The Resistance "WW" Official Game Thread

[Mad Jack]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Just some thoughts on possible future games and balance. If there were two sabotages required on missions 2 and 3, it would work a bit better with a group of players this large, as then you could use the initial group (which had 1 sabotage) and then add one person to it in the case of a single sabotage, or blacklist the whole group in the case of a double or triple sabotage. You're probably going to fail mission 1, but you'll get an idea of how many spies were in the group. If you had one spy, like we just ended up with, you'd just keep the whole initial group and select one random player to add on mission 2. This person would have less than a 50% chance of being a spy. If the new person you add is a spy a spy, you'd be one mission away from losing, but if they were not, the game would be tied. You'd also have outed a spy in the case of a second sabotage, leaving eliminating a player from future selection for missions. I'm working the math out on paper and it looks a bit more balanced, so long as the missions are 5 players/1 fail, 6 players/2 fails, 7 players/2 fails (have to increase the number of people on mission to ensure the rebels don't automatically win) 6 players/1 fail (start pruning spies) 5 players/1 fail (final chance to prune list) or something similar. Round 1 would be mostly chance, but you'd get a good feel for how many spies were in the initial group. Mission 2 is where you'd have to decide to keep your initial group and add one (in the case of a vote via single failure) or select a whole new group, or mix it up with a new group and the old group. Mission 3, is more of the same. Missions 4 and 5 you'd have to actually use process of elimination to figure out who was and was not a spy and hope to god you don't screw up the process. Best way I could come up with using about ten minutes and the back of an old envelope, I'm sure there's a problem or two I overlooked.

 

[Cyndia]

Meh, that sucks about the last one failing, but I agree a mixed group is the way to go for the next round. I don't really have any substantial feels on anyone but glad you're choosing to use me again 👍

 

[Mad Jack]

Anyway, I'm legit. I would encourage you to send me on the mission.

 

[Escalla]

Just some thoughts on possible future games and balance. If there were two sabotages required on missions 2 and 3, it would work a bit better with a group of players this large, as then you could use the initial group (which had 1 sabotage) and then add one person to it in the case of a single sabotage, or blacklist the whole group in the case of a double or triple sabotage. You're probably going to fail mission 1, but you'll get an idea of how many spies were in the group. If you had one spy, like we just ended up with, you'd just keep the whole initial group and select one random player to add on mission 2. This person would have less than a 50% chance of being a spy. If the new person you add is a spy a spy, you'd be one mission away from losing, but if they were not, the game would be tied. You'd also have outed a spy in the case of a second sabotage, leaving eliminating a player from future selection for missions. I'm working the math out on paper and it looks a bit more balanced, so long as the missions are 5 players/1 fail, 6 players/2 fails, 7 players/2 fails (have to increase the number of people on mission to ensure the rebels don't automatically win) 6 players/1 fail (start pruning spies) 5 players/1 fail (final chance to prune list) or something similar. Round 1 would be mostly chance, but you'd get a good feel for how many spies were in the initial group. Mission 2 is where you'd have to decide to keep your initial group and add one (in the case of a vote via single failure) or select a whole new group, or mix it up with a new group and the old group. Mission 3, is more of the same. Missions 4 and 5 you'd have to actually use process of elimination to figure out who was and was not a spy and hope to god you don't screw up the process. Best way I could come up with using about ten minutes and the back of an old envelope, I'm sure there's a problem or two I
overlooked.

I think you need to be more concise. Or break this up more. I'm in a brutally honest mood.

tl;dr

 

[thedrjojo]

Just some thoughts on possible future games and balance. If there were two sabotages required on missions 2 and 3, it would work a bit better with a group of players this large, as then you could use the initial group (which had 1 sabotage) and then add one person to it in the case of a single sabotage, or blacklist the whole group in the case of a double or triple sabotage. You're probably going to fail mission 1, but you'll get an idea of how many spies were in the group. If you had one spy, like we just ended up with, you'd just keep the whole initial group and select one random player to add on mission 2. This person would have less than a 50% chance of being a spy. If the new person you add is a spy a spy, you'd be one mission away from losing, but if they were not, the game would be tied. You'd also have outed a spy in the case of a second sabotage, leaving eliminating a player from future selection for missions. I'm working the math out on paper and it looks a bit more balanced, so long as the missions are 5 players/1 fail, 6 players/2 fails, 7 players/2 fails (have to increase the number of people on mission to ensure the rebels don't automatically win) 6 players/1 fail (start pruning spies) 5 players/1 fail (final chance to prune list) or something similar. Round 1 would be mostly chance, but you'd get a good feel for how many spies were in the initial group. Mission 2 is where you'd have to decide to keep your initial group and add one (in the case of a vote via single failure) or select a whole new group, or mix it up with a new group and the old group. Mission 3, is more of the same. Missions 4 and 5 you'd have to actually use process of elimination to figure out who was and was not a spy and hope to god you don't screw up the process. Best way I could come up with using about ten minutes and the back of an old envelope, I'm sure there's a problem or two I overlooked.

you get a spy voting to succeed round one, then fail round two, you have incorrectly eliminated the wrong person...

 

[thedrjojo]

No, I'm not playing that card....and I haven't the two times I've been a wolf without you. Actually, the only time I did is when you were setting me up in Survive Alive. Hills to die on and all that.

You don't have to. I just thought you might be able to read me better than anyone else in this game and I don't like that principle.

just gotta give you a hard time 😉

 

[WildZoo]

you get a spy voting to succeed round one, then fail round two, you have incorrectly eliminated the wrong person...

I was going to say that too. It's risky for a spy to vote to succeed round one, but it could happen.
It could even be (though it's unlikely) that in this game there were two spies in group 1, and one voted to succeed and the other voted to fail. The probability is probably low on that, but I'm not a math person.

 

[Mad Jack]

I think you need to be more concise. Or break this up more. I'm in a brutally honest mood.

tl;dr

Fine. Mission 1: 5 people, 1 fail. Mission 2: 6 people, 2 fails. Mission 3: 7 people, 1 fails. Mission 4: 6 people, 1 fails. Mission 5: 5 people, 1 fails. It works better because it does. It probably isn't perfect.

 

[Mad Jack]

Fine. Mission 1: 5 people, 1 fail. Mission 2: 6 people, 2 fails. Mission 3: 7 people, 1 fails. Mission 4: 6 people, 1 fails. Mission 5: 5 people, 1 fails. It works better because it does. It probably isn't perfect.
View attachment 179860

Make that 7 people, 2 fails on Mission 3.

 

[Cracker.Jack.]

I'm thinking there were two spies. If 1/3 of the resistance are spies, what are the odds that only one in five picked last round is a spy? Doesn't seem likely to me...

 

[thedrjojo]

Fine. Mission 1: 5 people, 1 fail. Mission 2: 6 people, 2 fails. Mission 3: 7 people, 1 fails. Mission 4: 6 people, 1 fails. Mission 5: 5 people, 1 fails. It works better because it does. It probably isn't perfect.
View attachment 179860

you are underthinking/over thinking it.

The game was designed by people much smarter than us (maybe) with much more thought. it was designed for 5-10 people, and between 2-4 spies. First round always had 2-3 people on the mission and needed only 1 fail, which then increases to 3-4, and the most ever needed is 5. If you look at the probabilities, it was damn near 100% that there would have been at least 1 spy with 16 people and 5 spies, let alone if there are 6 spies. But even with 5 players and picking 2 with 2 spies, the odds are very much in favor of a round 1 failure... we don't lose the game in round 1, or even round 2... we just don't. but we really get in a bad spot if we don't succeed here. If we do succeed here, we have a core group to carry on for next round.

 

[Flim Flam Man]

well, looks like I picked incorrectly 🙁

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm thinking there were two spies. If 1/3 of the resistance are spies, what are the odds that only one in five picked last round is a spy? Doesn't seem likely to me...

We've got about 31/69 mix of spies in the whole game. A group of 2 spies and 3 rebels is a 40/60 mix, which is more likely, but not a whole lot more likely, than a 20/80 mix.

 

[thedrjojo]

I'm thinking there were two spies. If 1/3 of the resistance are spies, what are the odds that only one in five picked last round is a spy? Doesn't seem likely to me...

Before the results, I would have agreed with you that the highest probability was between 1 to 2 spies (if we are looking at 33% of people being spies, then 1 spy would be a 20% rate, 2 spies is 40%, and 3 spies is 60%). Looking at the variance for a 16 person game, you would expect 1-3 would be by random chance, and 0, 4, or 5 would be "statistically" significant and raise flags.... Given that only 1 person thwarted the mission, the best bet really was that there is only 1 spy in that group. That being said, I am leaning towards selecting 2 from that group and 4 from the other... why? because I have the advantage of knowing 1 of my selections (myself) is resistance, which means I need to be right on 3 of 10, and 2 of 5. And from Cyndia's response round 1, I think i trust her, and I do trust escalla. I'm going to role the dice with Wolfspeaker, so its down to what 2 of 9 I'm going to select, where those 9 very well could have 4 spies, so I'm still selecting a high probablity, but I am comfortable with that. I don't trust FFM for not selecting himself. To me, it's not a question at all to include myself... He could argue my line of thinking from round one, but . So its 2 of 8...

 

[thedrjojo]

We've got about 31/69 mix of spies in the whole game. A group of 2 spies and 3 rebels is a 40/60 mix, which is more likely, but not a whole lot more likely, than a 20/80 mix.

if its 6 spies, then its 37.5/62.5...

 

[Lissarae06]

I didn't get to send my PM...

 

[allieh8607]

I don't like all this math crap

I am ready to report for a mission though...

 

[Escalla]

I don't trust FFM for not selecting himself. To me, it's not a question at all to include myself... He could argue my line of thinking from round one, but . So its 2 of 8...

I was just wondering that...

I think it's a good point.

 

[thedrjojo]

btw, this is why people hate playing games with me IRL 😉

total nerdgasm of stats going on in my head...

and total awesomeness that you guys got me as a leader in this round!

 

[Cracker.Jack.]

wow @thedrjojo. nice to have a stats major on board!

 

[Mad Jack]

if its 6 spies, then its 37.5/62.5...

Figured 5 was closer to a third than 6. If its six, it's game over man, game over!

 

[thedrjojo]

God, this is still harder than i thought to picking 2 out of:
Devyn, Dyachei, Hedgie, Allieh, WildZoo, Sayabear, 98 Cats, Cracker Jack....

Rojo
Escalla
Devyn
Cyndia
Wolfspeaker
Hedgiehog

Make it happen people!

 

[thedrjojo]

Approve

 

[Escalla]

***approve***

 

[hedgiehog]

approve

 

[Cyndia]

Approve

 

[dyachei]

approve!

 

[allieh8607]

approve

 

[Cracker.Jack.]

***reject***
I think wolfspeaker is a spy.

 

[Flim Flam Man]

approve

 

[Escalla]

***reject***
I think wolfspeaker is a spy.

Want to explain more?

 

[thedrjojo]

***reject***
I think wolfspeaker is a spy.

i posted that I was going to go with WS prior to picking her, AND you responded between then and when I posted it up. If you had suspicions of it, why not voice it then before I posted it up officially?

There was a reason I revealed who I was selecting prior to selecting it from the group from last night, and why i didn't select STL (because everyone was suspicious)...

 

[Lissarae06]

I disagree about WS. After what she said about chillbo not waiting for her PM I believe she is resistance because the same thing happened to me.

 

[Cracker.Jack.]

I just put everything down on paper and from first round, I think either wolfspeaker or STL was the spy. Wolfspeaker just seems to be flying under the radar a bit. Maybe I'm paranoid, just thought I'd throw it out there though. Majority still rules anyway.

 

[StartingoverVet]

***********************
This is an interesting logic puzzle.
Therefore I am happy I am not playing.
I don't want to think.
************************

 

[StartingoverVet]

******************
FWIW, I think if you add more people to the game, you need more rounds to give you a chance to work out the logic.
I could be wrong… just my mathematical intuition reading through a game I have never heard of.

I would be shocked if the rebels win this. I just don't see how they can get enough information to even make educated guesses

*********************

 

[StartingoverVet]

******************
Out of curiosity, can someone explain LIS' role in this?
Is he just here for chuckles?

********************

 

[thedrjojo]

******************
Out of curiosity, can someone explain LIS' role in this?
Is he just here for chuckles?

********************

Yup... I don't think he is actually part of the game... Npc

 

[WildZoo]

********approve*********
All that math (plus the biochemistry exam I just took) hurts my head but I'll trust Jojo's judgment on this. Like Lissa already said, if Chillbo didn't wait for WS's PM its almost certain she's a rebel. Maybe he's trying to help us out with eliminating people from suspicion 😛

 

[Chillbo Baggins]

Official Vote Tally

Approve 8 (Rojo, Escalla, hedgie, Cyndia, dyachei, allie, FFM, WZ)
Reject 1 (CJ)

8/16 votes cast

I'm gonna be unavailable for a few hours, so hopefully everybody will check in by then!

 

[98cats]

approve!

 

[devyn]

Approve

 

[LetItSnow]

you are underthinking/over thinking it.

At least he's thinking. 😉

******************
Out of curiosity, can someone explain LIS' role in this?
********************

I have no role. I just decided to abuse the fact that I was listed as El Presidente in the write-up and not bother with stars. It seemed to fit the self-nominated dictatorial flare that I've been accused of.

But Rojo, you totes should have picked me.

 

[WildZoo]

I was reading the wikipedia page for the game, and there's two charts on there, one for number of resistance members and spies, and the other for number of players per mission. Just a question for the math people - the charts include numbers for 8 player games. Would it have made sense to just double those numbers for this game? It's clearly not what Chillbo decided to do, since Mission 1 only had 5 people, but I was just wondering.
Note that for the starred missions, two fail votes are required for the mission to fail.

 

[thedrjojo]

I was reading the wikipedia page for the game, and there's two charts on there, one for number of resistance members and spies, and the other for number of players per mission. Just a question for the math people - the charts include numbers for 8 player games. Would it have made sense to just double those numbers for this game? It's clearly not what Chillbo decided to do, since Mission 1 only had 5 people, but I was just wondering.
Note that for the starred missions, two fail votes are required for the mission to fail.
View attachment 179871 View attachment 179872

Hence why I've said what I've said

 

[thedrjojo]

At least he's thinking. 😉



I have no role. I just decided to abuse the fact that I was listed as El Presidente in the write-up and not bother with stars. It seemed to fit the self-nominated dictatorial flare that I've been accused of.

But Rojo, you totes should have picked me.

Next time

 

[wolfspeaker]

I Approve

I'm going to have to put this all down on paper when I get home later. Probably drunk. It's gonna be fun! 😀

 

[sayabear3]

Wow, I think I am too tired to comprehend all of what is going on here right now. I approve, hopefully we get em this time!

 

[Mad Jack]

Approve.

 

[SummerTheLynx]

So I have been gone all day at work. Did not submit a pm. Not a spy... But not that big a deal, I don't see any reason why this group should not be approved so ********approve********