• Snag some vintage SPL team logo merch over at our Teespring store before January 12th!

FEDS VS SMUGGLERS - GAME OVER, FED VICTORY

JALMONT said:
ImaginaryNeon Duskfall98 Dead by Daylight

actually this is incorrect we absolutely should swap. fuck i deleted my notes lol

if i am calculating correct we have a 66% chance of seizing the goods given that we know the group it is within

tbh i think it's almost worth just talking out loud and hoping for the best since whoever has the goods can't do anything about it. this way there's no confusion and we maximize our seizes. the problem then becomes if we target 2 people who don't have the goods it is very easy to pass to the person not being checked which is very bad.

the alternative is i try and think of a code. i think that's probably for the best. we can also discuss out loud but use code to communicate our targets
Click to expand...
You forgot to ping me
 
Duskfall98 said:
Submit same again
Click to expand...
tommy that's not a good idea because we know for a fact that who we searched did not pass or receive goods. since a point was scored that narrows down the list of people with the goods to 3. so if we search them we have a really good chance of picking up another 2 points instead of just defending the tie (which we coul

ok new thought

i guess technically we could submit the same because the odds are still the same however town can just pass between people who have previously held. in that scenario though the game stays tied until they attempt to pass to someone who can receive a point.

i dunno i guess to me that reads like playing for a draw so i kind of want to be aggressive. like with my plan we either lose or win or sometimes draw whereas your method is mostly draw but maybe win.

wow i just wrote the same thing two different ways maybe it doesn't matter lol
 
JALMONT said:
tommy that's not a good idea because we know for a fact that who we searched did not pass or receive goods. since a point was scored that narrows down the list of people with the goods to 3. so if we search them we have a really good chance of picking up another 2 points instead of just defending the tie (which we coul

ok new thought

i guess technically we could submit the same because the odds are still the same however town can just pass between people who have previously held. in that scenario though the game stays tied until they attempt to pass to someone who can receive a point.

i dunno i guess to me that reads like playing for a draw so i kind of want to be aggressive. like with my plan we either lose or win or sometimes draw whereas your method is mostly draw but maybe win.

wow i just wrote the same thing two different ways maybe it doesn't matter lol
Click to expand...

Will discuss more in the morning after correct me if I’m wrong but

6 smugglers have had goods, 4 have not

The game continues until one of the four receive, as it cannot tie, giving us a 50/50 chance of winning

If we choose to try target someone who may have the goods now, we would need to get 1/6 rather than 1/4 to win

Remember we can target whoever is giving or receiving to earn two points
 
Duskfall98 said:
Will discuss more in the morning after correct me if I’m wrong but

6 smugglers have had goods, 4 have not

The game continues until one of the four receive, as it cannot tie, giving us a 50/50 chance of winning

If we choose to try target someone who may have the goods now, we would need to get 1/6 rather than 1/4 to win

Remember we can target whoever is giving or receiving to earn two points
Click to expand...
4th paraphrase is incorrect since we know someone who had previously never received the goods received them. This means we can rule out 5 players
 
apricity said:
cool so i assume based on last round and this round that the feds are targeting people who have not yet held the goods (since the fact that a player who has not held the goods before this round got the goods and they are not changing strats)

so this round give more emphasis on people who have already had the goods before: pea, ck, realiti, skip

i'll leave it to y'all to decide the appropriate weighting -- maybe something like 75% of the time one of these four, 25% not?

enjoy
Click to expand...
If we know scum is targeting PPL who did not receive goods & are ignoring the group of me/pea/ck/skip, I believe the correct weighting should be 100%/0%. Gaining a point here gives scum enough information to target the goods holder on C10 with decent accuracy.

If we are 100% passing to PPL who received goods before, it might be optimal for the person who got the 5th point to claim, but I'm not sure. We lose odds C9 but gain odds C10.

Can all the townies do the math and get back to me on what you think? I believe we are unfavored here regardless.

As a reminder, scum know that these 6 players do not have the goods: pea, realiti, ck, skipper, target #1, target #2
 
I’d rather just be aggressive and try and find the goods tonight instead of just hoping for a tie. Either way it’s probably a coin flip of equal probability (redundant wording I know)

Assuming Tommy agrees Dbd and I will search

Neon and Tommy should search neon’s cycle 2 target

Dbd and I will search the player located below neon’s cycle 1 target, skipping all users who have received the goods and are not a fed.

A little complicated I know so please confirm if you are confused. Also let me know what you think and lwts wait to hear from Tommy.
 
JALMONT said:
I’d rather just be aggressive and try and find the goods tonight instead of just hoping for a tie. Either way it’s probably a coin flip of equal probability (redundant wording I know)

Assuming Tommy agrees Dbd and I will search

Neon and Tommy should search neon’s cycle 2 target

Dbd and I will search the player located below neon’s cycle 1 target on the playerlist, skipping all users who have received the goods and are not a fed.

A little complicated I know so please confirm if you are confused. Also let me know what you think and lwts wait to hear from Tommy.
Click to expand...
Added clarification to who Dbd and I should target
 
JALMONT said:
4th paraphrase is incorrect since we know someone who had previously never received the goods received them. This means we can rule out 5 players
Click to expand...
But we know there’s exactly 4 smugglers who haven’t received

We know they weren’t the people we targeted last night haven’t received?

So smugglers only win by giving the goods to a person in the group of 4, of which we know a group so if we lock on we can block 2 of the 4 making it 50/50?
 
JALMONT said:
I’d rather just be aggressive and try and find the goods tonight instead of just hoping for a tie. Either way it’s probably a coin flip of equal probability (redundant wording I know)

Assuming Tommy agrees Dbd and I will search

Neon and Tommy should search neon’s cycle 2 target

Dbd and I will search the player located below neon’s cycle 1 target, skipping all users who have received the goods and are not a fed.

A little complicated I know so please confirm if you are confused. Also let me know what you think and lwts wait to hear from Tommy.
Click to expand...

Like it’s hard to go into the maths in thread but I believe in most worlds things choosing to let the smugglers win the game, because you want the take the lower chance of winning, because it gives them an opportunity to get a point easier and therefore the game doesn’t end in a tie?

I don’t think the smugglers are going to perpetually hand the goods around the people we aren’t targeting they will eventually go for a win and if they don’t choose to try win I think it should be us going for a 33 percent chance because we egoed too hard to go for a 50 percent
 
JALMONT said:
I’d rather just be aggressive and try and find the goods tonight instead of just hoping for a tie. Either way it’s probably a coin flip of equal probability (redundant wording I know)

Assuming Tommy agrees Dbd and I will search

Neon and Tommy should search neon’s cycle 2 target

Dbd and I will search the player located below neon’s cycle 1 target, skipping all users who have received the goods and are not a fed.

A little complicated I know so please confirm if you are confused. Also let me know what you think and lwts wait to hear from Tommy.
Click to expand...

Ok fine it is probably coin flip anyways actually so I’ll submit on neon’s cycle two target

Make sure you and dbd are on the same page

ImaginaryNeon Dead by Daylight you guys good with this? (Obviously don’t mention name but say you understand)
 
JALMONT said:
I’d rather just be aggressive and try and find the goods tonight instead of just hoping for a tie. Either way it’s probably a coin flip of equal probability (redundant wording I know)

Assuming Tommy agrees Dbd and I will search

Neon and Tommy should search neon’s cycle 2 target

Dbd and I will search the player located below neon’s cycle 1 target, skipping all users who have received the goods and are not a fed.

A little complicated I know so please confirm if you are confused. Also let me know what you think and lwts wait to hear from Tommy.
Click to expand...
since scum is doing this, I believe the goods holder should pass to a person who has had the goods before. Townies, pls correct me if you disagree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top