Sopranos Mafia - Family Redefined - GAME THREAD

Derry WW

Oisin WW wrote: »

That's the munch. However, the ITA is starting to give me concern. Yesterday, there were 3 successful shots, but today none? That's strange. I got myself on FFAs yesterday for suggesting this, but I can't help but feel something might not be right with these ITAs in the context of them clearing villagers. That they might be a device to allow a sniper to get their shot away without being noticed. Of course, if the sniper had to type 'Shoot: Fred WW' in thread, that would not be fair on them as they would be found out. However, if the game had daily ITA sessions for them to blend in with, that's the perfect cover for the sniper.

No sniper shot yet? That's...patient. Ok, the sniper might be saving their bullets for an end-game situation, but apparently 3 villagers were cleared during yesterday's ITA. Would the sniper not have felt confident taking a shot on one of them in the 24 hours since then?

I've been worried about this as well and there was some discussion this morning about it but most people seem to think that this wasn't a possibility.

Gabriel WW

@Oisin, I may be biased, but none of these answers seriously sound like the response of an FBI sniper to a successful kill:

Holly's shot on Wendy:

Jack Moore wrote: »

Now we are sucking diesel
Hit Paulie is dead

Gabriel's shot on Angus:

Necrominus wrote: »

Hit!

Angus, an NRV has been shot dead.

Mary's shot on Riona:

Necrominus wrote: »

Hit!

Jennifer Melfi has been shot dead

Oisin WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Even if you're wrong, I don't think you're coming across as wolfie to open the possibility that the cleared aren't as cleared as it looks. I know I'm alright, but there could well be a mechanic whereby a baddie could hide among the successful ITA shots, I guess.

It's clear as day in the OP that there are other possibilities with the ITA shots not related to villagers or even the sniper. So I'm not thinking there is definitely a sniper in there. I just think that until we see an actual sniper shot, we keep an openish mind with the ITA mechanic.

As for you, Mary and Holly. I had my leanings on 2/3 of you before yesterdays ITA session. Funny enough, the ITA made my good leaning better, and my bad leaning worse.

Gabriel WW

Oisin WW wrote: »

It's clear as day in the OP that there are other possibilities with the ITA shots not related to villagers or even the sniper. So I'm not thinking there is definitely a sniper in there. I just think that until we see an actual sniper shot, we keep an openish mind with the ITA mechanic.

As for you, Mary and Holly. I had my leanings on 2/3 of you before yesterdays ITA session. Funny enough, the ITA made my good leaning better, and my bad leaning worse.

Care to say which?

Desmond WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

?

Ugh sorry I'm all over the place. I obvs went for Fiona. Sorry

Gabriel WW

Derry WW wrote: »

On mobile so can't easily find it but a bit concerned by one of Jake's posts.

I started looking at outlier votes as I think that it's unlikely that all the bad guys landed on Frank and Fiona last night especially if Fiona is a baddie. His vote for Liam was odd and his explanation for it didn't sit well with me

This?

Jake WW wrote: »

That was the main reason I voted Liam. One post being a target on Fiona.

I was surprised he didn’t even ask me why I voted for him.

It’s not much but when he chose “no vote” I was a bit more miffed.

Liam I’m not saying you are bad but could you at least give the village a little understanding on your strategy?

Derry WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

This?

Yeah...The bit about being more miffed that Liam chose no vote. Jake wouldn't have known Liam's vote until after the results so that shouldn't have made a difference.

Derry WW

It reads ambiguously but it threw me a bit

Gabriel WW

The only thing I have on Jake is that he was one of the few people that Wendy interacted with. It seemed an innocuous enough interaction to me, but who knows.

Fiona WW

Taking the night off. Had some sad family news and not in the frame of mind to argue on the internet. Be grand in the morning.


Voting a No Lynch for tonight. Sorry

Gertrude WW

Guys, I've been working on the formula and I've come to the conclusion that there is an extremely limited number of possible ITA hits available. Perhaps 7 or 8 and definitely no more than 10

Using the following values ::

( max [ 1 - ( ( φ x 100) - α + ( γ / 3) / ( φ x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2^θ



where

φ = Game day
α = shooters post count
γ = targets post count
θ = number of ITA hits in the game.
The function max [ x , y ] results in the greater value, be it x or y. eg. max [ 2 , 5 ] = 5 or max [ 21 , 1.58 ] = 21


Game day 1
Shooters count of posts 20
Targets count of posts 6
number of possible ITA hits 12


( max [ 1 - (( 1 x 100) - 20 + ( 6/3 ) / ( 1 x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2 ^ 12


( max [ 1 - (( 100) - 20 + ( 2 ) / (100)), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096

( max [ 1 - ( 78 / 100 ), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096 )

( max [ 0.22 , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096 )

( 22 / 4096 ) = 0.0053% chance of a hit


Game day 2
Shooters count 100
targets count 6
number of ITA hits 12

( max [ 1 - (( 2 x 100) - 100 + ( 6/3 ) / ( 2 x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2 ^ 12


( max [ 1 - ( 200 - 102 / 200 ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096

( max [ 1 - ( 98 / 200 ), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096

( max [ 0.51 , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096

51 / 4096

0.012%


So no matter the gap in number of posts, if there's as many as 12 possible ITA attack hits, the % chance of hitting is tiny.

If we change the possible ITA hits to 8, those percentage chances change dramatically

Game day 1 percentage chance on those numbers is 8.5% to hit

Game day 2 percentage chance on those numbers is 19.9% to hit



Conclusion, we had 3 of our allotted hits on day 1, so there's only 5? more hits remaining. Its perhaps not a surprise that we missed all today.


If you see anything wrong with my figures, correct as necessary

Derry WW

I'd love to be able to correct you but I'm not sure where you got the number of ITA hits from?

Oisin WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Care to say which?

Fúck it, I've nothing to lose*. May as well say I'm village, and that I was leaning good on you and bad on Holly. Thinking about it further, the fact that Mary had a successful shot even with a low post count is something to think about - I don't understand the math too well, but it was opined in the run-up to this game, and during it, that the more posts you have the better your chance in the ITA session.

*Nothing to lose: As it turns out, if Silvio Dante is an active player and did his job right, the bad teams know I'm village. So I'll let the village know now - I was put in Witness Protection for an hour yesterday morning. I found out way after the fact, as I was offline and asleep between 10am and 11am when I was WPed.

Silvio Dante finds out the identity of those the FBI failed to turn, so he likely would have told the rest of the Sopranos about me by now. The FBI knows they tried to WP me. And now, the village knows.

I asked when I came online yesterday if I could still get an hour in WP, having missed the 10-11am slot, but I got no reply from the mods. Not even a 'go and shíte you cheeky bugger'. So I didn't actually get to see the WP room

Nigel WW

Gertrude WW wrote: »

Guys, I've been working on the formula and I've come to the conclusion that there is an extremely limited number of possible ITA hits available. Perhaps 7 or 8 and definitely no more than 10

Using the following values ::

( max [ 1 - ( ( φ x 100) - α + ( γ / 3) / ( φ x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2^θ



where

φ = Game day
α = shooters post count
γ = targets post count
θ = number of ITA hits in the game.
The function max [ x , y ] results in the greater value, be it x or y. eg. max [ 2 , 5 ] = 5 or max [ 21 , 1.58 ] = 21


Game day 1
Shooters count of posts 20
Targets count of posts 6
number of possible ITA hits 12


( max [ 1 - (( 1 x 100) - 20 + ( 6/3 ) / ( 1 x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2 ^ 12


( max [ 1 - (( 100) - 20 + ( 2 ) / (100)), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096

( max [ 1 - ( 78 / 100 ), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096 )

( max [ 0.22 , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096 )

( 22 / 4096 ) = 0.0053% chance of a hit


Game day 2
Shooters count 100
targets count 6
number of ITA hits 12

( max [ 1 - (( 2 x 100) - 100 + ( 6/3 ) / ( 2 x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2 ^ 12


( max [ 1 - ( 200 - 102 / 200 ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096

( max [ 1 - ( 98 / 200 ), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096

( max [ 0.51 , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 4096

51 / 4096

0.012%


So no matter the gap in number of posts, if there's as many as 12 possible ITA attack hits, the % chance of hitting is tiny.

If we change the possible ITA hits to 8, those percentage chances change dramatically

Game day 1 percentage chance on those numbers is 8.5% to hit

Game day 2 percentage chance on those numbers is 19.9% to hit



Conclusion, we had 3 of our allotted hits on day 1, so there's only 5? more hits remaining. Its perhaps not a surprise that we missed all today.


If you see anything wrong with my figures, correct as necessary

I believe the ITA hits means, number of ITA hits made, not possible ITA hits. There have been three ITA hits so far. So I think there would be a (.51/8) or 6.375% chance of a single hit being successful with your post numbers on day two. I can't remember exactly how the modifier announced by Jack worked though which would change things slightly I reckon.

Gertrude WW

Derry WW wrote: »

I'd love to be able to correct you but I'm not sure where you got the number of ITA hits from?

I was presuming there was at least 1 value being kept hidden from the players by the mods and I was making that number up based on that. I tried to formula with 12 and the percentage chance to hit was tiny, so I tried it with 8 and got much more reasonable values

Derry WW

Gertrude WW wrote: »

I was presuming there was at least 1 value being kept hidden from the players by the mods and I was making that number up based on that. I tried to formula with 12 and the percentage chance to hit was tiny, so I tried it with 8 and got much more reasonable values

Ah I see. Like Nigel I assumed it was the number of successful hits in the game so far but wasn't sure as the formula itself confused me

Oisin WW

After last night's confusion with his vote (and the night before's too, and registering a shot in yesterday's ITA) I'd really like to hear more from Liam. Liam, you're not going to learn how to play by not being active.

Gabriel WW

Oisin WW wrote: »

Fúck it, I've nothing to lose*….

Okay, good to know. I believe you, and now we know when WP starts. Shame you didn't see their room.

Why you think Holly is bad. She shot a wolf? I thought you were gonna say I was the one you thought was bad. I'm the only one of the three to shoot a villager.

Nigel WW

My calculations given the update to set θ = -2 following the no kill and no lynch. I'm putting in extra brackets around one element because if I don't I get negative values. I could be doing it wrong but I think this whole term ( φ x 100) - α + ( γ / 3) is to be divided by ( φ x 100 ), and not just the last element of it.

( max [ 1 - ( (( φ x 100) - α + ( γ / 3)) / ( φ x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2^θ

where

φ = Game day
α = shooters post count
γ = targets post count
θ = number of ITA hits in the game.


Game day 1
Shooters count of posts 10
Targets count of posts 6
Number of hits 0 (set to -2 by mods)


( max [ 1 - ((( 1 x 100) - 10 + ( 6/3 )) / ( 1 x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2 ^ (-2)


( max [ 1 - ((( 100) - 10 + ( 2 )) / (100)), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 0.25

( max [ 1 - ( 92 / 100 ), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / .25)

( .08) x 100% / .25 )

32% chance of a hit prior to any hits being made yesterday. So around a third. This increases a fair amount the greater the disparity between post count of shooter and victim, and the higher the number of posts by the shooter. Seems plausible given the number of deaths we had yesterday and the number of attempts. Although with each hit yesterday the probability would have fallen. It would have been more sensitive to post counts yesterday though given θ being set to minus two in the beginning.

Then on day 2 there have been 3 hits, so the number of ITA hits moves from -2 to 1 and we have the following assuming a doubling of posts by both victim and shooter.

( max [ 1 - ((( 2 x 100) - 20 + ( 12/3 )) / ( 2 x 100 ) ) , 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2 ^ (1)


( max [ 1 - ((( 200) - 20 + ( 4 )) / (200)), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2

( max [ 1 - ( 184 / 200 ), 0.05 ] ) x 100% / 2)

( .08) x 100% / 2 )

4% chance of a single shot being successful based on these assumptions. It will remain at 4% tomorrow if you increase the number of posts by both victim and shooter at same rate as between day one and two.

So that's 4% likelihood for the given post numbers, which are probably on the low side. Although using my shot against Clodagh as an example I think I had around 25 posts and she had 5 which meant I had a 5.83% chance of being successful today. A long shot because of the three hits yesterday.

Oisin WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Okay, good to know. I believe you, and now we know when WP starts. Shame you didn't see their room.

Why you think Holly is bad. She shot a wolf? I thought you were gonna say I was the one you thought was bad. I'm the only one of the three to shoot a villager.

Yeah, it's shít I didn't get a look at the room but at least we know the FBI didn't convert anyone yesterday (once you believe me)

It was something Holly said around the ITAs yesterday which I can't shake. I won't point it out, because if I'm wrong on my leaning it could actually help the wolves.

Yeah Holly shot a wolf, but FBI sniper needs to shoot wolves too.

Still though...with more discussion about the ITA and the math in the last hour, plus no ITA shots today, I'm starting to believe less in that sniper theory.

With 3 villagers confirmed yesterday, I was thinking that there's no way these ITAs can clear up to 3 villagers per day, objectively that's just not fair on the bad teams. However, with no shootings today, maybe the ITAs are as they appear - they clear some villagers, without the possibility of an FBI sniper being in there.

Liam WW

Oisin WW wrote: »

After last night's confusion with his vote (and the night before's too, and registering a shot in yesterday's ITA) I'd really like to hear more from Liam. Liam, you're not going to learn how to play by not being active.

I have been active today Oisin, couple of posts in this thread and plenty in the COP thread, just trying to learn the dynamics of the game... Soaking it all in!

Gabriel WW

Whoops

Ewan WW

an explosive Ewan. It’s a much easier equation than the ITA. I’ve had a chat with the mods, who are always super cool and I’ve cooled down.

So this is where we sit at the moment.

Holly
Mary
Gabriel

All seem to be confirmed villagers, right. Unless I’ve missed something. They were able to shoot successfully at ITAs .

All these are dead

Riona WW - Psych (Dead)
Frank WW - NRV (Dead)
Angus WW - Villager (Dead)
Wendy WW - Walnuts (Dead)

That leaves these remaining players

Nigel WW
Brendan WW
Vernon WW
Liam WW
Clodagh WW
Ewan WW
Derry WW
Desmond WW
Fiona WW
Barbara WW
Gertrude WW
Henry WW
Katie WW
Jake WW
Orla WW

Out of these the following have failed shoot attempts.

Liam WW
Fiona WW
Brenden WW
Katie WW
Orla WW
Ewan WW
Derry WW
Nigel WW
Vernon WW

All these had shots fired at them unsuccessfully today

Clodagh (from Nigel )
Katie (Ewan)
Ewan (Katie)
Fiona (Brenden)
Fiona (
Desmond (Derry)
Orla (Derry)
Desmond (Vernon)
Katie (Katie)
Brenden (Katie)
Clodagh (Katie)
Gertrude (Fiona)
Gabriel (Fiona).

Those are facts. Im not sure on how the ITAs work. Baddies aren’t able to land successful hits as far as Im aware and ratios are in place which go over my head to render a shot successful. I assumed it was post count, as in the higher the post count the better chance of success, but obviously theres more to it than that. I’m just too dumb at math to grasp it. Frank missed his kill and was NRV, so we know villagers can miss. I tunnelled Frank over his defence of Fiona. I have atheory on why he defended her but I wont spell it out just yet.With not much to go on an dteh fact he had a failed hit, I only saw him as bad. That’s on me. Feel free to crucify me on that one if needs be.



So my thoughts on players that’s not confirmed

Fiona – Too brash to be a wolf, but brash does win games. Perhaps a player with 2 accounts feeling brave knowing they have a safety net of another role. That said, if Im a betting man, village lean.

Winifred – Odd posting style. Voting for a known goodie at lynch day 1, struck me as someone giving a signal to Gab. Whether they are good or bad, I dunno. Maybe a little too care free to be a wolf.

Oisin – Has not posted a lot in terms of amount of posts, but the posts he has put forward are well constructed. While his theories haven’t panned out, I have found myself feeling that I like his way of thinking and exploring other options, despite them being flawed. Like his FBI sniper ITA theory. Good lean. I believe his Witness protection story for now. Would like to see them post more. Not sold on holly being bad theory, but I feel its coming from a good place. My feelings on it is that its possible, and I wont discount it, but I think its unlikely.

Brenden – Very trigger happy in ITA after being fairly quiet until then. Not much of a read yet.

Katie – I was up in the height of it today, so firstly an apology is in hand esp after talking to the mods, Im sorry for blowing up. WW is stressful, I just felt you were picking on me for being spread thin on this and in real life. Very trigger happy in ITAs today and did call Gab out as Christopher , well that’s how I read it. Slight bad lean but really not sure

Gerttrude – Appears helpful, enjoying her posts about the formula, which I still don’t fully understand. Good maths don’t make a villager though, could easily be a helpful wolf. Nothing to say they are good or bad either way for me.

Nigel – Same as Gert, while they may be doing their best to figure eout/explain the ITA ratio, I get the feeling it’s a perfect way for a wolf to post and appear helpful. Besides that a slight bad lean but that’s purely off my gut.

Liam – Claiming new player, not enough to decide whether he is honest. His shot yesterday which failed has me thinking he’s not so new, but I could be wrong. Has as many posts as a dead wolf.

Jake – Odd vote for Liam. Like why Liam over Frank who seemed more guilty to me. HELL, Orla would have been a better shout than Liam. Not sold on the interacting with Wendy angle though as suggested by someone else. If I was to take a stab at it, Bad lean.

Clodagh – Had no early read on Clodagh, used them in my day one lynch trap. No real read but worried about her absence. Would like to see more. Has even less posts than Liam.

Henry – Very little of Henry sop far, no read. Same as Clodagh only less posts.

Barbara – Slight villager lean based on their rationle for their lynch vote, besides that I would like to see more.

Vernon – Good lean, I feel they have contributed well to the village, post collections with thoughts.

Desmond – No read, hasn’t been here, like Henry.

Orla – Her attempted shot had me uneasy yesterday, however Ive cooled on that but her absence for today is not sitting well with me. Cant shake the feeling they are an out of sight out of mind wolf. Slight bad lean

Im not one for going after low posters, but I would like to see more posts from the following

Clodagh
Brenden
Henry
Liam
Desmond
Winifred
Oisin (though his post content has been good in my view)

While the wolves and FBI have missed there kills, they have hidden well. I have no strong wolf lean on anyone. I cast my vote earlier for Katie in anger, I wont be going that route. I think one of the low posters would be a wolf. My vote tonight may be a low poster mainly cause I’m stumped for ideas, but right now I’m open to discussion.

Ewan out!

Ewan WW

The first bit of my post got cut off when forwarding it over from word

it should read :

"Firstly sorry to all for my little meltdown with Katie, Real life multiply by game stress = a formula for an explosive Ewan. It’s a much easier equation than the ITA. I’ve had a chat with the mods, who are always super cool and I’ve cooled down. "

Gabriel WW

Ewan, a lot of your thoughts align with my own. Not all obviously (that would be just too weird), but a lot. What do you think of Derry? You left him out of your list.

Henry WW

If Oisin is to be believed (I think he is being truthful) then we have another person to add to the village core.

But this also raises the question about other conversions. Oisin said his attempted conversion was today so what happened yesterday? Failed conversion and the poster hasn’t disclosed or has a mafia member been converted?

Ewan WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Ewan, a lot of your thoughts align with my own. Not all obviously (that would be just too weird), but a lot. What do you think of Derry? You left him out of your list.

Did i?

Derry has a slight good lean. I would be curious as to the rationle behind his attempted hits today though

Oisin WW

Henry WW wrote: »

If Oisin is to be believed (I think he is being truthful) then we have another person to add to the village core.

But this also raises the question about other conversions. Oisin said his attempted conversion was today so what happened yesterday? Failed conversion and the poster hasn’t disclosed or has a mafia member been converted?

Hi Henry.

My attempted conversion was yesterday, not today.

Ewan WW

Sorry i posted before I finished. Derrys Jake probing has me thinking hes slightly good. Jakw should explain himself better

Derry WW

Ewan WW wrote: »

Did i?

Derry has a slight good lean. I would be curious as to the rationle behind his attempted hits today though

My rationale was simple. There were a few I suspected but I was most suspicious of Orla who claimed they voted No Lynch because of the existence of ITAs, with a logic that I personally disagreed with. She then didn't even show up for the ITA session.

The Des shot was at Gabriel's suggestion and I took it because Vernons shot didn't land and was unclear at the time whether more than one shot would count.