Math behind MINDNIGHT

[✈『Bliss』]

If everyone plays the game the proper way there is NO CHANCE for agents to win. You can gather intel by various methods but the fact that you can BLUFF a node makes it impossible to be right and agents will always end up in a situation in which is luck based. That is horrible, it is literally game breaking. Any ideas for solution?

My idea is that if a hacker is in the node he MUST hack. If there is more than one hacker it doesn't show the amount of hackers in the node, it's just hacked

[BonesNo3]

the game has been out there for many years, it is not going to change because you are bad at it

[✈『Bliss』]

Originally posted by Bones:

the game has been out there for many years, it is not going to change because you are bad at it

I never said I'm bad or salty, I just want to lay something out, give a feedback, improve the game. What is your problem? Go troll somewhere else champ

[BonesNo3]

NO CHANCE for agents to win
impossible to be right
always luck based
horrible
literally game breaking

you are bad

[Roh]

My heart fluttered a little bit there when i seen the noun ...

Math

... in the title. I must say I'm a little disappointed.

Just to critique this, tangentially, I'm curious as to how you actually do collect intel? If you want some math at least attempting to explain this game, it's presented in my Ex Machina guide.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1389229248

To gloss over pretty much everything, this game depends on two things: Agents being able to behave consistently as expected of their role, and Agents being able to observe others consistently. If neither is present, no statistical method or heuristic will be able to delineate lemons from wankers (Wow at the censorship!). As alms to the disillusioned, this exact type of situation wherein there is no tried-and-true method for players to figure another out, due to numerous factors including the quasi-anonymous means of participation, is exactly what the developers of this version of the game wanted in the first place. Consider it as a sandbox to interact with others, and to develop a quizzical look bereft of trust. Getting frustrated with a game is exactly how you will lose in the first place.

[✈『Bliss』]

Originally posted by Roh:

My heart fluttered a little bit there when i seen the noun ...

Math

... in the title. I must say I'm a little disappointed.

Just to critique this, tangentially, I'm curious as to how you actually do collect intel? If you want some math at least attempting to explain this game, it's presented in my Ex Machina guide.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1389229248

To gloss over pretty much everything, this game depends on two things: Agents being able to behave consistently as expected of their role, and Agents being able to observe others consistently. If neither is present, no statistical method or heuristic will be able to delineate lemons from wankers (Wow at the censorship!). As alms to the disillusioned, this exact type of situation wherein there is no tried-and-true method for players to figure another out, due to numerous factors including the quasi-anonymous means of participation, is exactly what the developers of this version of the game wanted in the first place. Consider it as a sandbox to interact with others, and to develop a quizzical look bereft of trust. Getting frustrated with a game is exactly how you will lose in the first place.

Good post champ, thanks for awesome feedback
It's a fair point to actaully play on the chances and use trust as main go-to strategy, right after analyzing what is happening. But my point was that if all players played perfectly well, there is no instance where agents win. If everyone played it serious it's going to be tough to find a hacker.
PS yeah, I know I might be taking it serious but that was what i wanted to point out, a very competetive play ;)

[BonesNo3]

there is no such a thing as "all players played perfectly"
if hackers are allowed to play perfectly it means that agents could have done better and vice versa

from the statistics the devs made public a good while back the results seem to favor hackers, the more the players in the game the greater the imbalance reaching 75% in 8 player games and even in 5 player games i believe it was just above 60%

so what can you do?

either play the mode with the nuker and the one agent that knows who the hackers are from the start, that mode is more balanced
or go against the odds and try to be a good agent, many players have a positive win / loss ratio as agents, why not you?

there are plenty of guides here on steam and also online if you search for "The Resistance board game" or "Avalon board game" (Avalon is the mode with the 2 extra roles)

[CryonicSuspension]

I think that ultimately you are right but Hackers usually make mistakes in their voting patterns or speech patterns because it's difficult to doublethink.

Hackers have to do a lot of mental gymnastics.

[ɃƵ Crazy Cat Lady]

You are not factoring what people say, or how they act, you are only looking at the node prep/ref/accept data.

[Roh]

But I do; I don't think it was stated explicitly, but it's ultimately for you to decide. As you get better with experience, you'll be able to figure things out to a decent extent, sufficient for you to pick out who is playing as they should. That being said, it's not counting any inexperience, or mistakes, or disconnects, et.c.

[Martin Harris]

This is a social deduction game, there is no "playing right", you have to manipulate and people have to be tricked and make mistakes.

[[NTF] Groot Piel Ugokhufu Manate]

If hacker would have to hack it would take all the fun from playing hacker lol

[Martin Harris]

Originally posted by Groot Piel Ugokhufu Manatel:

If hacker would have to hack it would take all the fun from playing hacker lol

Yeah, there would be hardly any trickery, everything would be so open.