Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
114 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

The Resistance» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Resistance 5p No Expansions Optimal Missions 1 Play rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have played this game with many groups and every group eventually after 20 some plays comes to the same conclusion: Mission 1 should always go to the forced vote, or "the hammer." The vote which MUST GO or else the spies win.

I assume all veteran players on this forum have experienced a similar convention. The logic goes like this, given 0 information why would a resistance member ever vote on a mission which they are not on? The spy on the other hand do have a reason to vote for a mission they are not on, because the other spy is on it. So a 3rd-party approve vote immediately looks like a spy vote.

Of course new players will sometimes throw an approve, but they are quickly talking into never doing that again. So it goes to the hammer every mission one for like 10 straight games until people start asking what is the point?

The point seems to be a trap for new players.

So my question is: is there any rational reason for a player not on mission 1 to vote approve on it? A reason so rational, that it rivals the obvious conclusion that the approving player must be a spy?

(If you have a sick read on someone and KNOW they are a spy because you have x-ray vision, don't bother telling me. I am not interested in reads. Only rational thought process.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Auchtung
msg tools
mb
Great question - I look forward to the answers. Been wondering the same thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had this INGENIOUS idea that it does make sense to vote approve if it sets you up to be the hammer on mission two! Then I tried to draw it on a piece of paper to explain to someone else, and I realized that for you to be set up to be hammer mission two you need to be captain mission one
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next Total Solar Eclipse holiday in 2024 in USA? See you there!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Continuing that logic:

If it is going to go to 5th proposal anyway, then it does not matter which team everyone votes to go, so you can as well take the first team suggestion.

The rebuttal:

It may be advantageous to see more team suggestions. But if you can't see any irregularities, then you just have to shake things up and take leaps of faith. And it is always better to be in the team than out of it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well right, you get to the point where it literally doesn't matter because eventually the hammer just sends a mission. Players have even started taking up the convention of simply taking one gun and passing the next to the person on the left without any though. So even that information, as weak as it is, is rendered useless.

If you are in a game of 5 players all "playing perfectly" then you might as well just roll a die, and that player is just the hammer and mission 1 goes.

I am really trying to find any reasonable way to break this meta.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next Total Solar Eclipse holiday in 2024 in USA? See you there!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
VirtualAlex wrote:
I am really trying to find any reasonable way to break this meta.

As a resistance member you need to be just a tiny bit "inconsistent", so that you can be "inconsistent" when you are a spy without causing overt suspicion. "Inconsistent" means that every once in a while you use a different reasonable or out-of-the-air explanation why you suggested an unusual team. And you have to do that both as a spy and as a resistance member.

If you want to break the meta, you need to be the one to break the meta. Be stubborn yourself. Don't follow meta whether you are resistance or spy.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
By design, the math always boils down to the flip of a coin.

Forcing to 'the hammer' just means that the last person to be in charge is the one who gets to make the decision of who will go on the mission, and more importantly, the player in that position will know that they will get to choose the mission consist and it must pass.

By forcing to 'the hammer', you are implicitly creating a trust of the player in position 5.

Why do you trust the person in position five any more than those in positions one, two, three or four if you are not included on the mission?

If the mission fails, at least one spy was on the mission and you can get into figuring out the splits from there - I think that's another topic.

If you are a 'good' and the mission succeeds and you weren't on it, do you assume:
A: position 5 is good and picked the 3rd good correctly?
B: position 5 is good and picked a spy who dodged?
C: position 5 is a spy and picked one of the goods (not you)?
D: position 5 is a spy and picked their co-spy and both dodged?

You really have no other information to go on if the first vote went to 'the hammer' with everyone vetoing any mission they personally weren't on.

Further, without extra information, how will round 2 be any different if the mission was successful? You'll go 4 failed votes a second time and again position 5 will be in control with a 'must pass'.

Do you really want position 5 to have all the power?

Why do you, as a good, arbitrarily trust position 5 any more than any other position at the table?

The only way to break the cycle of 'the hammer' is for someone to vote for a mission they're not on. There's no math that makes the choice easy - you have to rely on social cues and to it when you feel it's right.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eugene Wong
Canada
Surrey
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Most people don't realize it, but it's also a game of people skills and salesmanship. No matter what role card you have, you have to have an excuse to up vote any proposal. You just need to convince people of your ideas.

The truth is that 2 players approving while not being on the mission could also be a sign that the mission might have a spy on it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Janne
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
eugenetswong wrote:
The truth is that 2 players approving while not being on the mission could also be a sign that the mission might have a spy on it.


Or it was made to look that way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Kamber
Denmark
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
VirtualAlex wrote:
I have played this game with many groups and every group eventually after 20 some plays comes to the same conclusion: Mission 1 should always go to the forced vote, or "the hammer." The vote which MUST GO or else the spies win.

I assume all veteran players on this forum have experienced a similar convention. The logic goes like this, given 0 information why would a resistance member ever vote on a mission which they are not on? The spy on the other hand do have a reason to vote for a mission they are not on, because the other spy is on it. So a 3rd-party approve vote immediately looks like a spy vote.

Of course new players will sometimes throw an approve, but they are quickly talking into never doing that again. So it goes to the hammer every mission one for like 10 straight games until people start asking what is the point?

The point seems to be a trap for new players.

So my question is: is there any rational reason for a player not on mission 1 to vote approve on it? A reason so rational, that it rivals the obvious conclusion that the approving player must be a spy?

(If you have a sick read on someone and KNOW they are a spy because you have x-ray vision, don't bother telling me. I am not interested in reads. Only rational thought process.)


I feel like you are missing a piece of the picture here: You are not voting for or against sending a team, you are deciding which team to send. If no team is approved before then, the hammer sets the team. But that just means that you actively chose to send the hammer's team. You have to approve of a team, even if you do it implicitly, by letting the vote get to the hammer.

So when you are voting for mission 4, it is not a "send the team or not" decision. It is "send this team, or the one the hammer proposes.

In that light, you could just as easily flip the question: Is there any rational reason for a player not likely to be on the hammer's team, to vote reject on mission 4?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eugene Wong
Canada
Surrey
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dulkal is correct.

I should add that there is value in the current hammer sending a .4 team in the current round, as opposed to sending it at the next proposal. The idea is that the following hammer will be under better control. I think that this works only with 7p or more in the early rounds.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I do understand what you guys are saying as basically "look either we take steve's mission or whatever missions jerry proposes..." Problem is you have no information on either steve or jerry so it doesn't make a lick of difference if you send steve's mission or jerry's. The only reason we all "choose" to believe the hammer is because it isn't suspicious. The only information gain available is that I just acted against the meta for no good reason. "I just trust jerry more than steve" isn't a good enough reason because... Well I have no reason to trust jerry more. So I just released information into the heads of the blue players that I might be doing something fishy, I just lost trust, and I hurt our chances.

The idea proposed by someone above, that I need to play equally inconsistently when I am a resistance member to give myself the leeway when I am the spy is not logical. Playing "inconsistently" greatly hinders the blue players' ability to win. Why would I do that? I am going to be a blue player more often than a red player.

Making up arbitrary stuff for why I voted approve on a particular mission such as "well I saw jerry lick his lips and he only does that when he is a good guy, and bill was bad 5 games in a row so he is probably good this game. This is why I voted approve." Is a thing you CAN DO. But again I have to ask why would I do that as a blue player? If I have no information and no reason to trust this captain over that caption why would I make up this story just to add variance into my game?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eugenetswong wrote:
Most people don't realize it, but it's also a game of people skills and salesmanship. No matter what role card you have, you have to have an excuse to up vote any proposal. You just need to convince people of your ideas.


Yes this is true, but once player settle into a meta and don't put much thought at all into what they propose or how they vote on mission one, this has little value. Everyone just mindlessly tosses the guns around and votes reject until it's the hammer's turn. This meta has emerged among all player groups I have played with and spoken with about the game.

Of course acting and salesmanship are a thing, but generally you need to sell some kind of story. There is no story in the voting for mission 1. At least not one strong players will accept.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
VirtualAlex wrote:
eugenetswong wrote:
Most people don't realize it, but it's also a game of people skills and salesmanship. No matter what role card you have, you have to have an excuse to up vote any proposal. You just need to convince people of your ideas.


Yes this is true, but once player settle into a meta and don't put much thought at all into what they propose or how they vote on mission one, this has little value. Everyone just mindlessly tosses the guns around and votes reject until it's the hammer's turn. This meta has emerged among all player groups I have played with and spoken with about the game.

Of course acting and salesmanship are a thing, but generally you need to sell some kind of story. There is no story in the voting for mission 1. At least not one strong players will accept.


Query: Does your 5p meta have the person proposing the mission always going on the mission? Or, do leaders recommend teams of two that do not include themselves?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Always themselves.

I could ask the same question about that. Why would you ever send a team that doesn't include yourself with 0 available information?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next Total Solar Eclipse holiday in 2024 in USA? See you there!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
VirtualAlex wrote:
Why would you ever send a team that doesn't include yourself with 0 available information?

So that you can vote it down and see how other players voted.

(Very applicable with Avalon and the Resistance expansions, sometimes applicable with base resistance.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
VirtualAlex wrote:
Always themselves.

I could ask the same question about that. Why would you ever send a team that doesn't include yourself with 0 available information?


As a good: trying to catch both spies together, getting us a double sabotage and a clinched victory.

As an evil: To make it look like a chosen scapegoat is the other evil.

When a meta gets too fixed, both sides need to look at ways to change it for their purposes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eugene Wong
Canada
Surrey
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would do it as a rebel, because I have a good read on 2 players, and I want to show commitment and support.

Having zero information is kind of irrelevant, because we can never have complete information in plain Resistance. The best situations are when each Resistance member can identify all teammates except the last teammate, and has 50-50 odds of picking the last teammate. Therefore, we might as well gamble a little by supporting a clean team [e.g.: up voting off mission; proposing leaderless mission].
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eugenetswong wrote:
Therefore, we might as well gamble a little by supporting a clean team [e.g.: up voting off mission; proposing leaderless mission].


This doesn't seem rational to me. You have no reason to gamble, especially if gambling involves you doing something that makes you look like a spy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
VirtualAlex wrote:
eugenetswong wrote:
Therefore, we might as well gamble a little by supporting a clean team [e.g.: up voting off mission; proposing leaderless mission].


This doesn't seem rational to me. You have no reason to gamble, especially if gambling involves you doing something that makes you look like a spy.


That is the repeated theme in this thread, and is a choice of how to play.

Personally I choose not to always trust player #5 blindly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eugene Wong
Canada
Surrey
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If the spies see you connecting with a rebel, then they might panic. Gambling has good pay offs. Honestly, what are they going to do, if the rebels coincidentally connect on the first try?

Not everybody assumes that off mission up votes are automatically spyish. In fact, most beginners up vote to avoid looking like a spy. They have to be taught to down vote, and then untaught it. There is value to almost any strategy; especially up voting off mission.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
byronczimmer wrote:

Personally I choose not to always trust player #5 blindly.


So you decide to trust any other player blindly instead? Except in doing so you perform an action which actively makes you look like a spy hurting your trust among all other blue players? This seems like a very poor strategy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Krasny
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eugenetswong wrote:
If the spies see you connecting with a rebel, then they might panic. Gambling has good pay offs. Honestly, what are they going to do, if the rebels coincidentally connect on the first try?

Not everybody assumes that off mission up votes are automatically spyish. In fact, most beginners up vote to avoid looking like a spy. They have to be taught to down vote, and then untaught it. There is value to almost any strategy; especially up voting off mission.


Here is my position, which I hope can be refuted, but certainly hasn't been in this thread.

There is no rational reason for a blue player to upvote any proposal mission 1 because they have 0 information on every other player. They have information only on themselves.

On the other hand the red players do have a rational reason to upvote such a mission because they have added information on who is on the mission. They want to approve missions with spies on them.

Because of this, every upvote should look very suspicious because only a spy team benefits from a random 3rd upvote.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next Total Solar Eclipse holiday in 2024 in USA? See you there!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
VirtualAlex wrote:
There is no rational reason for a blue player to upvote any proposal mission 1 because they have 0 information on every other player. They have information only on themselves.

On the other hand the red players do have a rational reason to upvote such a mission because they have added information on who is on the mission. They want to approve missions with spies on them.

If spies upvote missions they are not on, they are found out, and you don't even get to hammer before you know who the spies are. But the spies are not stupid. Because spies would not expose themselves by upvoting missions they are not on, then the resistance members can upvote missions they are not on without them looking like spies.

Thus, it is absolutely impossible to say from a single off-team upvote whether you're a spy or a resistance member.

If m1 always goes to hammer, all players are giving up m1 to chance. That is not rational to me.

Play more. If your meta is ruining your games, breaking up your meta is your job.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
VirtualAlex wrote:
byronczimmer wrote:

Personally I choose not to always trust player #5 blindly.


So you decide to trust any other player blindly instead? Except in doing so you perform an action which actively makes you look like a spy hurting your trust among all other blue players? This seems like a very poor strategy.


You rejected the reason to trust in the original post. You are choosing to not accept 'reads' on other players based on actions, words, body language, tone, etc.

There is no *rational* or *logical* way to do this, it was mathematically baked into the game that way. You have to choose to trust someone at some point.

You are choosing to blindly trust position 5.

If I'm a red player...
and I know that there's a red player in position 5...
and I know there is a player that always blindly vote for whatever mission position 5 offers and rejects anything they're not on until then...
and the red player in position 5 knows that...

Then red wins. They'll either choose to implicate you or they'll keep you in the dark (both are options and both play out differently).

If you follow "Survivor", you may remember the 'alphabet voter' - a person who announced that they would be casting their votes for other players in an arbitrary (alphabetical) order. This allowed other players, knowing how that vote would go down, to remove a key threat to their voting block.

100% predictability is bad.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.