Werewolf CIII: Kleptocratic Overlords and the Worldwide Revolution

[reis91]

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.

Ehhhh, and you didn't consider to let me know instead of hunting me. But, imagine for one second that I too was a hunter. You would not only miss your hunt, as I would miss mine. We would both kill each other, and look extremely stupid. You knew, or at least you displayed so, that I wasn't a black wolf. Therefore, the fact that you managed to survive would have been irrelevant if your hunts/lynches turned wrong. You would still lose. Because you gave the Blacks two extra hunts.

What threw me off was the display of the votes between EURO and Najs. Aside perfectly stupid play from the blacks, the other hypothesis was that marty was playing it. My case against him was pretty good, actually. That the wolves only reluctantly took advantage of it, and instead wagoned EURO... (when one would think it would be Najs to get the wagon, if they were both blacks...)

 

[Ironhead 5]

The problem here is clear.

Is it? Any criticism I have ever offered has been aimed at restoring WW to a game that is fun, intense, and enjoyed by many. But apparently I have been misguided, and the problem is clearly that some people care about winning versus participating. This is why we have seen our community stagnate.

Now that we have identified the problem, how do we solve it?

 

[EUROO7]

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?

Your triumphant return was too little too late.

Also, since joeb isn't here to say it, I will. Good WW is not reserved to pre '07. I've been playing since early 08 and there've been some great games. Don't make claims that ww stopped being good after 2007 because that's just not true.

 

[EUROO7]

Is it? Any criticism I have ever offered has been aimed at restoring WW to a game that is fun, intense, and enjoyed by many. But apparently I have been misguided, and the problem is clearly that some people care about winning versus participating. This is why we have seen our community stagnate.

Now that we have identified the problem, how do we solve it?

I meant a problem, not the problem. The problem is that WW is dead.

 

[Ironhead 5]

Your triumphant return was too little too late.

Also, since joeb isn't here to say it, I will. Good WW is not reserved to pre '07. I've been playing since early 08 and there've been some great games. Don't make claims that ww stopped being good after 2007 because that's just not true.

No argument from me. After we got the "Austin Powah" game out of our system we had some good games in 2008.

 

[Ironhead 5]

The problem is that WW is dead.

Can it be revived?

 

[johho888]

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

I think what marty means is that neither Slinky (previous me) nor I had ever voted and put a known blackie in any danger so yes, my voting record sucked if you wanted to use it to prove I wasn't a blackie.

OTOH you need to look at how people play, how much effort they put into what part of the game, if they behave nervously at some votings and not at others. Do they look lightedhead like a lynch doesn't matter? A vote with a really good explanaition means more because it is more likely to get people to follow etc. Judging by behavior I think I was doing fine goodiewise at the time of my unfortunate demise.

As for what is winning and what is not. To me "a win" is surviving and being on the winning side but I play to have fun and I'm happy with a game if I make an impact on the game, preferably for my side but if I can only contribute with RPing so be it. If I play like a zombie and accidentally survive on the winning side then that is "a win" to me but I probably wouldn't have had much fun with the game so it'd be a waste of time.

If someone else is only happy if he wins, only if he makes an impact or only as long as his team wins then fine, I don't mind. I can play with people of all sorts in the game (and I think we have always had all these types playing).

 

[EUROO7]

Can it be revived?

Sure. But it won't be.

 

[drxav]

Ehhhh, and you didn't consider to let me know instead of hunting me. But, imagine for one second that I too was a hunter. You would not only miss your hunt, as I would miss mine. We would both kill each other, and look extremely stupid. You knew, or at least you displayed so, that I wasn't a black wolf.

Letting you know? Are you mad. When you started your little game I had the certitude you were a wolf. I had strong intuitions about J-L, and certitude about you. Moreover you were threatening me. The choice was clear: kill a wolf and survive.

 

[reis91]

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


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


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.

1) Show me the quotes of those spy reports. Otherwise I call BS on that. You didn't bother to show me those, syber did not, and the only spy material available to me about you pointed at a possible cultist scan. Shafted by the dice (or AOK's wickedness).

2) Wrong. Your behavior was far from the goodie you I have seen in most other games. That is fine, actually, I defend that any WW'er worth his salt does not present himself for easy behavioral analysis. But you cannot invoke that argument in your defense.
You threatened, dismissed or disregarded part of the arguments thrown at you, you were radiant to bring the red pack to the brink of extinction despite maths clearly pointing out the problem with that. You "decreed", total AOK style, that a and b shouldn't be lynched, because "Yes". And lastly, like myself, at times, you were a bit too full of yourself, as one would be with a great infiltration of the JL.

3) I would have told you I could hunt jacob. I was bent on blowing up the black pack, and suspected I had been compromised already. It would save you a hunt. The fact that you never showed any reasonable suspicion towards jacob didn't help, he was a good fit in your pack, too.

4) I didn't say drxav's move handed victory to them. It didn't. It could have, though, in both my view, and his, at the time. But your skills, as good as they were in this game, did not triumph over two black hunts inflicted on the village as a result of my death. Even with your hunt hitting a wolf, you'd still lose 2 villagers' worth in regard to parity. And you could have stabbed me later with your hunt, if the wolves did not do so.

Letting you know? Are you mad. When you started your little game I had the certitude you were a wolf. I had strong intuitions about J-L, and certitude about you. Moreover you were threatening me. The choice was clear: kill a wolf and survive.

Edit : You called me a communist. If you thought I was black though, Black wolves did not hunt on that night. If I was a communist, why the hell couldn't I know about your plans to attack J-L? I was the last wolf of my pack.

As for what is winning and what is not. To me "a win" is surviving and being on the winning side but I play to have fun and I'm happy with a game if I make an impact on the game, preferably for my side but if I can only contribute with RPing so be it. If I play like a zombie and accidentally survive on the winning side then that is "a win" to me but I probably wouldn't have had much fun with the game so it'd be a waste of time.

Exactly.

 

[Ironhead 5]

Sure. But it won't be.

How?

 

[AOK. 11]

Is it? Any criticism I have ever offered has been aimed at restoring WW to a game that is fun, intense, and enjoyed by many. But apparently I have been misguided, and the problem is clearly that some people care about winning versus participating. This is why we have seen our community stagnate.

Now that we have identified the problem, how do we solve it?

Ironhead, you are completely off base. Just because people take a different approach does not mean the game is not fun. You often talk of Bash and how fun he was. Do you think he followed your rules? What about Osteles? Or any of the others? No. None of them did. Split did not either. People not following your rules, or your ideas for how the game should be played does not mean that games are not good. You are taking your argument completely over a cliff into shear silliness. The only problem is a lack of active players. Thats it. People not doing what you want is not a problem.

If you want to continue this stupidity take it to the general thread. Let the players talk about my game here.

I have some stuff to do, but I will share more about my setup and how I tried to balance it tomorrow. Good game everyone.

And EURO, WW is not dead. Saying that is not the best way to keep our new players interested.

 

[reis91]

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.

And quoting you from memory, from a PM of yours

Analysis gets you killed

Thus, what I propose, to be tried out, is a last day of voting, after the end, to elect the best performance. Players would have a day to lay out their cases, and the winner(s) of that poll would get an honorary win, or something. A thumbs-up in the Arena, for the valiant warrior that was defeated. This wouldn't make people go suicidal, but might encourage activity and audacious moves.

and jacob switched to himself whenever you started getting voted, which pointed strongly to you two being packmates.

Aah, ordinary analysis has it's shortcomings, doesn't it?

 

[randakar]

Winning IS possible even if you are dead. Even the villager who had no contribution other than being eaten on the first night is a member of the winning team if the villagers win. Who says that only survivors share in the glory?

.. except that wins aren't counted that way in the stats. Nor does the GM list the entire team as winners.

I failed to notice that the deadline was an hour later than I thought, panicked because I hadn't heard from the rest of the pack and sent in a hunt order. Sbr died because one of his post was the last I saw before I went to send the pm. I also managed to votesnipe an hour early while I was at it.

.. now that's a stupid way to go if I've ever seen one.

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.

AOK, look at the alternative. Why do you think so many people say so little? Drawing attention is a good way to get killed. Look at that hunt on sbr - he got hunted because he posted at the wrong time. That was the entire reason for the hunt on him.
I understand what you're coming from, but there has to be some way to strike a balance that actually promotes people to play actively. At the very least have some kind of "most dangerous villager/wolf award" or something.

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.

That is all fine and dandy but it doesn't really change the fact that this very dynamic forces people to keep their heads down. We need a better way to keep score. Or at least a way to stimulate people to go for the other sides' throat.

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.

Thanks for running this, AOK. You did a fine job, even though you could have kept track of non voters a little better. Some of those subs were pretty obviously important people

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

See you marty!
I will beat you as a wolf sometime -without- you figuring me out. I had that as a goal this game, and I failed.

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.

This is very true. And one of the reasons why I do not keep track of wins.
(Besides, it would probably be rather demoralizing .. )

 

[AOK. 11]

AOK, look at the alternative. Why do you think so many people say so little? Drawing attention is a good way to get killed. Look at that hunt on sbr - he got hunted because he posted at the wrong time. That was the entire reason for the hunt on him.
I understand what you're coming from, but there has to be some way to strike a balance that actually promotes people to play actively. At the very least have some kind of "most dangerous villager/wolf award" or something.

Players should be lynched if they keep their heads down. Problem solved.

Thats how we used to do it. If you were an AWOL zombie, you got shot. Again, problem solved.

 

[Ironhead 5]

Ironhead, you are completely off base. Just because people take a different approach does not mean the game is not fun. You often talk of Bash and how fun he was. Do you think he followed your rules? What about Osteles? Or any of the others? No. None of them did. Split did not either. People not following your rules, or your ideas for how the game should be played does not mean that games are not good. You are taking your argument completely over a cliff into shear silliness. The only problem is a lack of active players. Thats it. People not doing what you want is not a problem.

Bash of all people played to win, even if he was incoherent in what he said. Osteles was a pretty normal player. But regardless, they always played by "my" "rules" because I based those guidelines off of how we used to play (heck, I only wrote them, what, a month ago?). I have struggled to figure out why the game lacks the vigor that it had back when you and I were new, AOK, and it seems that every time I suggest that maybe, just maybe, it has to do with us, and the way we play now, someone comes up with another BS reason -- "some people value winning too much." Is this really a/the problem, or is it just a symptom? Or is it even a tangible issue at all here?

Everyone seems to agree that it is broke. If you guys know how to fix it, then fix it. If you don't, then don't interdict those who do know how to fix it please

 

[Ironhead 5]

Players should be lynched if they keep their heads down. Problem solved.

If we waste all of our lynches on zombies, how are we ever going to kill all these wolves?

 

[randakar]

Ironhead, you are completely off base. Just because people take a different approach does not mean the game is not fun. You often talk of Bash and how fun he was. Do you think he followed your rules? What about Osteles? Or any of the others? No. None of them did. Split did not either. People not following your rules, or your ideas for how the game should be played does not mean that games are not good. You are taking your argument completely over a cliff into shear silliness. The only problem is a lack of active players. Thats it. People not doing what you want is not a problem.

I agree there, actually. Ironhead's rigid rules come nowhere near to describing the dynamic ever changing landscape of werewolf ;-)
Frankly what we really need is Paradox producing a game that sells exceedingly well. I bet that would bring a lot of people to this forum

Anyway, most active players worth their salt disregard the "I need to survive to win" rule often enough. Simply because it's not how they work. Including you, I might add - you kill as many people on the other side as possible.

If you want to continue this stupidity take it to the general thread. Let the players talk about my game here.

Which is what I suggested earlier ;-)

Thus, what I propose, to be tried out, is a last day of voting, after the end, to elect the best performance. Players would have a day to lay out their cases, and the winner(s) of that poll would get an honorary win, or something. A thumbs-up in the Arena, for the valiant warrior that was defeated. This wouldn't make people go suicidal, but might encourage activity and audacious moves.

That was basically my suggestion ;-)
Though IMHO it should be something the GM decides, really.
(Then again, a vote is completely within the spirit of the game.. )

 

[AOK. 11]

We are in the process of fixing it. We got a couple of new guys this game that are very promising. If we keep them, and add more over time the problem will be solved. The game was not damaged overnight. The rebuilding of the Werewolf roster is going to take a while, just as it took a while for Werewolf to almost bleed to death for lack of new blood.

Instead of whining about the broken game, lets try and keep our new recruits by being more positive. Proclaiming the game dead and filling page after page with complaints about how people play is not going to fix anything.

 

[AOK. 11]

If we waste all of our lynches on zombies, how are we ever going to kill all these wolves?

I am talking about the opening phases and lynches where there is little to go on. If there is a reason, then zombies can wait. Otherwise, shoot them when there is little to go on or evidence is similar between two parties go for the zombie.

That is CAWZ doctrine. And it worked very well for a while. The key point is punishing those who do not participate. By doing so, you get less zombieism.