@Vecht
Another method would be to have people group themselves in general terms for easy identification and as a reminder of what that person likes to contribute towards the thread. I'm thinking HPMOR Harry Potter houses since I would assume most of us have read it already. We're the voices in Hazou's head; why not label ourselves just like how Harry labeled the various perspectives in his own head? You're already suggesting one reference; might as well make another. The two sciencey posters I already pinged would probably be Ravenclaws and we already have @Cariyaga as (I'm assuming) a Hufflepuff.

So, here is my general thread profile for the sake of keeping Hazou alive:
@Dictator4Hire : self identifies as Slytherin
Break glass/ping in case of politics (national or international), business ventures, clan drama, airships, a general lack of necessary applied ruthlessness in the thread, occasional speeches, and INO-SHIPPING
Less interested in: combat maths and unquestioned, knee-jerk restraint

I'm an Econ major, so I guess Slytherin? Fairly (lower case "c") conservative and risk-averse too.
 
I'm thinking HPMOR Harry Potter houses since I would assume most of us have read it already.
As an avid Harry Potter fan, and somebody who thinks that MOR is vastly overrated, the inclusion of that fic here somewhat annoys me. :p

But I do believe that the idea has some merit. Ravenclaw here, although I do have some Gryffindor tendencies, like cackling with glee at the thought of the pain train plan.
 
You seem to believe that Round 2 is a ways away, but that seems to be a bogus assumption. We can possibly finish this event in 3 updates.
It is no less than two voting cycles away (R1, then break), which means "practically indefinitely far into the future".

And, well, I already posted my reasoning regarding why it's related to R1 specifically.
 
I am fairly sure that it relates to round 2. If we successfully rampage in round 1 but only target blue teams that means we literally can not make the tournament if any further rampage causes us to lose 1000 points,
 
It is no less than two voting cycles away (R1, then break), which means "practically indefinitely far into the future".

And, well, I already posted my reasoning regarding why it's related to R1 specifically.
That's potentially true yes, but I believe around the same time as the warning EJ expressed dismay about trying to fit both rounds and the break in *one* update. To which we suggested something like Velorien write our social bs during the break so that EJ gets the pleasure of writing both combat segments.

So, I think you may be trying too hard to examine it from that lens.
 
Last edited:
I am fairly sure that it relates to round 2. If we successfully rampage in round 1 but only target blue teams that means we literally can not make the tournament if any further rampage causes us to lose 1000 points,
Ah. So the urgency was related to the fact that we need to destroy all teams in R1, because we may not have the opportunity to destroy anyone in R2, which means all R1!Red_Teams will stay undestroyed if we don't attack them in R1? That... could be it.
 
Last edited:
I definitely don't think @eaglejarl was referring to the word-halves gambit. It's a relatively complicated plan, not some vital but clear aspect of our situation. We could have solved that problem in any number of ways; word-halves is just one of them.

I'm not sure that it referred to Blue Teams' rules, either. Round 2 is weeks away, and he spoke with some urgency, which implies (and not in his usual literal-genie manner) that it's something relevant to our Round 1 performance. This comment suggest that as well: the connection isn't "what our situation in R2 will be determines our optimal behaviour in R1", but "our performance in R1 determines our situation in R2".

@eaglejarl, are you enjoying my attempts to derive actionable information from your statements sentences word-sequences?

What else could it be, though? I've read through your compilation very carefully and none of the other options strike me as particularly actionable. For example, there isn't really any preparation we can do against attempts to reduce our point total via Severe Consequences.
 
Are the three selected people meant to be generating ideas individually or collaboratively?
Remember kids, FIRST brainstorm individually by the clock to come up with as many ideas as you can. Write them all down as a way to precommit to sharing them. THEN share them, THEN have everyone do another round of brainstorming aimed at modifying or recombining ideas or adding ones that the original ideas inspire. You can in theory repeat this step until nobody has any new ideas to add. FINALLY, get together to collaboratively evaluate how promising each item on the full list of ideas is.
 
What else could it be, though? I've read through your compilation very carefully and none of the other options strike me as particularly actionable. For example, there isn't really any preparation we can do against attempts to reduce our point total via Severe Consequences.
Well, it could be something not on my list, because I missed it.

@Oneiros' argument seemed convincing to me, though. I concede the point.
 
What else could it be, though? I've read through your compilation very carefully and none of the other options strike me as particularly actionable. For example, there isn't really any preparation we can do against attempts to reduce our point total via Severe Consequences.

I believe it was:


Ah. So the urgency was related to the fact that we need to destroy all teams in R1, because we may not have the opportunity to destroy anyone in R2, which means all R1!Red_Teams will stay undestroyed? That... could be it.
We were under the assumption Blue Teams could just abandon ship and punch freely throughout the field , but this VERY MUCH violates the simulation aspect of the event.

Thus if our strategy remained unchanged (don't attack red in R1) then we would have only targeted slightly more than half our competition overall (if we attack as blue, say goodbye to 1000 points )This wouldn't get us the score needed for the finals.


If I'm reading that right...
 
Hey. What if we blue up our facility at the start of the second round, so we wouldn't have any reason to stay there?
 
Man, I wish quotes stacked like that naturally instead of having to contort the forum to do it.
Yeah, it requires manually editing the BBCode -- move the '[/quote]' on the first quote to be after the '[/quote]' on the second one. Sounds like you already knew that, though.

But EagleJarl said it wasn't about a traitor, and we've already went through my seven; neither of them seemed like a particularly good fit.
Why do you feel that?

The word halves let us solve this problem to an extent, which is why I find it likely that they're the big positive thing.
They are not.

Round 2 is weeks away,
Weeks IRL? In game it's 2 days away. Regardless, your strategy in round 1 will have very significant impact on how round 2 plays out.

@eaglejarl, are you enjoying my attempts to derive actionable information from your statements sentences word-sequences?
I really am, yes. :>

Hey. What if we blue up our facility at the start of the second round, so we wouldn't have any reason to stay there?
Did you mean 'blew up'?
 
Yeah, it requires manually editing the BBCode -- move the '{/quote]' on the first quote to be after the '{/quote]' on the second one. Sounds like you already knew that, though.
*squints*

Why would that be parsed any differently?

Do you mean move the second "{qUOTe=..}" along with the text to be inside the first one?

EDIT: nvm.Clearly not enough coffee this morning for me...
 
Last edited:
*squints*

Why would that be parsed any differently?

Do you mean move the second "{qUOTe=..}" along with the text to be inside the first one?

EDIT: nvm.Clearly not enough coffee this morning for me...
Caffeine is hell. I always forget why I feel like crap when I first wake up until my first shot of it :p
 
...

Somehow I don't think that would be simulating a functioning T&I facility, unless they're even more wild than I thought.
Why, we didn't blow it up ourselves. That dastardly red team did in an attempt to cost us points.

e: I mean, if I was forced to attack a sealmaster on prepared ground I'd just get rid of the prepared ground.
 
Last edited:
@Cariyaga, you want to lie to a proctor? I think eating up a -1000 penalty and getting disqualified is better than getting Leaf ejected from Mist and thereby ruining the negotiations.
 
In case anyone was confused: Vecht was / is a Patreon supporter of @Velorien. As his Patreon reward, Vecht create the character and character sheet of Minami Nikkō and Velorien wrote her into the story.
Starting a list for Mad-Eye Lottery. I'll select one person randomly for each meaningfully different plan candidate sometime early Friday afternoon. Ping me to be added.

Put me in for time tomorrow at 10pm PST.
 
Back
Top