Thursday, October 21, 2010

Proposal: Your Surveillance Report needs work

Self-Killed. —Brendan

Adminned at 21 Oct 2010 13:16:57 UTC

Add the following to the end of the rule “Surveillance Report”

If an Agent does not have a Valid Surveillance Report, then D-Ops shall tell the Agent how many pairings between Codenames and Agents are wrong, without stating which pairs are wrong, if any and how many pairs share the Agent who made the Surveillance Report Allegiance, again without stating which pairs.

Even though I know Kev prob wouldn’t do such a thing, the current wording allows him to just say that a Report is wrong without having to say what you got wrong, thereby causing us to no doubt make new reports with the same unvaild reasons while throwing out vaild info. I think using the same rule as one of those memory guessing games, where someone picks four colors in any order they want and when you guess they tell you how many are in the order and how many are in the order along with being in the right spot without flat out saying whats right, is a fair trade off to Kev just giving out any answers. After all, isn’t that what us Agents should be doing? Though if wording is an issue then feel free to reword and repropose lol.



10-21-2010 06:14:12 UTC

against My objection is that it turns the thing into a logic puzzle, where Agents can just spam D-Ops with guesses until they work it out by process of elimination. In fact it makes submitting a Surveillance Report itself a source of information.

Thane Q:

10-21-2010 06:35:43 UTC



10-21-2010 08:22:29 UTC

I’m surprised by the expectation that I “prob wouldn’t” just say yes or no to a report, but would instead help the player out. Although it’s not explicitly in the ruleset, I’m assuming that all secret information can only be shared when the ruleset explicitly forces me to.

How broken is the spam solution here? The quickest one-man solution I can think of off the top of my head is to accuse everyone of being an arbitrary Allegiance (and get back the number of Agents of that Allegiance), then submit a string of one-Agent reports until you hit that number. You can double the speed by having an accomplice submitting half those reports, triple it by having two accomplices, etc, although this opens you up to being lied to.


10-21-2010 08:36:03 UTC

Of course, this opens up the usual problem of one player who cares about winning recruiting two players who don’t care about winning, to acquire information. It’d be nice to introduce a realistic possibility of betrayal into that, but I’m not sure how.


10-21-2010 15:13:07 UTC



10-21-2010 17:00:13 UTC



10-21-2010 17:14:36 UTC



10-21-2010 18:18:00 UTC

against S/K.

@Kev: Wasn’t trying to sound like a twit there lol. But we couldn’t really spam you anyway, since we’d have to send reports with atleast 3 pairings everytime.