Werewolf lite CCLXXXVI: Amnesia

[Gen. Skobelev]

Ah, game has ended. Thanks for Panzer Commader for hosting and others for active, good game. This is what Lite should have activity-wise, not something sad ~20-pager.

I can see where the idea of split seer came. It can be way too binary in Lite and so much depends on whether the seer lives or dies. Best games are those where seer dies in approximately night 3 but also one wolf is found out which will give village something to work with. As quite correctly pointed out by Euro and others, the problem here was nobody expected the seer things (apart from other seers and they got doubted) and players should know what's happening.

As for Lite without seer, I still think what I wrote when WD first thought about Lite without seer is relevant. Paranoia is nice and all but it will come from the players, not necessarily from the setup. Game without seer will allow wolves too much possibilities to hide since they don't have scans to fear.

 

[Falc]

I can see where the idea of split seer came. It can be way too binary in Lite and so much depends on whether the seer lives or dies. Best games are those where seer dies in approximately night 3 but also one wolf is found out which will give village something to work with.

Skobelev, what would your thoughts be on the setup I tried once here, using 4 Witnesses instead of a Seer?

As quite correctly pointed out by Euro and others, the problem here was nobody expected the seer things (apart from other seers and they got doubted) and players should know what's happening.

... Except that the players not knowing the setup is default in Big games and a big part of the paranoia. Village players really shouldn't know what's happening.

I believe that the issue here is that the wolves had a very different experience from the rest of the players. They hunt the Seer, think they're clear. Oh wait, second Seer. Finally clear. WTF third Seer???



BTW, Panzer, care to share your thoughts on the changes you made to the game duration, with the different parity rules and such?

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

Skobelev, what would your thoughts be on the setup I tried once here, using 4 Witnesses instead of a Seer?

Ouch, sounds very much slanted to help village. Seer at least can make weak scans (hunt targets etc) while witness gets wolf 100%. It might work with something like ~2 witnesses but 4 is definitely overkill.

... Except that the players not knowing the setup is default in Big games and a big part of the paranoia. Village players really shouldn't know what's happening.

I believe that the issue here is that the wolves had a very different experience from the rest of the players. They hunt the Seer, think they're clear. Oh wait, second Seer. Finally clear. WTF third Seer???

Big and Lite have very different dynamic. In big people are much more clueless and voting is lesser part of finding wolves, at least until the very end is near. Even with known setup the most paranoid games I've seen have been Lites.

 

[EUROO7]

... Except that the players not knowing the setup is default in Big games and a big part of the paranoia. Village players really shouldn't know what's happening.

Yes, that's all very well and good, but as General Skobelev shouldn't need to correctly point out, this is Werewolf Lite, where the set ups should be known, and the experimentation should be left to those who know what they are doing.

 

[Falc]

Ouch, sounds very much slanted to help village. Seer at least can make weak scans (hunt targets etc) while witness gets wolf 100%. It might work with something like ~2 witnesses but 4 is definitely overkill.

I'm not sure you read the entire setup, there were some checks present. Most importantly was the fact that if two witnessed acted on the same night, they would get the same name. In other words, the game was designed to have a high chance of at least one wasted witnessing. The one game we played with these rules turned out quite differently, unfortunately, and it's been stuck in my head as something I'd like to revisit some time.

 

[Falc]

Yes, that's all very well and good, but as General Skobelev shouldn't need to correctly point out, this is Werewolf Lite, where the set ups should be known, and the experimentation should be left to those who know what they are doing.

That's your definition of Lite, which others might not agree with.

After all, what is WW Lite?

Is it a game with 17 players, 4 of them wolves and one of them seer?

Is it a game with ONLY wolves and seer?

Is it a game with a restricted set of roles, typically less than 5?

Is it a game with only roles, no traits?

Is it a game with less than 20 players?

Is it a game that should end in a single week instead of two?

Is it a game with a fully known setup?


If you asked these questions of everyone who's ever played, you'd get some quite different answers. Complaining that this game did not conform to your expectations of a Lite is valid, but we would need to form a consensus on what is and isn't Lite first before something can be done about it.

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

I'm not sure you read the entire setup, there were some checks present. Most importantly was the fact that if two witnessed acted on the same night, they would get the same name. In other words, the game was designed to have a high chance of at least one wasted witnessing. The one game we played with these rules turned out quite differently, unfortunately, and it's been stuck in my head as something I'd like to revisit some time.

I read the setup though naturally not the whole game. I still think that 4 witnesses, even with the limitations in place, is too powerful thing. However, that's just how I see the thing and it could turn out totally different that what I'd anticipate.

Also, 15 players 3 wolves (1 sorcerer) was quite often played setup in the beginning and according to the veterans it was decently balanced, as is 17/4/1 that has the current favour. I prefer the 17/4/1 but I can understand the lure of putting variations in.

 

[Ithvan]

By the way Ithvan. Would you have believed me being the third seer if I had scanned you last night? I really thought about changing to you up until deadline.

Not a chance. Two seers, okay, but three would've been too much to believe for me.

 

[Ithvan]

Also, 15 players 3 wolves (1 sorcerer) was quite often played setup in the beginning and according to the veterans it was decently balanced, as is 17/4/1 that has the current favour. I prefer the 17/4/1 but I can understand the lure of putting variations in.

So, according to you?

 

[oyoyoy]

My sincere apologies to Aedan for "framing" him. I understand if you'll be taking me the fool for taking you the fool to play such an obvious wolf. I did honestly believe you had to be the last wolf until deadline last night. The primary reason being the seemingly complete lack of evidence pointing to you being a goodie. The one goodie point I awarded; your vote on Ark on day 2, seemed to fit perfectly as an alibi-vote all the time the time you knew Nautilu would be run up. In hindsight I should have made out that your wolfish acts would have been too self-incriminating for you to do it as a wolf. I can certainly see how that would seem obvious to you. I ask you to please consider how that would not actually clear you. Everything in this game can be turned upside down. From my pov you could have intentionally been doing your "obvious pro-wolf act" so over the top to make people think «that is not typical wolf-play by Aedan. He's gotta be clean». That would have allowed you to interfere big-time affecting the outcome of voting and at the same time creating you an alibi. This was infact my main hypothesis on your motive when concluding you the final wolf. Another possiblity was that you were just short on time taking much part in the game and made use of that time aiding packmates the best you could. The majority of your posts were (iirc) from a few select times making this a distinct possibility in my fuzzy brain. I did not take you a fool.

I was never on a crusade against you, but a victim of fuzzy thinking as snoop so eloquently put it. I can assure you I re-read the thread with as fresh a mind I could muster with the sole intention of actually solving the mystery. I came carrying some baggage ofc, having taken part in the game until then, but I did my best not to let that affect my analysis. I believe I did reasonably well, considering all but no prior knowledge of people's behavioural habbits, in the 2 first chapters. After that I ran out of time and all too easily stuck to a narrative based on my conclusions from those 2 days. I rushed it and included way too many inaccuracies if not outright illogical arguements. Rushing to finish it rather than simply stating my unfinished case and admitting I ran out time is something I regret. By the 4th part I was pretty much drunk on top of out of time and the resulting "analysis" was dismal. In the end I was left with ~5 mins writing the part that mattered the most, my conclusion. Luckily you adhered to the best part of it (re-read and make your own mind up).

I would like to congratulate madchemist on a well played game. It's always possible to find a wolf in an active game, but you presented quite the challenge. Once everyone finally shared their opinions like I had begged them to do the previous days their combined suspicions/scans made them able to correctly pinpoint you. You racked up so many baddie points when the seer got escorted to the gallows I had to stop writing my giant blob of a brain-fart halfway into day 3. I returned having decided I had to put you down as the «enigma». Upon returning I had a quick peek in the thread. I can't remember what you had posted, but while emptying my x'th glass of red, it made me decide to write a decisive conclusion with your name in green colour. Well played!

Arkwolf and Eurowolf also did a very good job. You were able to absorb so much suspicion, successfully diverting attention from your packmate, you almost won him the game. I'm still curious how deliberate it was.

My apologies to the General and in particular Wagonlitz for outing the fact we had pm contact. This was part of my village idiot act putting all my cards on the table to assist the villagers' cause. It is not something I am likely to do in future games. I am however very likely to contact those I consider confirmed villagers in this same manner. The two of you were invaluable in our fight to bring down the dark side.

Funny how I brought up making a «pseudo-jl» and took part in a very real jl with Wagon while completely unaware you were infact a real seer. My numerous Crovax-accusations against Wagon was a daft joke aimed at his tendency to look for them. I'm inclined to frequent use of the term «hunting» in the future ;-)

It's been a good learning experience. I'm still struggling to get into the mindset that allow you to read these games properly as they progress. Heck knows how long it would take me to crack the code in this place. You guys are a lot more proficient players than the majority of those I played some years ago (where everyone was a WW noob). I may return to have another go at this fascinating battle of wits. In an attempt at pre-emptively defending future claims of wolfishness: It is very unlikely I will resort to anything resembling the multi-page madness I created on my last day again, regardless of role. Consider it an one-time introduction to Oy, the hobbit known as Brain-fart.

A big thanks to Panzer for GM'ing. I'm not going to interfere in the discussion on your set-up. I just want you to know I very much enjoyed taking part in your game. GG everyone!

Oy

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

So, according to you?

No, I mean *veterans* like Olaus, dublish and many others I can't be bothered to name who played in the first games. I myself only started playing back in '07 and then the games were already in the 17/4/1 setup.

edit: I for once heartily welcome oyoyoy to the game. You are active and thoughtful player and they are desperately needed always. I hope you will stick around.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I for once heartily welcome oyoyoy to the game. You are active and thoughtful player and they are desperately needed always. I hope you will stick around.

I can only agree with that.

 

[Hax]

Boy, if I were a wolf, I'd sure hunt Hax. :closedeyes:

Euro can you please explain this?

 

[marty99]

No, I mean *veterans* like Olaus, dublish and many others I can't be bothered to name who played in the first games. I myself only started playing back in '07 and then the games were already in the 17/4/1 setup.

edit: I for once heartily welcome oyoyoy to the game. You are active and thoughtful player and they are desperately needed always. I hope you will stick around.

Later, though, many veterans such as AOK. 11 and Thistletooth recognised that the sorcerer was generally quite a useless role in Lite.

 

[EUROO7]

Euro can you please explain this?

Yes. That there is a statement I made alluding to the fact that I would be glad to hunt you if I were a wolf.

Anything else?

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

Later, though, many veterans such as AOK. 11 and Thistletooth recognised that the sorcerer was generally quite a useless role in Lite.

Yep, and that certainly explains why 17/4/1 has been going so strongly. I only tried to point out that there have been "standard" variations before 17/4/1 became the norm and those other versions were considered rather balanced, too.

Yes. That there is a statement I made alluding to the fact that I would be glad to hunt you if I were a wolf.

Anything else?

My only regret with wolves was that they didn't hunt Hax even after most considered him certain villager. You should have made him pay for those pills, you know...

 

[EUROO7]

That's your definition of Lite, which others might not agree with.

After all, what is WW Lite?

Is it a game with 17 players, 4 of them wolves and one of them seer?

Is it a game with ONLY wolves and seer?

Is it a game with a restricted set of roles, typically less than 5?

Is it a game with only roles, no traits?

Is it a game with less than 20 players?

Is it a game that should end in a single week instead of two?

Is it a game with a fully known setup?


If you asked these questions of everyone who's ever played, you'd get some quite different answers. Complaining that this game did not conform to your expectations of a Lite is valid, but we would need to form a consensus on what is and isn't Lite first before something can be done about it.

Are you being intentionally dense?

Werewolf lite is played by 17 players. One seer, four wolves, and 12 villagers. The only accepted variant is the Ironhead scenarios.

Anyone who disputes this can and should be ignored on the count of idiocy.

 

[marty99]

Are you being intentionally dense?

Werewolf lite is played by 17 players. One seer, four wolves, and 12 villagers. The only accepted variant is the Ironhead scenarios.

Anyone who disputes this can and should be ignored on the count of idiocy.

Huh? You know that's not true, what about the 12 and 15 player set-ups?

 

[PanzerCorps]

@Gen. Skobelev and Oy: You're welcome!

@Falc: Thanks for the support, and about the different parity rules... Yeah, that was stupid. Let's just not talk about that...

@The rest: I now realize it might have been a better idea to make the setup public. Other than that, I did what I did because I thought I knew what I was doing. Now, whether that was true is debatable, and I won't be trying such things again anytime soon, but in this particular instance, I think it worked pretty well. You can't really call it a fiasco or even a bad game... I mean, the players said they enjoyed it, and isn't that what matters?

 

[snoopdogg]

Shouldn't be the norm, but I think no seer games are a fun change of pace personally.