Posted December 30, 2019
supplementscene
New User
Registered: Nov 2015
From United Kingdom
ZFR
I love gold!
Registered: Jan 2010
From Ireland
Posted December 30, 2019
Gentlemen, am I wrong?
@mod
Could you please post the relevant quote from the Discord game? I don't have it.
Regarding meta, I'm against them mainly because of the name. Why call those strategies "meta" when they're clearly not meta.
That aside, I'm game for any strategy if it helps Liberals win. So if you want me to go for those "meta" (I'm going to use air quotes), then prove to me that they do help Liberals. So far I've seen false statements about them, for example:
In the later stage of the game, skipping till X or cycling through X, Y and Z becomes a valid strategy. But why do it from the get go? But I'm all ears if you can prove otherwise.
My bragging rights trio: Lift, RW, Micro.
Did I miss anything?
PookaMustard
モニカ。モニカだけ。
Registered: Jun 2013
From Other
Posted December 30, 2019
Lifthrasil
Bring the GOG-Downloader back!
Registered: Apr 2011
From Germany
Posted December 30, 2019
Wait. You want to vote NO to Joe because you think he is Liberal? ... Was that just an early slip? Or what do you have against a liberal Joe in a government? Not that he is a candidate at the moment, but still, that comment needs explanation.
supplementscene
New User
Registered: Nov 2015
From United Kingdom
Posted December 30, 2019
I really want Liberals to vote down gamerager. Not because of meta/strategy but because of the vehement opposition to
1. The meta/strategy - I can understand some players don't like it
2. The fact using it means gamerager gov might get skipped - is this suspicious
Now you can judge if you think I'm genuine about that or trying to vote down a liberal-liberal government. Both these players can be liberal.
Also I want to get to me faster and increase the chances of me playing - this is desirable regardless of alignment
JoeSapphire: I think ZFR was just making a joke about how there's very little to say at this stage of the game where activity is slow and not everybody's turned up yet, and microfish is just being funny.
Gentlemen, am I wrong?
ZFR: No, it's a reference to a Discord game we played.
@mod
Could you please post the relevant quote from the Discord game? I don't have it.
Regarding meta, I'm against them mainly because of the name. Why call those strategies "meta" when they're clearly not meta.
That aside, I'm game for any strategy if it helps Liberals win. So if you want me to go for those "meta" (I'm going to use air quotes), then prove to me that they do help Liberals. So far I've seen false statements about them, for example:
supplementscene: I've said this previously that if you don't use a Meta, there's a high change Hitler is in initial government in order to build up Liberal creditability. ZFR: Errr.... no.
In the later stage of the game, skipping till X or cycling through X, Y and Z becomes a valid strategy. But why do it from the get go? But I'm all ears if you can prove otherwise.
My bragging rights trio: Lift, RW, Micro.
Did I miss anything? The general point of it is to give fascists less free reign to either:
A) Get Hitler into play in the first 2 governments to make him credible. I've gone through this before, that fascist strategy would be to do just this
B) Stop the fascists deliberately picking a Liberal in order to conflict them - by default they'll sometimes play
The point of having 2 pairs and recycling them is it increases the odds of a Liberal pair. The more permutations of players you have the increased chances of a fascist conflicting.
The point of having a triangle of players is it increases the odds of an all liberal triangle. But while some like this strategy I don't so much, I prefer 2 pairs and if 1 pair conflict to make a triangle
Also having fewer players in play means you can guess how many blues have been dropped from a deck by specific players. So you only have 3 players who touch a deck and it's a 3b deck you know to freeze said players. Or if you have 3 players with a 6 blue deck, those players are very likely liberals. But if you have say 5 different presidents and you have a 3 blue deck you have a lesser chance of knowing who the droppers were
As for early predictions. I'd take a punt on Lift & Gamerager.
Lifthrasil: Wait. You want to vote NO to Joe because you think he is Liberal? ... Was that just an early slip? Or what do you have against a liberal Joe in a government? Not that he is a candidate at the moment, but still, that comment needs explanation. It's a secrethitler.io phrase that means vote no to the goverments before Joe in order to then vote yes for his government. So I want to vote against Gamerager and for Joe. I realise if Joe turns out to be a filthy fascist this will make me look bad.
I'm not really going to slip, say who I think is Liberal and then say - Hey I'm not voting for these guys, before my evil laugh
1. The meta/strategy - I can understand some players don't like it
2. The fact using it means gamerager gov might get skipped - is this suspicious
Now you can judge if you think I'm genuine about that or trying to vote down a liberal-liberal government. Both these players can be liberal.
Also I want to get to me faster and increase the chances of me playing - this is desirable regardless of alignment
Gentlemen, am I wrong?
@mod
Could you please post the relevant quote from the Discord game? I don't have it.
Regarding meta, I'm against them mainly because of the name. Why call those strategies "meta" when they're clearly not meta.
That aside, I'm game for any strategy if it helps Liberals win. So if you want me to go for those "meta" (I'm going to use air quotes), then prove to me that they do help Liberals. So far I've seen false statements about them, for example:
In the later stage of the game, skipping till X or cycling through X, Y and Z becomes a valid strategy. But why do it from the get go? But I'm all ears if you can prove otherwise.
My bragging rights trio: Lift, RW, Micro.
Did I miss anything?
A) Get Hitler into play in the first 2 governments to make him credible. I've gone through this before, that fascist strategy would be to do just this
B) Stop the fascists deliberately picking a Liberal in order to conflict them - by default they'll sometimes play
The point of having 2 pairs and recycling them is it increases the odds of a Liberal pair. The more permutations of players you have the increased chances of a fascist conflicting.
The point of having a triangle of players is it increases the odds of an all liberal triangle. But while some like this strategy I don't so much, I prefer 2 pairs and if 1 pair conflict to make a triangle
Also having fewer players in play means you can guess how many blues have been dropped from a deck by specific players. So you only have 3 players who touch a deck and it's a 3b deck you know to freeze said players. Or if you have 3 players with a 6 blue deck, those players are very likely liberals. But if you have say 5 different presidents and you have a 3 blue deck you have a lesser chance of knowing who the droppers were
As for early predictions. I'd take a punt on Lift & Gamerager.
I'm not really going to slip, say who I think is Liberal and then say - Hey I'm not voting for these guys, before my evil laugh
ZFR
I love gold!
Registered: Jan 2010
From Ireland
Posted December 30, 2019
@mod
Point (was it 7 or 8?) And this is big. He spent so much time typing and in the end he made a short flippant comment.
supplementscene: The general point of it is to give fascists less free reign to either:
A) Get Hitler into play in the first 2 governments to make him credible. I've gone through this before, that fascist strategy would be to do just this This doesn't make sense. If Hitler is one of those pre-selected players, then by using "meta", you're increasing his chance of being in first two governments to 100%.
How do you know that overall you're giving fascists "less free reign"?
Point (was it 7 or 8?) And this is big. He spent so much time typing and in the end he made a short flippant comment.
A) Get Hitler into play in the first 2 governments to make him credible. I've gone through this before, that fascist strategy would be to do just this
How do you know that overall you're giving fascists "less free reign"?
ZFR
I love gold!
Registered: Jan 2010
From Ireland
Posted December 30, 2019
How does it "increase the odds" of an all liberal? And increase odds as opposed to what?
In absolute terms, the probability of having an all-liberal triangle is pretty low. For 8 players, it's under 18%. An "increase" over what?
supplementscene
New User
Registered: Nov 2015
From United Kingdom
Posted December 30, 2019
How does it "increase the odds" of an all liberal? And increase odds as opposed to what?
In absolute terms, the probability of having an all-liberal triangle is pretty low. For 8 players, it's under 18%. An "increase" over what?
With 2 pairs, if you do have a Liberal pairing it's a strategic advantage for as long as you can repeat them
Another strategy is when someone investigates a player liberal to play the investigated Liberal with the investigator. If they are both fascists they need to play Liberal policy or look suspect.
Point (was it 7 or 8?) And this is big. He spent so much time typing and in the end he made a short flippant comment.
A) Get Hitler into play in the first 2 governments to make him credible. I've gone through this before, that fascist strategy would be to do just this
How do you know that overall you're giving fascists "less free reign"?
So if player 1 sees Hitler in seat 3 and picks him and plays Liberal policy, he almost guarantees that Hitler plays again. Come into Hitler zone, Hitler is then an ideal.
In turn if Player sees a Liberal in Seat 3 and thinks - I prefer my fasc buddy to play ahead of him he can conflict the Liberal.
Where as if these are randomly drawn positions the fascist no longer has this luxury. It's based on luck rather than being able to pick the players you want to either give credit to (teammate) or to blacklist (liberal)
Post edited December 30, 2019 by supplementscene
ZFR
I love gold!
Registered: Jan 2010
From Ireland
Posted December 30, 2019
If Hitler is assigned into one of first two governments by blind random.org, he's undetectable. If Hitler is assigned into one of first two governments by a fellow fascist, we can detect it and try to figure out who Hitler is.
Lifthrasil
Bring the GOG-Downloader back!
Registered: Apr 2011
From Germany
Posted December 30, 2019
I get the feeling that Scene has some agenda beyond his 'meta' play here. His arguments don't make sense, statistically. Nor logically. On the one had he argues that meta play would help the Liberals, on the other he argues, that it doesn't affect the game balance. Which one is it? It can't be both. The blunt truth is, all meta play does is detract from the fun of the game, since it reduces variability.
So why does he insist that it is a good idea? I can only think of one sensible answer. He has another reason to be against the currently proposed government. And the only ones who can have enough information at this point of the game to be against someone are the Fascists. So maybe Scene knows that the proposed Government is L-L. Maybe Hitler is on a late position and therefore Scene tries to skip governments, to give his Fuhrer a chance to participate in an early government.
After all, even if we would adopt some meta-play, there would be no logical reason not to start with 1-3. Or 1-anything. Why should we exclude the first player from participating in a government? Just because Scene says so. He made up the numbers on a whim. Probably to suit his needs. Liberals don't have any reason to be against any starting government (apart from 1-2, arguably), since we don't have any information yet. At the start of the game I like to get the first government into office as soon as possible, so that we get something to work with.
@Scene: maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really think that idea of yours is good and maybe you're just too stubborn to let it go. But consider this: on your secrethitler.io the pace is entirely different. There is hardly time for discussions, so maybe a way to reduce the complexity of the game is valid there. The fast pace there was the reason why I left. It's just not fun to play the game online without having the time to analyze what was written. True, IRL play is fast paced too - but there you have facial expressions and behaviour to analyze. Online play needs time to be fun. At least for me.
And here we have ample time for discussions. So your attempt to reduce the complexity of the game and to reduce the need for discussion is counter-productive. Let me be very clear: I don't want you to ruin the fun for the rest of us. This isn't secrethitler.io. This isn't a game that has to be finished in a few hours. So please, drop it. Stop trying to castrate the game and start playing it according to the rules. The official rules and those set by the mod. Not the rules set by you. You are NOT the mod in this game!
If you run a secret hitler game as a mod here, some time, you will be free to impose any meta-rules you like. But I won't be playing in that game then.
So why does he insist that it is a good idea? I can only think of one sensible answer. He has another reason to be against the currently proposed government. And the only ones who can have enough information at this point of the game to be against someone are the Fascists. So maybe Scene knows that the proposed Government is L-L. Maybe Hitler is on a late position and therefore Scene tries to skip governments, to give his Fuhrer a chance to participate in an early government.
After all, even if we would adopt some meta-play, there would be no logical reason not to start with 1-3. Or 1-anything. Why should we exclude the first player from participating in a government? Just because Scene says so. He made up the numbers on a whim. Probably to suit his needs. Liberals don't have any reason to be against any starting government (apart from 1-2, arguably), since we don't have any information yet. At the start of the game I like to get the first government into office as soon as possible, so that we get something to work with.
@Scene: maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really think that idea of yours is good and maybe you're just too stubborn to let it go. But consider this: on your secrethitler.io the pace is entirely different. There is hardly time for discussions, so maybe a way to reduce the complexity of the game is valid there. The fast pace there was the reason why I left. It's just not fun to play the game online without having the time to analyze what was written. True, IRL play is fast paced too - but there you have facial expressions and behaviour to analyze. Online play needs time to be fun. At least for me.
And here we have ample time for discussions. So your attempt to reduce the complexity of the game and to reduce the need for discussion is counter-productive. Let me be very clear: I don't want you to ruin the fun for the rest of us. This isn't secrethitler.io. This isn't a game that has to be finished in a few hours. So please, drop it. Stop trying to castrate the game and start playing it according to the rules. The official rules and those set by the mod. Not the rules set by you. You are NOT the mod in this game!
If you run a secret hitler game as a mod here, some time, you will be free to impose any meta-rules you like. But I won't be playing in that game then.
GamezRanker
Disagreement Verboten!
Registered: Sep 2010
From United States
Posted December 30, 2019
If that's you list of possible fascists you forgot me....it's customary in mafia and now SH to suspect me from day/period 1.....you should know that by now. :)
=====================================
=====================================
1. The meta/strategy - I can understand some players don't like it
2. The fact using it means gamerager gov might get skipped - is this suspicious
2. Yes, a bit.
Also I want to get to me faster and increase the chances of me playing - this is desirable regardless of alignment
Also even so it still seems a bit suspect.
Good(motions to ZFR and post 62)...see? This is proper mafia/SH play....always suspect GR....it's common sense. :D
==================================================
(Still reading the last few posts....will maybe add more later)
ZFR
I love gold!
Registered: Jan 2010
From Ireland
Microfish_1
I'm not a duck
Registered: Dec 2017
From United States
Posted December 30, 2019
Gentlemen, am I wrong?
@mod vote yes
supplementscene
New User
Registered: Nov 2015
From United Kingdom
Posted December 30, 2019
So why does he insist that it is a good idea? I can only think of one sensible answer. He has another reason to be against the currently proposed government. And the only ones who can have enough information at this point of the game to be against someone are the Fascists. So maybe Scene knows that the proposed Government is L-L. Maybe Hitler is on a late position and therefore Scene tries to skip governments, to give his Fuhrer a chance to participate in an early government.
After all, even if we would adopt some meta-play, there would be no logical reason not to start with 1-3. Or 1-anything. Why should we exclude the first player from participating in a government? Just because Scene says so. He made up the numbers on a whim. Probably to suit his needs. Liberals don't have any reason to be against any starting government (apart from 1-2, arguably), since we don't have any information yet. At the start of the game I like to get the first government into office as soon as possible, so that we get something to work with.
@Scene: maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really think that idea of yours is good and maybe you're just too stubborn to let it go. But consider this: on your secrethitler.io the pace is entirely different. There is hardly time for discussions, so maybe a way to reduce the complexity of the game is valid there. The fast pace there was the reason why I left. It's just not fun to play the game online without having the time to analyze what was written. True, IRL play is fast paced too - but there you have facial expressions and behaviour to analyze. Online play needs time to be fun. At least for me.
And here we have ample time for discussions. So your attempt to reduce the complexity of the game and to reduce the need for discussion is counter-productive. Let me be very clear: I don't want you to ruin the fun for the rest of us. This isn't secrethitler.io. This isn't a game that has to be finished in a few hours. So please, drop it. Stop trying to castrate the game and start playing it according to the rules. The official rules and those set by the mod. Not the rules set by you. You are NOT the mod in this game!
If you run a secret hitler game as a mod here, some time, you will be free to impose any meta-rules you like. But I won't be playing in that game then.
Regardless of alignment I always play live games with pre-defined meta. My personal belief is that the winrate for fascists is somewhat higher without meta and using a predesigned meta balances the winrates. I don't have any data to back that up but it'd be interesting to see. The 4 games I've played on GOG/Discord without I think are 2-2 from fascist and liberal sides. With me winning them all. A small sample size though. Things that happened when I was fascist I would never get away with on secrethitler.io - The game with Trent taking the gun after being in 1 government never happens. Convincing Hitler to investigate me randomly and then pass him off as a probable Liberal and Heil him - again Liberals shouldn't have been able to get away with it.
But you can't deny it isn't an advantage for a fascist to nominate his Hitler as chancellor or nominate a Liberal who is about to be President in order to get into conflict with him. You can't deny it isn't an advantage for fascists to investigate randomly. It is.
As for it reducing the chance for discussion, this is a completely untrue. You may not discuss early game picks but you discuss the special election in depth and discuss the chancellor pick in depth. You discuss who's likely to have dropped cards and who might have . The only difference in random choices and fascists being able to choose when to conflict a Liberal target and when to
If I was a fascist trying to get my Hitler into play wouldn't I propose 1 pre-defined meta rather than 2 seperate ones with different player positioning?
As for people on the back end of the board I think they should be mainly skipped unless conflicts occur.
If Hitler is assigned into one of first two governments by blind random.org, he's undetectable. If Hitler is assigned into one of first two governments by a fellow fascist, we can detect it and try to figure out who Hitler is.
The second reason is it increases the likelyhood of liberal liberal and fascist fascist pairings, which is beneficial to liberal chances. Where as fascists are never picking a regular fascist for the most part.
Also I want to get to me faster and increase the chances of me playing - this is desirable regardless of alignment
Also even so it still seems a bit suspect.
==================================================
(Still reading the last few posts....will maybe add more later)
ZFR
I love gold!
Registered: Jan 2010
From Ireland
Posted December 30, 2019
If Hitler is assigned into one of first two governments by blind random.org, he's undetectable. If Hitler is assigned into one of first two governments by a fellow fascist, we can detect it and try to figure out who Hitler is.