Wrap Up The Resistance (beta 1.0) - Debriefing

[TIG]

How did you like the game? Incredibly fun and frustrating at the same time

Anything you liked or disliked about it? The game was about what I expected. I have played mafia before so kinda knew what to expect going in. The game is skewed to favor the spies in this version because of the ability to communicate effectively. In the live version I'm sure there isn't as much ability to do so.

Considering that the forum version of this game is currently in "beta", where do you see room for improvement? Just technical stuff like the clunky way we need a GM and the PM system. I don't know how to fix it and it works as is, but if there was an automated voting system it could be easier to run.

Did you feel that the game was too easy for either the Resistance or the Spies? The game is skewed in favor of the spies, but not to the degree that resistance can't win. Resistance definitely has to work harder and smarter to catch out the spies, but the game seems to be built that way.

Was the spread sheet any help at all, or did you stick to your memory/the thread itself to keep track of the game's votes? I looked at it, but I could look at the thread to get the same info. The first post on any game can be easily updated with that info by the GM in future games so we don't have to click over to another site to find it.

Any ideas on how to improve moderation of the game? I thought it was fine. Your suggestion to have a 24hr window on each part is good. Just have a set time for votes to be revealed each day and people can try to log on soon after to start the next part. Also asking for the mission go ahead and the vote to succeed or fail in one post will let the GM advance the game each day.

i.e. a form for people to copy paste to send in votes:
Do you want the mission to go ahead with the chosen team? Yes/No
If you are on the team and it is approved, do you want the mission to succeed or fail? Succeed/Fail

Any additional thoughts? I had lots of fun on this. I didn't take it as serious as I could have to win and I made mistakes that helped lose the game for my side, but it was great. The game did my head in because I couldn't logically eliminate any one person as a spy. Totally worth keeping going though, and I hope more people try it out.

 

[tr1age]

if there was an automated voting system it could be easier to run.

Working on it

Was the spread sheet any help at all, or did you stick to your memory/the thread itself to keep track of the game's votes? I looked at it, but I could look at the thread to get the same info. The first post on any game can be easily updated with that info by the GM in future games so we don't have to click over to another site to find it.

Implemented already so the google excel doc can be embedded.

Any ideas on how to improve moderation of the game?
I have a suggestion on the 24 hour thing. Set a SPECIFIC time when you can no longer NOT vote. This makes it so you have a limited time to state your case or do dirty work behind the scenes. This way it puts a sense of urgency on it as well and allows for more slip ups and great saves.

 

[Jia]

That wouldn't work because they would naturally veto any mission that didnt have the 3 of them and they would know something was up the first time a mission failed.

You're right. While I still think that it could work, the Spies would have to work aggressively, posing as Prophets themselves, hoping that they can confuse the Resistance enough to pull out three "Failure" victories. And figuring out who the Prophet is would be next to impossible for the Spies if the Prophet only reveals himself via PM.
Either way, it would change the dynamics of the game, and not in a positive way.

I like the AIN varaint. What about one that combines the two? One person on the Resistance has the power to find out about 1 person each time a mission they are on succeeds. The power doesn't pass on, but the assassination rule stands.

Hmm... I'll have to roll that around in my head for a bit - it does sound like a good compromise that could work quite well!

 

[Jia]

Any ideas on how to improve moderation of the game? I thought it was fine. Your suggestion to have a 24hr window on each part is good. Just have a set time for votes to be revealed each day and people can try to log on soon after to start the next part. Also asking for the mission go ahead and the vote to succeed or fail in one post will let the GM advance the game each day.

i.e. a form for people to copy paste to send in votes:
Do you want the mission to go ahead with the chosen team? Yes/No
If you are on the team and it is approved, do you want the mission to succeed or fail? Succeed/Fail

I've been thinking about it after suggesting it, and now I'm not too sure if voting for the team and the mission outcome at the same time is such a good idea:
For the Resistance it doesn't make a difference, since their mission outcome votes are locked to "succeed". But the Spies may find themselves in situations where they have to rethink their mission outcome votes depending on who disapproved the team pick and how they argued their disapproval. While this didn't happen in the last game, I would still like to encourage it, so it be better to stick to the way we've handled it in the last game.

 

[Jia]

Feedback to Jia: What I would like to see is a thread that encompasses all the PMs in the order in which they were sent. So a log of all the PM's in order of when they began. This way you can see the progression of people's thoughts. For instance in a message from Kismet to Jia and me and Kel she announced yes to a mission go and yes to a mission success all at once. This locked in the win for me and Dire, all he had to do was vote yes.

I was thinking about that as well, especially during the last game when Dire and Tig started PMing each other. The Spy conversation would have been a really good read if it had included the other PMs in its chronology.
I threw the thought out the window when different constellations of PMs started popping up left and right though (some of which I was only included later, or not at all). I felt that it was getting a lot to piece together, and I didn't want it to start feeling like a chore, lest I burn out moderating (or "data managing") the game.
One thing the Spies could do is post the ongoing PM conversations to their "Spy thread", or post a placeholder message for a future copy/paste/screenshot of the PMs.

tr1age:
Speaking of "Spy threads", if we switch to using a private forum for the Spies (instead of conversations), is there a way the Resistance could catch wind of who the Spies are?
For example, when I click on Dire's profile - he is (or was recently) online as I'm typing this - it displays what he was just doing in the forums:
"Diremongoose was last seen Viewing forum list, 10 minutes ago"
If there was a hidden forum, could the Spy's profile give away that they are viewing it? I.e. "last seen Viewing private forum" or something along those lines?

 

[TIG]

Not just that, you could keep a close eye on post count and if it goes up with no post visible its a tell. I think PMs work best and if there is an automatic voting thing like a poll that is implemented then the GM will only be getting the conversations.

 

[tr1age]

I was thinking about that as well, especially during the last game when Dire and Tig started PMing each other. The Spy conversation would have been a really good read if it had included the other PMs in its chronology.
I threw the thought out the window when different constellations of PMs started popping up left and right though (some of which I was only included later, or not at all). I felt that it was getting a lot to piece together, and I didn't want it to start feeling like a chore, lest I burn out moderating (or "data managing") the game.
One thing the Spies could do is post the ongoing PM conversations to their "Spy thread", or post a placeholder message for a future copy/paste/screenshot of the PMs.

tr1age:
Speaking of "Spy threads", if we switch to using a private forum for the Spies (instead of conversations), is there a way the Resistance could catch wind of who the Spies are?
For example, when I click on Dire's profile - he is (or was recently) online as I'm typing this - it displays what he was just doing in the forums:
"Diremongoose was last seen Viewing forum list, 10 minutes ago"
If there was a hidden forum, could the Spy's profile give away that they are viewing it? I.e. "last seen Viewing private forum" or something along those lines?

There is a way to make it so an forum is completely invisible from the forum. We use these for admin debugging and testing new modules. Problem is, we have to set permissions each time a game starts and that is on an admin level. So it isn't as cut and dry as you would think. We could use a passcode for automatic user permissions but that takes at least an hour to go into effect and then if a resistance member gets wind of the code they will be able to see it.(while we would know, it still would suck until we looked)

It would add a lot of weird ways to beat the system or ways for the system to take longer. I think PMS for the spies is PERFECT. It is a PRIVATE message for a reason lol

 

[REDACTED]

Feedback to Jia: What I would like to see is a thread that encompasses all the PMs in the order in which they were sent. So a log of all the PM's in order of when they began. This way you can see the progression of people's thoughts. For instance in a message from Kismet to Jia and me and Kel she announced yes to a mission go and yes to a mission success all at once. This locked in the win for me and Dire, all he had to do was vote yes.

Just re-reading through the feedback chain and wanted to clarify that this was incorrect. Below is what I actually posted in the PM:

"I am voting YES for the team of Tristan, Kel and Kismet. Jia, consider this my official vote to move forward.

Only two possible outcomes... VICTORY for the RESISTANCE if we three truly are all non-spies... OR... Victory for SPIES if Kel is a double agent. "

I did not vote YES to mission success at that point, not that it would have mattered anyway because I suspected Kel of being the double-agent, not Tristan, and Tristan would have failed the mission even with my YES vote. However, we must pay attention to the details and rules in future games and not fail to process things accordingly.

The other tidbit I didn't notice on my first pass through the debriefing thread was Tristan mocking up a post from T1G that really did have some serious sway in my thought process, and I'm sure Kel's. While I find it truly creative that Tristan chose to do that, and successfully because it could have been a risky move, I do think it needs to be clarified in the rules for a forum version that this type of tactic is not allowed. I don't blame Tristan for trying it, as it wasn't specified that he couldn't... but the reason is in the offline game there would be no option or ability to commit such a rogue move.

Tristan did ask me if I had been contacted by T1G in PM, and I told him I hadn't by anyone but he and Kel. This was great info gathering on his part. Next time I'm gonna keep my hand a bit closer to my chest.

 

[TIG]

So I like the idea of PMs as communication. Is it possible to get time stamps on the PMs so that in the end the GM can cut and paste them in order so everyone can see the progression(if permission is granted afterwards)? He could easily put bold headers on each part of the convo i.e.

Tig to Dire
I think tristan is the spy I hope you aren't
Dire to Tig
Totally
Dire to Tristan
We totally got Tig
Kel to Kis
<redacted>
Tristan to Dire
Awesome I'm gonna go work on Kel and Kis
Kis to Kel
<redacted>

All the <redacted> parts are the ones where no permission is given to post the convos. And that way we could have a timeline thread.