Re: TWG XXXV - Knick It In The Bud
I didn't elaborate on Blah's playing dumb with me because part of what he was playing dumb about was me doubling checking some points of my idea with him. I pointed out the following situation to him, and he claimed to not have realized it.
Lets say there are 12 players alive in this mock situation. Cypher PMs coordinated guards to the players split guarding 3 of them. If the 3 players to be guarded are public knowledge, let them be A, B, and C, and the wolves are X, Y and C, then a very scary situation could arise. Let's say wolves X, Y and C get the names A, A, and B for their three people they are "supposed" to guard. Now the wolves know that out of the 12 players, 4 are going to be guarding C (a wolf) and that none of them are those 4. So X, Y, and C all guard C, instead of who they are supposed to guard (A A B, respectively). This puts 7 votes to guard C out of the total 12 votes, i.e. almost a 60% chance that C is guarded. Of course this gives the wolves a fair shot at wolfing, and guarding, their fellow wolf.
This is the situation that I explained to blah a few [real] nights ago. I'm sure I'll catch some more flak for beating this point into the ground but I'm terribly sorry there are so many of you that this needs to be spelled out for. The reason I voted blah is because he "played dumb" quite well while I was explaining this to him. At least that's the blatant impression I got. Here's a bit of the convo if it helps:
StoicRoivaS: yeah, but then it introduces the problem i've already noted, namely that the wolves may get lucky and actually guard one of their own against their wolfing
StoicRoivaS: say the 3 people are named on the forum, or are fairly easily assumed, you tass and ap, as an example
StoicRoivaS: the 3 wolves get your name to guard, but one of the wolves happens to be ap, they all guard him over you, and wolf him, that leaves them a fairly decent chance at a guarded wolf
StoicRoivaS: yeah, it saves our better players, but it still doesn't protect the team from leading itself into a trap
mastr414: its a 30 % chance of success
mastr414: no one woudl do it for 30 %
mastr414: not worth it
StoicRoivaS: after tonights wolfing, there are 13 left?, 16 sans talisman, Tps, and person X?
StoicRoivaS: so say 4 land on tass, 4 and you and 5 on ap, they swing 3 votes from you to ap, giving them 8/13, that's a hefty percentage
StoicRoivaS: 4 on* you
StoicRoivaS: that's worst case of course, but it's still a case to consider
mastr414: ohhhh
mastr414: wow
mastr414: I see what you mean
mastr414: and I never thought of that
StoicRoivaS: yeah, it could be really ugly
mastr414: I onyl thoguht assume 3 wolves all get the same name
mastr414: by happenstance
mastr414: and I worked out those odds
mastr414: I see what youre' saying though
mastr414: damn
mastr414: you're completely right
So that's my reasoning for voting blah.
Sorry for trying to help the team
I'll stop...
I didn't elaborate on Blah's playing dumb with me because part of what he was playing dumb about was me doubling checking some points of my idea with him. I pointed out the following situation to him, and he claimed to not have realized it.
Lets say there are 12 players alive in this mock situation. Cypher PMs coordinated guards to the players split guarding 3 of them. If the 3 players to be guarded are public knowledge, let them be A, B, and C, and the wolves are X, Y and C, then a very scary situation could arise. Let's say wolves X, Y and C get the names A, A, and B for their three people they are "supposed" to guard. Now the wolves know that out of the 12 players, 4 are going to be guarding C (a wolf) and that none of them are those 4. So X, Y, and C all guard C, instead of who they are supposed to guard (A A B, respectively). This puts 7 votes to guard C out of the total 12 votes, i.e. almost a 60% chance that C is guarded. Of course this gives the wolves a fair shot at wolfing, and guarding, their fellow wolf.
This is the situation that I explained to blah a few [real] nights ago. I'm sure I'll catch some more flak for beating this point into the ground but I'm terribly sorry there are so many of you that this needs to be spelled out for. The reason I voted blah is because he "played dumb" quite well while I was explaining this to him. At least that's the blatant impression I got. Here's a bit of the convo if it helps:
StoicRoivaS: yeah, but then it introduces the problem i've already noted, namely that the wolves may get lucky and actually guard one of their own against their wolfing
StoicRoivaS: say the 3 people are named on the forum, or are fairly easily assumed, you tass and ap, as an example
StoicRoivaS: the 3 wolves get your name to guard, but one of the wolves happens to be ap, they all guard him over you, and wolf him, that leaves them a fairly decent chance at a guarded wolf
StoicRoivaS: yeah, it saves our better players, but it still doesn't protect the team from leading itself into a trap
mastr414: its a 30 % chance of success
mastr414: no one woudl do it for 30 %
mastr414: not worth it
StoicRoivaS: after tonights wolfing, there are 13 left?, 16 sans talisman, Tps, and person X?
StoicRoivaS: so say 4 land on tass, 4 and you and 5 on ap, they swing 3 votes from you to ap, giving them 8/13, that's a hefty percentage
StoicRoivaS: 4 on* you
StoicRoivaS: that's worst case of course, but it's still a case to consider
mastr414: ohhhh
mastr414: wow
mastr414: I see what you mean
mastr414: and I never thought of that
StoicRoivaS: yeah, it could be really ugly
mastr414: I onyl thoguht assume 3 wolves all get the same name
mastr414: by happenstance
mastr414: and I worked out those odds
mastr414: I see what youre' saying though
mastr414: damn
mastr414: you're completely right
So that's my reasoning for voting blah.
Sorry for trying to help the team
I'll stop...
Comment