-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Run the odds for that. Also, would you trade 4 villagers in one day (3 lynched + 1 hunted, which is not so high a chance) and a decent chance at getting a wolf in the following day for 2 villagers in one day, and a decent chance at getting 2 more villagers killed next day? (you can calculate the probabilities if you want to).
It also restricts the field for the Seer to ping wolves.
What's best, 4 dead villagers and 1 day worth of voting info OR 4 dead villagers and 2 days worth of voting info?
Can't win with your packmate joebwolf without killing me day 1 Randy? Sad.
Unvote Rice. Vote Falc.
Because self preservation votes are lame.
But how do you get voting info on day 1? Furthermore, if they are all villagers, what info do you obtain from it, if villagers are allowed to change the vote? A clever wolf will do nothing and wait for the villagers to do them the favor of bailing their pack. So, the info you got will likely point towards more villagers.
Can't win with your packmate joebwolf without killing me day 1 Randy? Sad.
Unvote Rice. Vote Falc.
Because self preservation votes are lame.
Good boy. Now my sellout vote won't look so sellout-y
edit: Is this a tie? Or a whole suit?
In and of itself, day 1 never gives us anything. It's the combination with the voting on other days that shows patterns.
But I don't know why I'm even arguing with you when you're being even more ridiculous and random than usual. I mean, you claim that a 3-way tie is good for the Seer to reduce his field but just a few posts earlier you admit that this approach is much more likely to kill the Seer and that you don't really care.
Let me just be a math geek and state that the odds are bad.
Odds of hitting 3 goodies: 1716/3360
Odds of hitting 2 goodies and one wolf: 1404/3360
What a poor math geek you make, Falc, as the probability of two wolves and one goodie, and three wolves isn't non-existent if no-one shifts votes. And you don't even consider the two days, or the alternative scenario. Also, when interpreting the results, 2 villagers and one wolf is clearly positive to the village. It gives material, in case anyone tried anything to shift votes away from the wolf, and there are far more villagers than wolves.
Mind you, this is just an experiment, although I believe it to be highly effective, I admit it also makes for more boring games.
reis91, I almost was agreeing with what you were saying, but I think you should rethink a couple of your ideas.
1.) TIEs are not good. We should look at who is avoiding breaking them, not at who is actually stepping up to make the decision. Yes we should stick to the same few candidates, not allowing wolves to hide behind sudden changes in lynch targets, but it's not an iron trap. We're not going to lynch any and every player who makes a move to put one of the front-runners ahead (if we did, that would only encourage wolves to make throw away votes and be inactive while we kill each other). I appreciate your approach, which is similar to mine and Vainglory's, in that the village shouldn't be wildly switching votes onto new candidates. You are carrying it to an absurd extreme here.
2.) Day 1 can give us information to analyze, but it almost always comes in hindsight after two or three more days, so we can look at patterns. With just one day, we don't know who's been consistently hiding in throw away votes, who's been consistently avoiding big decisions, and who's been avoiding voting for who.
3.) The seer gets LESS scans if you shorten the game. You shorten the game by killing lots of people in one day. Suddenly the wolves are able to get parity in two days instead of four, and the seer only has three scans instead of five. Your chances of killing the seer remain about the same no matter which method you use, but in this case it's more likely that a seer dies early with just one scan, while in the normal case it's more likely the seer gets at least two or three scans before dying.
3.) Sometimes you catch a villager when you think you had found a wolf. So what? That happens no matter what kind of analysis you use. Move on with the new information and find a wolf. If villagers make a vote switch to put a frontrunner in the lead, that makes it possible they are packmates with the other possible lynch. It also means they were willing to make an important vote that everyone would see, where other players would not. Don't immediately suspect people who make vote switches. Always think about whether or not your method was a trap that could have easily caught an unwary villager. Never let the fear of lynching a villager stop you.
---
I don't expect you to actually bother thinking about it. Vainglory is a better proponent of your ideas. You're going off on insane tangents.
Let's stick to the basic premise: Stick to the same few targets every day, and argue between them. Avoid massive vote switches for inane reasons ("he got run up too fast" is an insanely inane reason that allows wolves to be absolutely too protective of each other and too in control of the village).
1.) TIEs are not good. We should look at who is avoiding breaking them, not at who is actually stepping up to make the decision. Yes we should stick to the same few candidates, not allowing wolves to hide behind sudden changes in lynch targets, but it's not an iron trap. We're not going to lynch any and every player who makes a move to put one of the front-runners ahead (if we did, that would only encourage wolves to make throw away votes and be inactive while we kill each other). I appreciate your approach, which is similar to mine and Vainglory's, in that the village shouldn't be wildly switching votes onto new candidates. You are carrying it to an absurd extreme here.
2.) Day 1 can give us information to analyze, but it almost always comes in hindsight after two or three more days, so we can look at patterns. With just one day, we don't know who's been consistently hiding in throw away votes, who's been consistently avoiding big decisions, and who's been avoiding voting for who.
3.) The seer gets LESS scans if you shorten the game. You shorten the game by killing lots of people in one day. Suddenly the wolves are able to get parity in two days instead of four, and the seer only has three scans instead of five. Your chances of killing the seer remain about the same no matter which method you use, but in this case it's more likely that a seer dies early with just one scan, while in the normal case it's more likely the seer gets at least two or three scans before dying.
3.) Sometimes you catch a villager when you think you had found a wolf. So what? That happens no matter what kind of analysis you use. Move on with the new information and find a wolf. If villagers make a vote switch to put a frontrunner in the lead, that makes it possible they are packmates with the other possible lynch. It also means they were willing to make an important vote that everyone would see, where other players would not. Don't immediately suspect people who make vote switches. Always think about whether or not your method was a trap that could have easily caught an unwary villager. Never let the fear of lynching a villager stop you.
---
I don't expect you to actually bother thinking about it. Vainglory is a better proponent of your ideas. You're going off on insane tangents.
Let's stick to the basic premise: Stick to the same few targets every day, and argue between them. Avoid massive vote switches for inane reasons ("he got run up too fast" is an insanely inane reason that allows wolves to be absolutely too protective of each other and too in control of the village).
What, you really think I don't have those odds in front of me? 234 and 6 out of 3360 respectively. They don't change the point: there's a 51% chance of not hitting a wolf and basically blowing up the game.
What I find perhaps most telling is that you're advocating this tie thingie while you're nowhere near the top spots.
3 is useless if the seer scans get killed.
Plus, I did not imply that we should seek ties. I think that whoever knowingly makes a tie should be placed under scrutiny. What I mean is that, once they are done, we shouldn't break them just so people don't die so much. The odds of a villager sniping a wolf out of a tie in day 1 are far lower than those of a villager sniping a villager, barring the Seer deciding to snipe a wolf (which is not a good idea unless you think that you will get hunted anyway).
And lastly, important votes are overrated.
Edit : Falc, while I am not a proponent of kamikaze tactics like you, I do not play WW to rack up wins. I play to demolish the opposition, and yes, that's generally hard to do when you are dead, so you wouldn't see my advocating the tie thingy in situations like last Lite. However, this is day 1, and thus it is a legitimate way to go about business, as it effectively prevents wolves from messing with the lynch. And we still have material to analyze based on the choices, which are now binding.
Plus, I did not imply that we should seek ties. I think that whoever knowingly makes a tie should be placed under scrutiny. What I mean is that, once they are done, we shouldn't break them just so people don't die so much. The odds of a villager sniping a wolf out of a tie in day 1 are far lower than those of a villager sniping a villager, barring the Seer deciding to snipe a wolf (which is not a good idea unless you think that you will get hunted anyway).
And lastly, important votes are overrated.
Edit : Falc, while I am not a proponent of kamikaze tactics like you, I do not play WW to rack up wins. I play to demolish the opposition, and yes, that's generally hard to do when you are dead, so you wouldn't see my advocating the tie thingy in situations like last Lite. However, this is day 1, and thus it is a legitimate way to go about business, as it effectively prevents wolves from messing with the lynch. And we still have material to analyze based on the choices, which are now binding.
Last edited:
Original vote is useless, so time to switch.
Unvote randakar
Vote snoopdogg
While we have no info on anyone at this stage naturally, a lynched snoopwolf would be interesting due to his attempt to introduce a new candidate pretty late. Granted, seeing it was snoop voting on reis it's likely to be just for giggles regardless of his role, but it's (very slightly) better than randomizing.
Besides, I made Falc's game a bit tough for him on last game's day one, so I'm not sure I want to do that again so soon after.
I'll be around for a while as I have some AAR reading and writing to do so I'll monitor the situation for now, but it's very unlikely I'll be up until the deadline.
Oh, and while some of his ideas are definitely solid, I find reis' theories a bit destructive as a whole.
Unvote randakar
Vote snoopdogg
While we have no info on anyone at this stage naturally, a lynched snoopwolf would be interesting due to his attempt to introduce a new candidate pretty late. Granted, seeing it was snoop voting on reis it's likely to be just for giggles regardless of his role, but it's (very slightly) better than randomizing.
Besides, I made Falc's game a bit tough for him on last game's day one, so I'm not sure I want to do that again so soon after.
I'll be around for a while as I have some AAR reading and writing to do so I'll monitor the situation for now, but it's very unlikely I'll be up until the deadline.
Oh, and while some of his ideas are definitely solid, I find reis' theories a bit destructive as a whole.
Original vote is useless, so time to switch.
Unvote randakar
Vote snoopdogg
While we have no info on anyone at this stage naturally, a lynched snoopwolf would be interesting due to his attempt to introduce a new candidate pretty late. Granted, seeing it was snoop voting on reis it's likely to be just for giggles regardless of his role, but it's (very slightly) better than randomizing.
Besides, I made Falc's game a bit tough for him on last game's day one, so I'm not sure I want to do that again so soon after.
I'll be around for a while as I have some AAR reading and writing to do so I'll monitor the situation for now, but it's very unlikely I'll be up until the deadline.
Oh, and while some of his ideas are definitely solid, I find reis' theories a bit destructive as a whole.
Well, they are meant to be destructive. As I said, the game could become uninteresting, in my personal opinion. But it would be great to train analysis, nevertheless.
You are all wolves. We should just lynch joeb and Rice in a tie. That way whoever's right might see their point illustrated quite well this game. Plus we'd kill Rice and joeb. It's win-win.
Enjoy lynching your seer. Luls.
Enjoy lynching your seer. Luls.
Anyhoo, off to bed. Don't kill me, I'm not a wereyak. Note how everybody keeps saying they're not a wolf? Yaks can say that without lying...
"Vote consolidation", "vote defragmentation", "for the kinky threesome"... I call it a lot of things
Also, I thought this game was starting on a day deadline. Oh well.
Unvote esemesas
Vote Falc
The Salvation Army must march on...we cannot allow ourselves to be lynched quietly into that terrifying night. I here there be wereyaks!
Vote Falc
The Salvation Army must march on...we cannot allow ourselves to be lynched quietly into that terrifying night. I here there be wereyaks!