Llama Llama Duck 2 - Game Thread - The Return of Insanity

[Hyozo]

Talic seems to be trying to get the spotlight on him again. Sadly, the frozen Llama seems to be pointed in Jontom Xire's direction instead.

[Lex-Kat]

I'll follow Shadow's logic. Sorry Talic.

[Alarra]

Now can we lynch the self professed assassin who's flaunting his kills?

Sure, sounds good to me. *Spins in a circle and points a hoof at Talic*

[Dallas-Dakota]

More assasins = More kills = More chance at being killed.
Thus less asssasins = less kills = less chance at being killed = Talic

[Helgraf]

More kills too often means faster wolf win. Especially when there's no research and no restraint.
Talic

[Atreyu the Masked LLama]

Bulletin board time

Hi Everybody!
"Hi Dr. Nick!"
Today we have a special procedure. We're to see if I'm a seer or a fool. And Jontom Xire has a bad case of duck syndrome. Deadly to all llamas. Let's operate!

[happyturtle]

I am utterly and completely convinced in the veracity of that message.

Jontom Xire.

[Shadow]

I say we ignore said bulletin and focus on the assassin for now.
Duck = 1 kill collectively
Assassins = unknown # of kills in addition

And how do we know this isn't Talic trying to save himself?
Ignore it.

[Darkcomet]

And how do we know this isn't Talic trying to save himself?
Ignore it.

I must say that I had this exact thought myself.

[Talic]

What research?

The voting record of people who are blindly pointing? (yeah, that's everyone)

Sheesh, if there's one thing that you can get information from, it's how people react to the unexpected.

I mean, really, let's say I hide 4 names a day. Even if nobody looks, or finds a name, you've got a 25% chance of being whacked, if you're in the list.

Chance of wolf winning off assassins? In this challenge, where the wolves are blind? worse than the chance of llamas winning. Assassins provide a statistical advantage to llamas.


As for Shadow? Akiro? Nope. I flaunt, right? Makes sense I'd claim my kills. And I can tell you now. My kill was nullified. Not sure if it was a bane or a nullifier, but doesn't really matter.

And for the rest? Again, assassins get a negative stigma. Really, what do they do? They speed up the game. Nothing more, nothing less. That's bad in a game where one side has an information advantage, and others don't. That's because the villagers need time.

In this game? Time isn't needed.

Want to know the information I've found?

1) Jontom Xire is decidedly uninterested in any skin save his own. Pretty non-llamaish, if you ask me.
2) Deathslayer 7 either wants to thwart kills, or only Happy Turtle's. Masons? Meh, more information needs to be gained. Won't be now though, because the hand was tipped early.

That's off 2 days, and I have 2 useful pieces of information. Off my "pointless games". Tell me, other than information that I personally volunteered... What have you gained by your votes? A dead llama, and not much else.

EDIT: Oh, and one more piece.

3) Shadow is MIGHTY interested in killing people that give llamas a statistical advantage. Namely, assassins. Go ahead, kill me. Get me out. Then? See that I'm not a duck. Then, see that, while shadow is quite the eloquent one, either he's a mallard, or he isn't able to scroll back and see the statistical analyses.

Bottom line, you have 100 people. 70 are llamas, 30 are ducks. You kill 10 at random.

You're going to be pretty much at 7 llamas, and 3 ducks. +/- 1 or so. That's the odds. And odds are, in this instance, very much against the duck in the end game.

Oh yeah, people can scare you with "Oh em gee, assassins can kill all us poor llamas". No easier than anyone else can.

Seers can establish networks... Takes time tho.
Masons start with networks. Small ones, and not complete though.

So, with no networks. Llamas have the advantage. With more time, that advantage can evaporate (smaller groups need less work to fully assemble).

So who, but a Duck, should be asking for more time?

[Darkcomet]

Waitwaitwait...

If Talic was trying to save himself, he'd try to push the closest wagon, which is Happyturtle, not Jontom...

Anyone else thought this?

[Talic]

Waitwaitwait...

If Talic was trying to save himself, he'd try to push the closest wagon, which is Happyturtle, not Jontom...

Anyone else thought this?

I don't use the bulletin board. Any "saving" that will happen will come when people realize that I'm right. Most likely, post mortem.

EDIT: Though you present a compelling argument for how much of Shadow's posts are based in thought and reason... And how much are based in bandwagoning.

I mean really... You know that someone's brutally good at manipulating others. You know he's pulling the same tricks he does in every game.

... and you all LISTEN?

Perhaps I won't get through to you after all.

[evnafets]

I'm normally of the opinion that Seer's scries should be tested. The problem is, we don't know who is claiming this scry. There is no-one to lynch if it turns out to be wrong, and it sets a precedent for anybody (Llama, Duck, or Bunny) to post various scry claims to the bulletin board.

So to the author of the anonymous bulletin board, I say this.
Come out and reveal yourself! Celebrate your Llama-ness with fellow Llamas! Don't hide behind the curtain like a dastardly Duck.

[Reinholdt]

Evnafets makes a good point. Very well.

I posted the message and claim the role.

I care not about these assassin games and wash my hands of the argument. I am, however, looking for the ducks. And they're nearly as blind as we, so I see little point in watching Jontom's voting record for information. Besides, he's smarter than that anyways.

Jontom Xire

[Darkcomet]

Okay then.

JX it is.

[Talic]

There's one piece of "Shadow Logic" debunked.

How many more, I wonder?

[Shadow]

Spoiler

Show

What research?

The voting record of people who are blindly pointing? (yeah, that's everyone)

Sheesh, if there's one thing that you can get information from, it's how people react to the unexpected.

I mean, really, let's say I hide 4 names a day. Even if nobody looks, or finds a name, you've got a 25% chance of being whacked, if you're in the list.

Chance of wolf winning off assassins? In this challenge, where the wolves are blind? worse than the chance of llamas winning. Assassins provide a statistical advantage to llamas.


As for Shadow? Akiro? Nope. I flaunt, right? Makes sense I'd claim my kills. And I can tell you now. My kill was nullified. Not sure if it was a bane or a nullifier, but doesn't really matter.

And for the rest? Again, assassins get a negative stigma. Really, what do they do? They speed up the game. Nothing more, nothing less. That's bad in a game where one side has an information advantage, and others don't. That's because the villagers need time.

In this game? Time isn't needed.

Want to know the information I've found?

1) Jontom Xire is decidedly uninterested in any skin save his own. Pretty non-llamaish, if you ask me.
2) Deathslayer 7 either wants to thwart kills, or only Happy Turtle's. Masons? Meh, more information needs to be gained. Won't be now though, because the hand was tipped early.

That's off 2 days, and I have 2 useful pieces of information. Off my "pointless games". Tell me, other than information that I personally volunteered... What have you gained by your votes? A dead llama, and not much else.

EDIT: Oh, and one more piece.

3) Shadow is MIGHTY interested in killing people that give llamas a statistical advantage. Namely, assassins. Go ahead, kill me. Get me out. Then? See that I'm not a duck. Then, see that, while shadow is quite the eloquent one, either he's a mallard, or he isn't able to scroll back and see the statistical analyses.

Bottom line, you have 100 people. 70 are llamas, 30 are ducks. You kill 10 at random.

You're going to be pretty much at 7 llamas, and 3 ducks. +/- 1 or so. That's the odds. And odds are, in this instance, very much against the duck in the end game.

Oh yeah, people can scare you with "Oh em gee, assassins can kill all us poor llamas". No easier than anyone else can.

Seers can establish networks... Takes time tho.
Masons start with networks. Small ones, and not complete though.

So, with no networks. Llamas have the advantage. With more time, that advantage can evaporate (smaller groups need less work to fully assemble).

So who, but a Duck, should be asking for more time?

Your assessment of the situation, namely the advantage of the assassin, is flawed.
Let's look at this piece by piece.
You said, in this order:

Assassins provide a statistical advantage to llamas.

assassins get a negative stigma. Really, what do they do? They speed up the game. Nothing more, nothing less. That's bad in a game where one side has an information advantage, and others don't. That's because the villagers need time.

Seers can establish networks... Takes time tho.
Masons start with networks. Small ones, and not complete though.

So, with no networks. Llamas have the advantage. With more time, that advantage can evaporate (smaller groups need less work to fully assemble).

So who, but a Duck, should be asking for more time?

So, by your own admission, speeding up the game gives the Seer(s) les time to form their networks.
How the HELL does this make the assassins give the advantage to the Llamas?!?!?
This gives the advantage to the Ducks!

edit: ans as for "debunking" my logic: I said "how do we know...."
I didn't say "IT WAS TALIC!"

[Shadow]

I'm not changing my point.
I stand by my opinion that random killings in the game favor the Ducks.
period.

And with no information to go on this early in the game, the assassination attampts are just that.
Random.

Therefor they favor the Ducks.

Anyone that I happen to notice using them (without knowledge of WHO they're killing) will be targeted by my points and arguments at some point. I guarantee it.

[Recaiden]

Ducks can have seers too.

[Talic]

@SHADOW:
No, you didn't. You implied it. Much more subtle.

However, let's look.

100 people. 70 good, 30 bad. 10 are assassins.

1 round of deaths. 7 llamas, 3 ducks, 1 assassin.

90 people. 63 good, 27 bad. 9 are assassins.

2 rounds. 6 good, 3 bad. 1 assassins.

81 people. 57 good., 24 bad. 8 are assassins.

3 rounds. 6 good, 2 bad. No assassins this time.

77 people left. 51 good, 22 bad. 8 are assassins.

4 rounds... 5...6...

Eventually, the odds get down to this, +/- 1 or so (standard deviance is 1 (10%)):

10 people left. 7 good, 3 bad, 1 assassin. This is where the assassin needs to die. Why? Because if he's a duck, he'll never die, except by lynch.

At this point, assassin dies. Let's say he's a Llama. 70% odds, after all.
now, we have 9.

6 good, 3 bad.
vote. 67% chance of good, 33% bad. Good dies.
5 good, 3 bad. 62.5% good, 37.5% bad. Bad dies.
5 good, 2 bad. 71% good, 29% bad. Good dies.
4 good, 2 bad. 67% good, 33% bad. Good dies.
3 good, 2 bad. 60% good, 40% bad. Bad dies.

3 good, 1 bad. 75% good. From here? Let's assess odds.
The duck gets 1 chance. 1 failure, and llamas win. It's a decent chance, but it progressively gets worse.

In order to win, the duck must win a 75%, then a 67%, then a 50%.

Those odds are 75% llamas, 25% ducks.

And that, Shadow, is WHY the llamas have the advantage, in random distribution. Numbers. The llamas simply have more bodies to soak up.

UNLIKE all the other "what if" scenarios, at each step, I took statistically likely information.

So, rather than listen to all the "Oh noes, assassins will kill all the llamas"...

Why not listen to the people who present PLAUSIBLE scenarios? Hm?

Ducks can have seers too.

EXACTLY. And if a Duck has a seer, and he needs to find 4 others to have every duck on board...

And if the llamas have a seer, and they need to find 16 others...

Who do you think gets the clear picture first? Hm?
And what now happens? Now every player must gauge when the posts stopped being random. Everyone must guess.

Meanwhile, the llamas keep dying.

[evnafets]

Thats the problem with getting well known in these games. You get scried early and often. Well, lets test Reinholdt's scry
evnafets points at Jontom Xire

[Shadow]

all that cunning math

Except that you forget we're not doing math homework, we're playing a strategic game. And any strategies that we may come up with to thwart the Ducks will be ruined by your wonderful "Random Killings" which I despise.

Not only that, but this is LLD, which, I shouldn't have to tell you, will not bow to your math because it was DESIGNED to ruin it!

This game is random enough without your so-called "help" making it even worse!

[PirateMonk]

Really, what do they do? They speed up the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly. In a game as unbalanced as this, winning is meaningless, so all that matters is fun. Since assassins end the game sooner they allow less opportunities for people to have fun, and thus-

Ooh, shiny billboard! JontomXire.

[Talic]

Except that you forget we're not doing math homework, we're playing a strategic game. And any strategies that we may come up with to thwart the Ducks will be ruined by your wonderful "Random Killings" which I despise.

Not only that, but this is LLD, which, I shouldn't have to tell you, will not bow to your math because it was DESIGNED to ruin it!

This game is random enough without your so-called "help" making it even worse!

Strategies!? LOL. The only strategy that's to be had is, "Sit tight and wait for a seer to notice you."

And we've already seen who THAT one benefits more.

Or maybe, it's trying to glean insight into the random potshots of everyone else, who's as blind as you?

No, really, this I GOTTA hear. What possible strategy could exist in a game that's more or less totally random? Because it is. Your flaw lies in you call this a "Strategy" game, like other variants of WW.

It's double blind. The usual information paths are gone. Seers, and forcing people to betray themselves... That's the only strategy that's worth pursuing.

No, when the randomness provides the odds for "good guy wins, bad guy loses", the only possible argument against... would be made by a bad guy.

And that, friends... Is how you flush out a duck. You logically show them why your strategy provides a good chance of victory... and they pretty much tell you to take your common sense, logic, and reason, and shove it. All of your accurate, well thought out, and correct reasons are wrong because they involve statistics and math (much like anyone with a decent spreadsheet in a standard game of WW uses). Instead, we should trust vague notions from someone KNOWN to be a fearmonger, a manipulator, a deceiver. We should trust, "I reject your facts, and offer you this balloon! And the balloon says that Talic is a bad bad man!"

Come on, if you want these people to believe you... Give them something other than baseless fearmongering to go on.

[Shadow]

It doesn't matter anyway because your numbers are all wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong.

You didn't account for all kills.
# of assassins + night kill + lynch.
Not all of these are represented, so I ignore your faulty math completely.

[Talic]

It doesn't matter anyway because your numbers are all wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong.

You didn't account for all kills.
# of assassins + night kill + lynch.
Not all of these are represented, so I ignore your faulty math completely.

They're pretty much all blind. Wolves are just as likely to kill wolves. Lynch is just as random as anything.

IT IS ALL RANDOM.

And when randomness is total, the side with greater numbers has the advantage.

Tell me Shadow... Which side in a WW game typically has larger numbers?

Tell me also... Are you obsessed with being right? Or are you trying to help the underdog, here? Cause in this game? Wolves are the underdog in a short game.

The side that has the advantage in a long, drawn out game? That's the wolves.

So, your logical response? Kill anything that could speed up the game.

Either you're being illogical out of anger... or you're being logical, and feigning ignorance and charisma, whichever is more convenient at the time.

[Recaiden]

Shadow...... is the new Trixie

[Selrahc]

The thing is, we are dealing with people, not statistics. The fact that there is no voting record to analyse properly does not mean that we can't examine the actions of people.

I'm not a spreadsheet gamer. I've tried using them, and frankly it made the entire thing seem too much like homework rather than a game. But even without strenuous vote analysis I've found a few wolves. You can still pick up on oddities in behaviour. People who are trying to stay out of the limelight, people who are aiming to set themselves up by being prominent to accuse. The reactions of those who are accused. Even little things can reveal clues. So yeah, it is possible to find ducks without voting records, and the longer we leave the game running, the more chance it will give us to find those ducks who slip up in their imitation of a llama.

Then there is the other advantage of time, as has already been proved, we have a lot of potential seers. Since the llama seers can speak up when they find a duck, and the ducks can only link up when they find a duck, and gain no real advantage by scrying a llama time makes our seers more valuable than theirs.

A lot of your mathematical findings take the idea that the most likely result will happen every time. It won't. At the end of the day, it's all a huge crapshoot. Personally, I'd prefer it if was everyone who was working together to find the ducks, rather than the entire game essentially being an exercise in random scenario simulation.

Lastly, I'd say that the entire goal is a bit rubbish. You want to make this game incredibly short, and wreck a lot of people's enjoyment, and the payoff for that is that the ducks *may* be easier to wipe out, assuming the ratios stay the same.

[Shadow]

Spoiler

Show

The thing is, we are dealing with people, not statistics. The fact that there is no voting record to analyse properly does not mean that we can't examine the actions of people.

I'm not a spreadsheet gamer. I've tried using them, and frankly it made the entire thing seem too much like homework rather than a game. But even without strenuous vote analysis I've found a few wolves. You can still pick up on oddities in behaviour. People who are trying to stay out of the limelight, people who are aiming to set themselves up by being prominent to accuse. The reactions of those who are accused. Even little things can reveal clues. So yeah, it is possible to find ducks without voting records, and the longer we leave the game running, the more chance it will give us to find those ducks who slip up in their imitation of a llama.

Then there is the other advantage of time, as has already been proved, we have a lot of potential seers. Since the llama seers can speak up when they find a duck, and the ducks can only link up when they find a duck, and gain no real advantage by scrying a llama time makes our seers more valuable than theirs.

A lot of your mathematical findings take the idea that the most likely result will happen every time. It won't. At the end of the day, it's all a huge crapshoot. Personally, I'd prefer it if was everyone who was working together to find the ducks, rather than the entire game essentially being an exercise in random scenario simulation.

Lastly, I'd say that the entire goal is a bit rubbish. You want to make this game incredibly short, and wreck a lot of people's enjoyment, and the payoff for that is that the ducks *may* be easier to wipe out, assuming the ratios stay the same.

My point exactly.
We didn't get 50 or so people to play this because they wanted to become fodder for your mathematical experiment. They want to PLAY!

And, as most of us here can attest to, random killings (while they may seem to mathematically favor the good guys, according to your flawed calculations) almost always help the bad guys.

I detest this type of play. That's why I argue against it.
This isn't an equation, it's a strategic game, played by people who may not do what your math says they should do.
If you want math, watch an episode of Numbers. If you want fun, stop randomly killing people on the flawed premise that it helps the good guys.

[Aemoh]

Cause I can't bring myself to test a seer scry by lynching JX. I do wanna lynch Talic, but that would be seen as aiding a duck if JX is actually one. So... point at the person above, Selrahc.

EDIT: Selrahc was above me when I started typing. I'm slow at times