Serial Killer Round 70: Soviet Submarine Slaughter!
- Thread starter snekadid
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Holy balls, a six way tie.
Work's been kicking my butt, so I haven't been around as much, but yeesh.
Glad we have the spy to ask a question though. They'll probably only get the one, right? Immune this round, Medic next?
Hopefully the list is halfway usable. Those votes are whack and I still picked up two. Makes a Comrade antsy, you know? Kinda plays into the "keep the argument going to prolong getting flack" idea.
Work's been kicking my butt, so I haven't been around as much, but yeesh.
Glad we have the spy to ask a question though. They'll probably only get the one, right? Immune this round, Medic next?
Hopefully the list is halfway usable. Those votes are whack and I still picked up two. Makes a Comrade antsy, you know? Kinda plays into the "keep the argument going to prolong getting flack" idea.
@Twintix-REF213.FEMALE
If you want the honest truth, its because I don't actually remember people by their names, but by their 'faces'. When I chose Twintix as a random example name I didn't realize it was 'dancing redhead triforce'. I actually don't know who dema is at all, although I feel as though he was once 'red animeish dog'.
If you want the honest truth, its because I don't actually remember people by their names, but by their 'faces'. When I chose Twintix as a random example name I didn't realize it was 'dancing redhead triforce'. I actually don't know who dema is at all, although I feel as though he was once 'red animeish dog'.
If anyone's wondering, I did ask my question!
I'm going for a roughly half split, seeing as it's least likely to backfire.
I'm going for a roughly half split, seeing as it's least likely to backfire.
We all live in a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine, yellow submarine We all live in a yellow submarine,
[HEADING=1]a yellow submarine! yellow submarine![/HEADING]
(sorry just going insane with fear)
[HEADING=1]a yellow submarine! yellow submarine![/HEADING]
(sorry just going insane with fear)
Is it?Demagogue said:
I'm not exactly sure how the results will look when I get them because of this whole doppelganger thing but surely it's better than asking something only a few users have in common and possibly getting a list of 7 suspects and 3 innocents, if there's say 10 players total as opposed to 5 suspects and 5 innocents. I'm no mathematician, though.
@Caramel Frappe: *whew* For a second there, I thought I would of had to vote for you... 
@altnameJag: Sorry about that... I could have made it a more odd vote on my end...
@Caramel Frappe: Don't temp me... I have connections...
To be fair, the sequel was way worse than the original and not just from a historical perspective...Armadox said:
@altnameJag: Sorry about that... I could have made it a more odd vote on my end...
@Caramel Frappe: Don't temp me... I have connections...
@Frappe: I can't vote for you ever now, you used "whom." *swoon*
@Headsprouter: The issue with the doppleganger is you have a roughly 50% chance to just get an answer that is every player.
If your question ends up having the killer in "yes", but the doppelganger in "no" for example, you'll get everyone back (and thus have wasted a question). The broader the question, the closer to 50% chances. The narrower the question, the less likely the doppelganger will impact the answer (but in a bad way, because it's more likely you'll get them lumped in the larger grouping and thus you weed out fewer people). It curbs the power of the spy linearly, since more specific questions statistically will weed out fewer people.
@Headsprouter: The issue with the doppleganger is you have a roughly 50% chance to just get an answer that is every player.
If your question ends up having the killer in "yes", but the doppelganger in "no" for example, you'll get everyone back (and thus have wasted a question). The broader the question, the closer to 50% chances. The narrower the question, the less likely the doppelganger will impact the answer (but in a bad way, because it's more likely you'll get them lumped in the larger grouping and thus you weed out fewer people). It curbs the power of the spy linearly, since more specific questions statistically will weed out fewer people.
@Crysan: I don't believe that "whom" was actually correct there, as it was pertaining to the subject of the sentence, which would warrant a "who". So your swooning may be unnecessary. But hell, english isn't even my first language, so I'm just guessing most of the time.
@Twix
I dunno, you look pretty unhappy...
@Pumkeen
It is an issue I think with the idea of the doppleganger in general. There are a number of easily producible killer/dopple combinations which would basically limit the group of successful questions the spy could ask to "does the killer have more than x number of letters in their name" and going through that way to approach the killer, especially considering in this game people have changed their profile to avoid easy detection.
Personally I like the idea of a "suicidal dynamite salesman" character as a help to the killer better. That being a person who wants to die, and if executed explodes and kills another person or persons depending on balance. Rather than making it wholly luck based as to whether your spy can do anything a given round and pushing all the fault and pressure onto them, the onus is passed to the group at large to figure out if they are killing the right person or endangering themselves. Casting suspicions willy nilly could punish the group, encouraging more careful thought and detective work.
I dunno, you look pretty unhappy...
@Pumkeen
It is an issue I think with the idea of the doppleganger in general. There are a number of easily producible killer/dopple combinations which would basically limit the group of successful questions the spy could ask to "does the killer have more than x number of letters in their name" and going through that way to approach the killer, especially considering in this game people have changed their profile to avoid easy detection.
Personally I like the idea of a "suicidal dynamite salesman" character as a help to the killer better. That being a person who wants to die, and if executed explodes and kills another person or persons depending on balance. Rather than making it wholly luck based as to whether your spy can do anything a given round and pushing all the fault and pressure onto them, the onus is passed to the group at large to figure out if they are killing the right person or endangering themselves. Casting suspicions willy nilly could punish the group, encouraging more careful thought and detective work.
I'm no mathematician either but I'm bored and crunched the number anyway. Here's a break down with the Doppelganger in effect:Headsprouter said:
If you ask about a trait only 10% of the users have the odds are:
1% that the list of suspects is reduced by 90%, 81% that the list is reduced by 10%, and 18% that you get no information.
If you ask about a trait only 25% of the users have the odds are:
6.25% to reduce the list by 75%, 56.25% to reduce the list by 25%, 37.5% that you get no information.
If you ask about a trait 50% of the users have the odds are:
50% to reduce the list by 50%, and 50% that you get no information.
So basically the most specific a question the Spy asks the more likely they are to get information but the less useful that information normally is.
Yes, but going by the metric of number of suspects reduced, asking balanced question reduces the number of suspects the most, under the assumption that all suspects are equally suspicious and likely to be the killer. Continuing the previous example of 10 suspects:gritch said:
If you ask about a trait only 10% of the users have the number of suspects is reduced by:
0.01 * 9 + 0.81 * 1 + 0.18 * 0 = 0.9 [footnote]The decimals are percentages of likelihood, so 0.01 is a 1% likelihood, and the whole numbers are measures of suspects reduced, so there is a 1% chance the number of suspects is reduced by 9, a 81% chance that the number of suspects is only reduced by 1 and a 18% chance that the number of suspects isn't reduced at all, leading to an average of 0.9 suspects less per question.[/footnote]
If you ask about a trait only 25% of the users have the number of suspects is reduced by:
0.0625 * 7.5 + 0.5625 * 2.5 + 0.375 * 0 = 1.875
If you ask about a trait 50% of the users have the number of suspects is reduced by:
0.5 * 5 + 0.5 * 0 = 2.5
So if we calculate this, we see that the most efficient manner of reducing the number of suspects is to ask questions with a 50/50 split.
Interestingly, the doppelgänger doesn't affect the decision-making process at all. So if we just look at the probabilities without taking the doppelgänger-effect into account.
If you ask about a trait only 10% of the users have the number of suspects is reduced by:
0.1 * 9 + 0.9 * 1 = 1.8
If you ask about a trait only 25% of the users have the number of suspects is reduced by:
0.1 * 9 + 0.9 * 1 = 3.75
If you ask about a trait 50% of the users have the number of suspects is reduced by:
0.5 * 5 + 0.5 * 5 = 5
As you can see, the Doppelgänger reduces the number of suspects the spy gets rid off by precisely 50%.[footnote]0.9*2=1.8, 1.875*2=3.75 and 2.5*2=5[/footnote] But this is quite intuitive, as he simply makes 50% of all questions ineffective.
What was rather unintuitive to me was the fact that this 50/50 split reduces the number of suspects more efficiently. My first theory was that the specificity of the spy's question wouldn't even have an impact, but after crunching the numbers, it doesn't look that way. And I'm pretty sure my math is correct. So my recommendation to spies would be to ask balanced questions, unless somebody finds a mistake here.
Ah, yeah I was only looking into the first aspect of the chances the doppelganger would produce a false answer. I agree with your math that it is still the most efficient to ask 50/50 questions given we're trying to reduce the pool as quickly as possible.
You can check your math as well because each sample is exactly 50% weaker with the doppelganger, as it should be.
Edit: Hippo, he's in project management or something. Computers are a mystery to him.
You can check your math as well because each sample is exactly 50% weaker with the doppelganger, as it should be.
Edit: Hippo, he's in project management or something. Computers are a mystery to him.