[Alkend]

D, on 23 November 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Okaros, on 23 November 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

Well that was a bust

Great success, imho. We eliminated the one player everyone wanted gone.

Now we're basically back to being Day 1, without the extra level of uncertainty introduced by a thir party. We can look @ the Day 1 votes to infer leaders, but now it's even less likely we'd get a consensus for a lynch.

At the same time, it's not impossible since each non-leader has a 5/8 chance to vote for opposing team. For leaders, the chances are slightly worse- 5/9.

I'll see if I can spot anything later.

Great success but now even less likely to reach lynch consensus? How do you reconcile those two things?

The Survivor was really the element of chaos that the game needed (as Nom aptly demonstrated!) Now things might be even cagier.

My team fulfilled one of the the conditions, without taking any losses- how is that NOT a good result?

Am I particularly happy that this game (like most merc games) will b decided by NAS, rather than by voting? Not really, but it doesn't particularly surprise me either.

[D'riss]

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

D, on 23 November 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Okaros, on 23 November 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

Well that was a bust

Great success, imho. We eliminated the one player everyone wanted gone.

Now we're basically back to being Day 1, without the extra level of uncertainty introduced by a thir party. We can look @ the Day 1 votes to infer leaders, but now it's even less likely we'd get a consensus for a lynch.

At the same time, it's not impossible since each non-leader has a 5/8 chance to vote for opposing team. For leaders, the chances are slightly worse- 5/9.

I'll see if I can spot anything later.

Great success but now even less likely to reach lynch consensus? How do you reconcile those two things?

The Survivor was really the element of chaos that the game needed (as Nom aptly demonstrated!) Now things might be even cagier.

My team fulfilled one of the the conditions, without taking any losses- how is that NOT a good result?

Am I particularly happy that this game (like most merc games) will b decided by NAS, rather than by voting? Not really, but it doesn't particularly surprise me either.

Did they now? Because I don't see no 'eliminate the Survivor' VC in the OP.

[Alkend]

D, on 23 November 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

D, on 23 November 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Okaros, on 23 November 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

Well that was a bust

Great success, imho. We eliminated the one player everyone wanted gone.

Now we're basically back to being Day 1, without the extra level of uncertainty introduced by a thir party. We can look @ the Day 1 votes to infer leaders, but now it's even less likely we'd get a consensus for a lynch.

At the same time, it's not impossible since each non-leader has a 5/8 chance to vote for opposing team. For leaders, the chances are slightly worse- 5/9.

I'll see if I can spot anything later.

Great success but now even less likely to reach lynch consensus? How do you reconcile those two things?

The Survivor was really the element of chaos that the game needed (as Nom aptly demonstrated!) Now things might be even cagier.

My team fulfilled one of the the conditions, without taking any losses- how is that NOT a good result?

Am I particularly happy that this game (like most merc games) will b decided by NAS, rather than by voting? Not really, but it doesn't particularly surprise me either.

Did they now? Because I don't see no 'eliminate the Survivor' VC in the OP.

VC is "be the last faction standing". So I guess it hinges on whether you consider the Survivor a "faction".

Personally, since the intro scene has us trying to hunt down the Survivor, I made the fairly obvious assumption that doing what we came to the freezing Siberian hellhole to do is a good thing. Good luck convincing anyone otherwise

[D'riss]

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 06:58 PM, said:

D, on 23 November 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

D, on 23 November 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

Okaros, on 23 November 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

Well that was a bust

Great success, imho. We eliminated the one player everyone wanted gone.

Now we're basically back to being Day 1, without the extra level of uncertainty introduced by a thir party. We can look @ the Day 1 votes to infer leaders, but now it's even less likely we'd get a consensus for a lynch.

At the same time, it's not impossible since each non-leader has a 5/8 chance to vote for opposing team. For leaders, the chances are slightly worse- 5/9.

I'll see if I can spot anything later.

Great success but now even less likely to reach lynch consensus? How do you reconcile those two things?

The Survivor was really the element of chaos that the game needed (as Nom aptly demonstrated!) Now things might be even cagier.

My team fulfilled one of the the conditions, without taking any losses- how is that NOT a good result?

Am I particularly happy that this game (like most merc games) will b decided by NAS, rather than by voting? Not really, but it doesn't particularly surprise me either.

Did they now? Because I don't see no 'eliminate the Survivor' VC in the OP.

VC is "be the last faction standing". So I guess it hinges on whether you consider the Survivor a "faction".

Personally, since the intro scene has us trying to hunt down the Survivor, I made the fairly obvious assumption that doing what we came to the freezing Siberian hellhole to do is a good thing. Good luck convincing anyone otherwise

Ok sure. First, we're not in Siberia in the scene Second and more relevantly, the VC states be the last faction standing. As I'm sure you well know, Survivor is an independent role, not a faction, and factions can win whether they're alive or not. Survivor's roles tend to be about, you know, surviving, rather than anything offensive. So no, I would not categorise last night as a huge success for either faction. So I remain confused as to why you are so keen to celebrate that result.

[Trake]

Gamelon, on 23 November 2016 - 06:21 PM, said:

I don't mean your vote againt Alkend but against Tulas. The case against him was based on signalling to, yet you went with it.

For the lynch. He wasn't signalling me which some people thought he was. He said enough to make me think he was not on my team or a team player

[Iparth Erule]

Well, the survivor was a handy unaligned player who would have been useful for moving along balky lynch trains. But at least my pal Iron Man still lives.

[Pallid]

Alkend, on 23 November 2016 - 06:58 PM, said:

Personally, since the intro scene has us trying to hunt down the Survivor, I made the fairly obvious assumption that doing what we came to the freezing Siberian hellhole to do is a good thing. Good luck convincing anyone otherwise

Only one team is here to hunt Zemo. The other is here hunting the first team.

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 2. The clock has been frozen with 23 Hours and 18 Minutes remaining.

10 Players still alive: Alkend, Anthras, D'riss, Gamelon, Iparth Erule, Kaschan, Okaros, Pallid, Sorrit, Trake

6 votes to lynch, 5 votes to go to night.


Players not voted: Alkend, Anthras, D'riss, Gamelon, Iparth Erule, Kaschan, Okaros, Pallid, Sorrit, Trake

[Anthras]

Beyond the fact that it was an Indy I have no idea what lynching TS means to all you (slightly more) geeky folks (than me) - does anyone consider that beyond the loss of an unaligned vote there were any downsides to the lynch?

With bow bloke causing no NAs we are now back at effectively Day 1 with two equal factions.

I'm curious as to whether Alkend (or anyone else) thinks the case was worth the lynch or if there was deflection from Trake or Alkend there. Trake continues to be obscure:

Trake, on 23 November 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

Nom has entered the clearing at the end of the path

If that's a thematic reference please explain for those of us who have no idea.

I'm going to try and catch up but since weekend freeze has started I don't feel in any particular hurry

[Trake]

Anthras, on 24 November 2016 - 07:38 AM, said:

Beyond the fact that it was an Indy I have no idea what lynching TS means to all you (slightly more) geeky folks (than me) - does anyone consider that beyond the loss of an unaligned vote there were any downsides to the lynch?

With bow bloke causing no NAs we are now back at effectively Day 1 with two equal factions.

I'm curious as to whether Alkend (or anyone else) thinks the case was worth the lynch or if there was deflection from Trake or Alkend there. Trake continues to be obscure:

Trake, on 23 November 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

Nom has entered the clearing at the end of the path

If that's a thematic reference please explain for those of us who have no idea.

I'm going to try and catch up but since weekend freeze has started I don't feel in any particular hurry

I am reading the Dark Tower series, and this is what is said when a character dies.

With regards to Zemo, in the film Captain America and the Winter Knight are trying to stop him from releasing more super humans that are like the Winter Knight only without any conscience.

Iron Man and Co want to stop the Winter Knight as he has been set up by Zemo.

Little do they both know that Zemo's goal is for Iron Man and Captain America to kill each other. As he reveals to them both that the Winter Knight killed Iron Man's parents. the Winter Knight has turned good and Captain America will protect him at all costs.

[Path-Shaper]

Trake, on 24 November 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

I am reading the Dark Tower series, and this is what is said when a character dies.

With regards to Zemo, in the film Captain America and the Winter Knight are trying to stop him from releasing more super humans that are like the Winter Knight only without any conscience.

Iron Man and Co want to stop the Winter Knight as he has been set up by Zemo.

Little do they both know that Zemo's goal is for Iron Man and Captain America to kill each other. As he reveals to them both that the Winter Knight killed Iron Man's parents. the Winter Knight has turned good and Captain America will protect him at all costs.

All true, except he's called the Winter Soldier!

[Trake]

Harry Dresden creeping up on me

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 2. 23 hours and 18 minutes remaining

10 Players still alive: Alkend, Anthras, D'riss, Gamelon, Iparth Erule, Kaschan, Okaros, Pallid, Sorrit, Trake

6 votes to lynch, 5 votes to go to night.


Players not voted: Alkend, Anthras, D'riss, Gamelon, Iparth Erule, Kaschan, Okaros, Pallid, Sorrit, Trake

[Pallid]

We unfrozen yet?

[Alkend]

Pallid, on 28 November 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

We unfrozen yet?

Unless Cyber Monday is also a holiday, we should be.

[Sorrit]

assuming the p-s update was official unfreezing of timer... it has been a long holiday weekend for me... still catching up. although it looks like nothing happened during the freeze

[Vengeance]

Pallid, on 28 November 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

We unfrozen yet?

Yes

[Kaschan]

Well don't everyone rejoin at once...

[Vengeance]

Kaschan, on 28 November 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

Well don't everyone rejoin at once...

You can add content yourself rather then waiting for everyone else to do so.

[D'riss]

Vengeance, on 28 November 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

Kaschan, on 28 November 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

Well don't everyone rejoin at once...

You can add content yourself rather then waiting for everyone else to do so.

Buuuurrrrrnnnn!