereth she/her]

Yafeshan's post made me think of another possibility. A thief with a kill probably wouldn't be very hesitant to make N1 kills. Maybe?

Just a thought. Going to bed now. I'll give the idea credit if I think it still makes sense in the morning.

[yafeshan he/him]

Can thief have killer items from start?? Whats the point of being thief then.

 

Also whats the point of ghostbloods having shardblade from start, if they have it.

[Alvron he/him]

Can thief have killer items from start?? Whats the point of being thief then.

 

Also whats the point of ghostbloods having shardblade from start, if they have it.

They could given that once they use an item it disappears so it would only give one kill.

 

Wouldn't surprise me.  Everyone's thinking that they won't as it's part of their goals but Maill is fully capable of trolling us by doing so.  But like Wilson pointed out it would likely mean a smaller eliminator team.

[twelfthrootoftwo]

My thoughts:

 

DC's heir declaration: I can understand wanting to do this during the day but I don't think doing so early in the cycle is strategically sound as it removes any threat from DC's voice. DC doesn't usually participate in thread much, though, so I guess it's a win in that he got jumped on for it?

 

Kills: Three kill actions is unlikely for the GBs; two is definitely possible. I'm not aware of any trophy-hunting around HS, which means Phatt's inactivity is the most probable reason one of them was killed by the village. This is in line with the reasoning that the GBs wouldn't start with half of their bonus win condition.

 

Araris only made one post, in which he wanted to lynch D1 and called out LUNA and Kynedath. Nothing here jumps out at me as a reason for him to be killed. I haven't yet been over HS's posts to see if there was anything of interest.

[Kasimir he/him]

Thank you, DeathClutch.
 
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not too happy with the Heiring during the Day business because all it does is tell us that you really trust someone (as one would presumably hope that Heiring ought to be done to someone you have good reason to think is a Villager rather than a Ghostblood), and my views on the importance of voting are, by this point, made to redundancy. (I will acknowledge that one can make a good case for someone's likely guilt and not vote, but then that would be odd: why, after all, express such conviction in guilt yet not be willing to vote for it? There are circumstances under which that may be acceptably odd, but discussing these at the moment would cause me to deviate from the point of this post.)
 
1. Nyali: You've been flagging Seonid for a while; I thought you might like the reminder that my favourite person of the month Seonid has already mentioned he can't play until the 1st May. There is, of course, a bit of ambiguity in what he might have meant by 'not going to be active', but I think it is fair enough to assume that we won't see him in thread until then. I would hope that he be cut some slack since he mentioned this before the game began. (Admittedly, I also say this to be consistent since I should be studying for my final exam, and so any condemnation directed towards Seonid for giving in to akrasia and signing up should be rightfully borne by me as well since our situations are identical  )
 
2. El: Your comment about a thief with a kill is worth noting, but it relies upon the assumption that the Thief's win is also achieved if they can obtain items through killing (although perhaps you simply meant the weaker claim that a Thief with a kill item from the beginning would be pretty blasè about killing since it doesn't affect their win condition--except it somewhat does.) My guess (Maili, could we get confirmation on this please?) is that a Thief wins if and only if they can steal the required items. That means getting it through killing or being Heired items doesn't count, and neither can they find a friendly Artifabrian and just get them to create what they need over consecutive turns.
 
3. So, we know that we have at least one kill role (insofar as the Shardblader is likely on our side.) Here is my question: have any of us thought about turning the kill into a secondary lynch? Indicating in orange or some other colour who we think is suspicious and worthy of a Shardblade through the spine? It would increase what we have to discuss about, and to forestall objections that this would tell the GBs who to protect: A. not unless they have a half-shard, and B. we don't need to determine who the Shardblader kills. We just need to give them a list of likely suspects and let them decide. That way, they get the final say.
 
-
 
Oso ah, I was reading through the posts, one by one...and everytime I read Wilson's posts hor, I felt very uncomfortable de. Dunno why oso leh. My stomach growling, not feeling good, like want to diarrhoea liddat...I tink my gut says Wilson is evil leh. But dunno why hor. Cannot say. I neh say hor, it's my stomach say one, don't blame me ah, blame my stomach. Gut only, neh confirm plus chop. Or maybe the mee siam I ate for lunch...that one ah, very lan, very chou chou, maybe turn bad liao. Later I go toilet then come back and baotou to everyone whether my gut or the mee siam, ok? Can?
 

I'm here and I've caught up on the reading. I didn't really garner much information as of yet, need to re-read and analyse the posts a bit better, but as of right now my only suspect is Kas.

It's more based on gut feeling then any evidence at the moment. I'm going to analyze posts and see if I can figure out why I have that feeling.

Eh bro, this gut game chao fun to play siah, why you bojio?!

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

No, I'm saying that the eliminators didn't start with a kill item at all. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

Oh, sorry, I see what you meant now. Still don't necessarily agree though. I mean, I could understand maybe someone got a kill item and decided to go vigilante, but 2 players doing it on N1 seems a bit much to me. Maybe they're both villagers, but I'm leaning towards one of them being evil. My guess would be the Grandbow player, because I don't understand why they'd kill Hellscythe(phatt, I can almost understand, because he goes inactive sometimes, so it might have been an inactive kill, much like what Alv did in QF14...that killed 3 of my buddies... ), but Alv makes a good point that we shouldn't put it past Mailliw to have given the Ghostbloods a Shardblade.

 

this whole communication problem worries me. I am not that active in pm that's truth but this problem hurts people who is actually good at pm communication.

 

Why would nobles kill randomly? To get their items? That starting to sound more reasonable now if that;s the case.

 

Well Alv said he had a PM, so maybe whoever made that one can make some more with more players? Along with Wilson for 1 Cycle, maybe we can have some good communication this upcoming Night. (I'd like some PM's if you don't mind Wilson and mystery PM person! )

 

I don't think nobles killing for items is a good justification at this point in the game. Maybe once we know what the Ghostbloods have, so if we find someone with that item, we can kill them, but right now it's just a shot in the dark.

 

Yafeshan's post made me think of another possibility. A thief with a kill probably wouldn't be very hesitant to make N1 kills. Maybe?

Just a thought. Going to bed now. I'll give the idea credit if I think it still makes sense in the morning.

 

I think that could actually make some sense, but Kas brings up a good point about their win con, so I'd like to hear from Mailliw about this.

 

@Kas, about using kill role as a second lynch. We did do this in LG15b, but it wasn't terribly effective. Still, it may be a good idea just to gather more opinions from players, as well as test out the kill roles to see if they follow(loosely) what we suggest, which could give us more of an indication on their alignment. So I'm cool with this idea! I don't have any suggestions at this point though.

 

Hey SilverDragon, you haven't been very actively posting. Any thoughts on our current situation? Any suspects?

[Nyali she/her]

Fair point on Seonid, I forgot about that. Though, really, why join a game when you can't participate until the fourth day? =\ That's kinda a decent ways in. Ah well, I guess I'll hit the last name on my list before deciding on a real vote.

 

So, remove my vote for Seonid, and place instead a vote on Trelagist.

[Nyali she/her]

Oso ah, I was reading through the posts, one by one...and everytime I read Wilson's posts hor, I felt very uncomfortable de. Dunno why oso leh. My stomach growling, not feeling good, like want to diarrhoea liddat...I tink my gut says Wilson is evil leh. But dunno why hor. Cannot say. I neh say hor, it's my stomach say one, don't blame me ah, blame my stomach. Gut only, neh confirm plus chop. Or maybe the mee siam I ate for lunch...that one ah, very lan, very chou chou, maybe turn bad liao. Later I go toilet then come back and baotou to everyone whether my gut or the mee siam, ok? Can?

 

Eh bro, this gut game chao fun to play siah, why you bojio?!

 

Okay, I'm sorry, what?

[Elbereth she/her]

There are ways to balance a secondary kill even with the items gained from killing people... A significantly smaller team is the best way to do that. If they have another kill, they probably only have 4 players, which is an incredibly small team for a 28 player game, but again, with the bonus in items, it wouldn't be that bad. The counter to it on the village side would be a few more protection items than normal (and out of the 4 people killed so far, 2 of them had protection items, so that's looking possible right now), and a couple extra spies/emotion bracelet-users to check other players and see what actions they're using/how many items they have/what items they have. That's not something we have any indication for at this point, but the point is that it is possible for them to have started with an additional kill and that a vigilante Noble killing active players is a little less likely, in my opinion, than Maill making the game more interesting by giving the Ghostbloods an additional kill.

Okay. I can see how that could be balanced. Still seems unlikely to me, honestly, but I accept that it's possible.

 

Can thief have killer items from start?? Whats the point of being thief then.

 

Also whats the point of ghostbloods having shardblade from start, if they have it.

While (as others have said) the Ghostbloods could have a Shardblade from the start, there's also no reason they couldn't have a Grandbow for a second kill.

 

2. El: Your comment about a thief with a kill is worth noting, but it relies upon the assumption that the Thief's win is also achieved if they can obtain items through killing (although perhaps you simply meant the weaker claim that a Thief with a kill item from the beginning would be pretty blasè about killing since it doesn't affect their win condition--except it somewhat does.) My guess (Maili, could we get confirmation on this please?) is that a Thief wins if and only if they can steal the required items. That means getting it through killing or being Heired items doesn't count, and neither can they find a friendly Artifabrian and just get them to create what they need over consecutive turns.

My intention was the latter claim, yes. But recalling Mark's post about how a longer game benefits them, I can see how they would be hesitant to kill. I think it would depend upon how the thief viewed the role and how much they thought about it. Until now, I was viewing it just as a neutral role, which of course would have no hesitation about killing. But it's more nuanced than that, and killing isn't necessarily in the Thief's best interest. So while it's an interesting possibility, I don't think it's necessarily that probable. 

Hmm. Other question about the thief this brings up. Do items the thief receives to start count towards their win condition? If Kas is correct, then it follows that starting items wouldn't, either. Do thieves even start with items, actually?

Edited April 27, 2016 by Elbereth

[little wilson she/her]

Hmm. Other question about the thief this brings up. Do items the thief receives to start count towards their win condition? If Kas is correct, then it follows that starting items wouldn't, either. Do thieves even start with items, actually?

 

There's nothing stopping the thief from starting with items. The thief in LG5 started with a half-shard, but I don't think it counted toward his win con, because he didn't steal it. I talked to Maill about thief before the game started and I'd gotten the impression stealing was a critical component to their win con. It's not about heiring or having items given to them or getting items from kills. They have to steal it. It's what their role is based on, with the uncertainty about their actions. They only have guesses (well, unless you're an idiot who gets a Reverser publicly and then doesn't pass it   ).

 

Also, while the neutral aspect of their role doesn't make them likely to kill, it's still an important part. In LG5, the thief was a Noble, and even in that game he worked with the Ghostbloods a bit. There's literally nothing stopping the thief from playing both sides this time to gather information about items and know what to steal from who. It's in their best interests to do so.

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

Okay. I can see how that could be balanced. Still seems unlikely to me, honestly, but I accept that it's possible.

 

While (as others have said) the Ghostbloods could have a Shardblade from the start, there's also no reason they couldn't have a Grandbow for a second kill.

 

My intention was the latter claim, yes. But recalling Mark's post about how a longer game benefits them, I can see how they would be hesitant to kill. I think it would depend upon how the thief viewed the role and how much they thought about it. Until now, I was viewing it just as a neutral role, which of course would have no hesitation about killing. But it's more nuanced than that, and killing isn't necessarily in the Thief's best interest. So while it's an interesting possibility, I don't think it's necessarily that probable. 

Hmm. Other question about the thief this brings up. Do items the thief receives to start count towards their win condition? If Kas is correct, then it follows that starting items wouldn't, either. Do thieves even start with items, actually?

When I talked to Maill about this he said that items must be Stolen for it to count toward the win condition. So items recieved from kills would not be counted toward the thief win condition. However an easy way to get around this is killing someone getting an item, giving that item to someone then stealing it back

[Kasimir he/him]

Fair point on Seonid, I forgot about that. Though, really, why join a game when you can't participate until the fourth day? =\ That's kinda a decent ways in. Ah well, I guess I'll hit the last name on my list before deciding on a real vote.

Technically, that makes me even worse a sinner because I clear my exams even later than he does :/ It's true that it seems kinda pointless to join a game if you're only going to be semi-active or even completely inactive, and it sure means you don't have a moral leg to stand on when you lament other people's inactivity.

It happens. We make bad decisions, at times. He wanted to play with me and Wilson. I really wanted to play this game. Did our emotions override our better judgement? Maybe. Certainly, if we end up dying because of general lack of activity, we'll have brought it on ourselves. That, I at least, am more than happy to accept.

Why sign up? Because we both thought that we would have fun, even if we couldn't be there 100%, even if we ran the risk of dying. Isn't that, in the end, why anyone plays?