Werewolf CIII: Kleptocratic Overlords and the Worldwide Revolution

[Ironhead 5]

Why did you vote him anyways? 3 on 1, what are the chances the wolf gets away. You claim you knew all along it was k-59, then just vote k-59.

jonti and I figured that there was an xx% chance that k-59 was the last wolf, and a yy% chance that the_split was the last wolf, and a 100% chance that either one was a wolf. Tell me: even if we were 90% sure that k-59 was the last wolf, why would we leave that last 10% up to chance? Why not go with 100% chance?

I was slightly more suspicious of k-59 right up until Split voted himself. When I saw that I thought JACKPOT, we flushed out the last wolf, Split is too smart to do something like this if he were a villager! (I overestimated Split, as you can see).

 

[AOK. 11]

I've said before in the General Thread that that is a problem. I still believe that. Winning should be possible by making your team win. Even if that means that people who get hunted on the first night can still win the game.
But this sounds like an excellent topic to move to General.

No. Just no.

Survival must be apart of the victory equation. Self interest and playing the line between survival and inflicting loss on the enemy is a critical part of the game. I would not sign up for kamikaze games. Death has to mean something. Werewolf is not Little League. Dead people do not get a trophy.

 

[drxav]

I didn't trust you. But I knew there were better wolves down there. The rest, I'd rather not say. I call it a king up my sleeve (reis is portuguese for king, btw). Too bad you had the ace there.

Marty99 was pretty clear. Had you told him he'd have told me and we'd have killed 3 blacks. I had J-L on my sights for a long time.

 

[drxav]

Why not go with 100% chance?

See how it went. A vote snipe isn't 100% accurate, that's even truer on this forum.

 

[reis91]

Marty99 was pretty clear. Had you told him he'd have told me and we'd have killed 3 blacks. I had J-L on my target for a long time.

You may have noticed that

a) I did not believe marty was hunter
b) I believed it quite possible for him to be a cultist. His behavior, on certain parts of the game, almost screamed baddie at me. Plus, he defended a number of baddies without giving justification. He was only implicated in the deaths of red wolves.
c) Saying one is a hunter is the most common bluff for goodies and baddies alike. Also, I presented you with a choice, one less catastrophic for the village than having me hunted. You, on the other hand, didn't give me any choice.

 

[Ironhead 5]

No. Just no.

Survival must be apart of the victory equation. Self interest and playing the line between survival and inflicting loss on the enemy is a critical part of the game. I would not sign up for kamikaze games. Death has to mean something. Werewolf is not Little League. Dead people do not get a trophy.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. There is no wriggle room on this.

Survival IS a part of the equation for everyone, and that is why you don't see "kamikaze" playing. In the early going, when no one knows anyone else's role, a villager has to defend himself vigorously from lynching because he (and he alone) knows that his death yields a 0% chance of killing a wolf. That is where the self-interest motivation lies, and that is why you don't see players selflessly laying down their lives for everyone else.

If people played the way you prescribe, AOK, WW on this forum would be dead. No JL spokesmen ever, no arguing against anyone else ever... WW zombieism runs rampant. Don't stick your neck out because your head will be chopped off, is that right?

If you don't like WW, you should invent your own forum game... call it "Survivor: Paradox Forums" and the point of the game will be to survive. How does that sound?

 

[Ironhead 5]

See how it went.

I know. I will forevermore always associate THE_SPLIT with cowardice. I'm still a little amazed at his craven behavior.

 

[AOK. 11]

If you don't like WW, you should invent your own forum game... call it "Survivor: Paradox Forums" and the point of the game will be to survive. How does that sound?

I am not the one inventing a game here Eisenkopf. Death has meant something in every Paradox Werewolf game ever, and you (and Randy) are the ones proposing something that would fundamentally change the game.

If you are dead, you do not win. That is how WW works. The self interest dynamic not only between enemies but also between allies is extremely important.

 

[drxav]

Also, I presented you with a choice, one less catastrophic for the village than having me hunted. You, on the other hand, didn't give me any choice.

What choice? I was working with Marty99 to get Najs, EUROO and J-L killed. He was supposed to hunt Najs, I was supposed to hunt J-L, and EUROO was supposed to lynch himself since he made his coming out as a "red wolf". The vote on EUROO was going fine, then you claim Marty99 is a wolf/cultist and call people to vote for him. Then you threaten to hunt me. I didn't know how many hunters there were so I took no chance at getting killed and miss my own hunt. I switched from J-L to you in the very last minute out of self-defense. Given the informations I had that's the best thing I could've done.

 

[marty99]

I'm speechless, all the same, credit to k-59; it was more of a village failure, but he did very well with what he got dealt.

I play to win the game: that means both surviving and my team winning, no compromise either way. I would never f*** my team up just to stay alive, but at the same time I wouldn't sacrifice myself for the good of my team if I felt there was even a slight chance of me winning.
For the record, people who died but are on the winning team should not be counted as winners, the system is fine the way it is, an equal responsibility for defeating the opposite side and for staying alive. There is also the inevitability that some people who do absolutely nothing and get killed early - maybe through their own fault - will get a victory, which cheapens the whole concept. Generally people who survive to the end deserve some credit even if they weren't terribly active, but people who die night 1 but their team wins do not, and should not, deserve victory.

I sort of agree with Jopi, this was in general a poor village performance solely because of inactivity - I hardly spent any time on this game yet I felt I was the only one even trying, at least until johho came along.

Yeah, SPLIT and I5 were the most obvious goodies and had either I5 or jonti bothered to even talk to SPLIT the goodies would probably have won.

Yes.

I'm also interested in hearing why I5 and marty though lynching me was such a good idea yesterday. I can't see how my conversation with EURO that I forwarded to you could have made any sense for a black wolf talking to a black cultist.

I'm sorry johho. I never read your pm until I came back online the next day IIRC. With that out of my thought process, you were a pretty good lynch, your voting record was unequivocally the worst, but more importantly you didn't vote jacob when he seemed the most obvious black, and jacob switched to himself whenever you started getting voted, which pointed strongly to you two being packmates.

It was good strategy to tie that day (the math was on our side). marty and I had previously discussed possible targets to tie, he threw johho's name out there, so I cast my vote on him -- and let the rest of you figure out if he was a good choice. Whether or not he was a villager, his death was still good policy because it would ensure better odds for us on the last day. It didn't have to be johho, but it had to be someone who was an uncleared player.

This. If you had lived you would almost certainly have been lynched today.

I feel quite relieved that all the people who followed reis push to get me lynched were all wolves, if a single villager had joined it I would be pouring vitriol on them now.




All in all, a very enjoyable AOK and thank you for hosting it, the only regret is that if it had been more active it could have been a real classic. Still, congratulations

 

[drxav]

your voting record was unequivocally the worst.

I really really don't understand how you can say that. He's only voted a villager once and had never been switching votes.

 

[Ironhead 5]

I am not the one inventing a game here Eisenkopf. Death has meant something in every Paradox Werewolf game ever, and you (and Randy) are the ones proposing something that would fundamentally change the game.

If you are dead, you do not win. That is how WW works. The self interest dynamic not only between enemies but also between allies is extremely important.

Death has always meant something because it sucks to not be able to participate and to have to sit out until the next game starts in ~3 weeks or whatever. But is has never negated the objective to win. Note how often a dead player says "Go village! (or wolves!)" after they died -- because their loyalties are still to their team.

We have never codified that only survivors can "win," until now. Let's go ahead and codify it into a new game called "Survivor: Paradox Forums." You can go ahead and GM the first iteration, AOK. I will sign up for your new game, and it appears you may have another player in marty99.

But let's not sully the game of WW by introducing a new rule that says only survivors can win. That would seriously screw with the game dynamic -- like the example I posted of someone outing important goodies just to avoid the hunt.

 

[marty99]

a) I did not believe marty was hunter

Despite several sources, including everyone in the JL, confirming it with spy reports.

b) I believed it quite possible for him to be a cultist. His behavior, on certain parts of the game, almost screamed baddie at me. Plus, he defended a number of baddies without giving justification. He was only implicated in the deaths of red wolves.

Which shows you are still inexperienced at this game, my behaviour was classic goodie-me.

c) Saying one is a hunter is the most common bluff for goodies and baddies alike. Also, I presented you with a choice, one less catastrophic for the village than having me hunted. You, on the other hand, didn't give me any choice.

But...we weren't going to hunt you, we would have lynched two blacks, and drxav would have hunted another one. Instead, you destroyed your chance of winning, destroyed your pack, and forced me to use my hunter ability which opened the way for me to be hunted and thus I lost the game too, and perhaps if I was still alive the village would have won. If I had my hunter shot we definitely would have. So yeah, your move handed victory to the blacks.

 

[AOK. 11]

All in all, a very enjoyable AOK and thank you for hosting it, the only regret is that if it had been more active it could have been a real classic. Still, congratulations

I was thinking this too, but we did have the third most posts by a game since joining the subforum. Considering the many village disasters, I am fairly pleased with how it turned out.

 

[AOK. 11]

But let's not sully the game of WW by introducing a new rule that says only survivors can win. That would seriously screw with the game dynamic -- like the example I posted of someone outing important goodies just to avoid the hunt.

Ironhead, you are delusional. Survivors have always been the only ones who win. If you are not alive, you do not win. If non-survivors on the winning side are supposed to be given wins, then we need to redo all the statistic threads, because we have apparently been doing it wrong for the past half decade.

 

[marty99]

Death has always meant something because it sucks to not be able to participate and to have to sit out until the next game starts in ~3 weeks or whatever. But is has never negated the objective to win. Note how often a dead player says "Go village! (or wolves!)" after they died -- because their loyalties are still to their team.

But they still lose, I don't know what you're trying to argue here. The only people ever counted as winners are people who have both survived to the end and been on the winning side. Trying to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

We have never codified that only survivors can "win," until now. Let's go ahead and codify it into a new game called "Survivor: Paradox Forums." You can go ahead and GM the first iteration, AOK. I will sign up for your new game, and it appears you may have another player in marty99.

You would be wrong, I play WW the way it is now, not your way or AOK's. Anyway, this is my last game for the next 5 months or so. Goodbye folks.

But let's not sully the game of WW by introducing a new rule that says only survivors can win. That would seriously screw with the game dynamic -- like the example I posted of someone outing important goodies just to avoid the hunt.

How is that a new rule? Since it isn't, it would not mean a villager would out important goodies, as they still have to make sure their own team wins i.e. the way Paradox Werewolf has worked for the last 5 and half years. Your attempts to completely misrepresent this situation is rather ridiculous, AOK was AFAIK not advocating any rule changes.

 

[Ironhead 5]

Ironhead, you are delusional. Survivors have always been the only ones who win. If you are not alive, you do not win. If non-survivors on the winning side are supposed to be given wins, then we need to redo all the statistic threads, because we have apparently been doing it wrong for the past half decade.

Yes, we certainly do not want the statistics threads to be inaccurate. What would people think?

 

[AOK. 11]

You would be wrong, I play WW the way it is now, not your way or AOK's. Anyway, this is my last game for the next 5 months or so. Goodbye folks.

Farewell Marty. I hope to see you again sooner than later.

 

[EUROO7]

The problem here is clear. People value "winning" the game too highly. The game is meant to be played, not won. It's the journey, not the destination that counts. If you had fun while playing, and you made an impact in the game, then consider that game a victory.

I have maybe one or two big game wins and I've been playing for three years, but have made a sizable impact in most the games I've played in.

 

[Ironhead 5]

But they still lose, I don't know what you're trying to argue here. The only people ever counted as winners are people who have both survived to the end and been on the winning side. Trying to pretend otherwise is frankly absurd.

Who "counts" the winners? Is there a WW governing body to whom we report winners? I die in nearly every game I'm in; but when the game ends, do you see me commiserating a "loss" with the (actual) losing side? Look at what happened when this game ended -- the black wolves come out and crow over the victory, the villagers kick the dirt and say "aw shucks" a lot. One side won; the other side lost. It isn't difficult to see, and it is the way it has always been.

How is that a new rule? Since it isn't, it would not mean a villager would out important goodies, as they still have to make sure their own team wins i.e. the way Paradox Werewolf has worked for the last 5 and half years. Your attempts to completely misrepresent this situation is rather ridiculous, AOK was AFAIK not advocating any rule changes.

Has it ever been written in the rules that the GM lists in the first post? "Rule 1a: You must survive to win." Never seen it; don't think we should change the game by adding it (although, if we were to invent a new game, we could include it -- but let's give that new game a unique title, such as "Survivor," and not just rip off the WW brand). So we should go back to the way we played in the first couple of years of WW, before it became an implicit assumption we foisted on new players: "you must survive to win." Let's not spoil new players with this nonsense -- let's go back to the way we played in 2006-2007, when we all played to win and not just survive. Otherwise, I fear, we will continue to shed players who are disillusioned with the way this game has devolved on this forum. To wit:

Anyway, this is my last game for the next 5 months or so. Goodbye folks.

You, among many others, will be taking a break. I hope we see you again. I wonder, why are so many people leaving? Why are we seeing so much WW "burnout," and how can we prevent it?