[WW] General Game, Rules, and Strategy Discussion

abijnk · Jun 26, 2012

Don't panic said:
we have played many games with the "lost in woods" rule.
I think it works and I don't really see any drawback to it, but i know other differ in their opinion.
the rule is simple. if you don't vote, you are "lost in the woods" and out of the game. a no-vote is a valid vote.
if a person is 'lost in the woods, no information is given about their role.
if there is an undertaker, they can find out who they were.
i think it should be implemented.

it's simple, clear and unbiased. and easy to enforce.

I like this idea. I pitched it to the players in the thread. It seems like a slightly more lenient approach might be appropriate (like a one day grace).

the problem with with incentivize posting in a concrete way is that it would probably lead to some level of spamming. for example you could have a weighted lottery each night, with the chances of winning a game-related 'prize', (e.g an item for the next day, like a double vote) based on the ranking of post number for the day. people with more post have a higher chance of of winning (like the NBA lottery), but it obviously might lead to spam issues.

Yeah, every idea that we've come up with has basically come down to just being a possible spam generator.

Don't panic · Jun 26, 2012

abijnk said:
I like this idea. I pitched it to the players in the thread. It seems like a slightly more lenient approach might be appropriate (like a one day grace).

Yeah, every idea that we've come up with has basically come down to just being a possible spam generator.

honestly i don't think you can dictate participation.

I have frequently voted for the non-participating people, but often they are not the best choices and if I have to choose between a sort of 'punishment' vote and one that i think it's more beneficial to the village (or the wolves if I am with them), i go with my team every time.

mscriv · Jun 27, 2012

A current game is being hosted by Abijnk here.

If you are not playing in that game then feel free to follow along and if you like what you see then please join us in a future game.

During Abi's game feel free to continue to post here, but do not use this thread in any way to violate the integrity of her game. As a player, do not share information here or use this thread to go into any specific details while the game is in progress. Comments whether it be praise or complaint are welcome, but they must be general.

For example, "I like how this new X role is working out" or I'm not sure the rule about X is as fair as we originally thought it would be".

Keep in mind, the purpose of this thread is to help us discuss the general play and evolution of the [WW] games played here at MR. Keep the game in the game and the outside stuff here.

mscriv · Jun 28, 2012

Looking at the past few games and our current one, I'm wondering if Ravenvii didn't have things right in the beginning with requiring a majority lock for all votes and not having time deadlines. I know we changed things because a few games really dragged out with people not voting. Additionally, there were some concerns due to the the time zone differences between players.

However, I just find it so odd that with our current time based system that a player can literally be lynched with just a few votes while there are multiple throw away votes. It's becoming increasingly common to see a player lynched with say 4-6 votes when there are more are 20+ players in a game.

I'm beginning to think that despite some potential drawbacks, forcing the village to reach majority actually forces players to interact more. People can't hide behind throw away votes as enough players will have to make a choice in order for the game to progress. When we played this way in the past voting usually quickly focused around two or three players and then those players had to plead their case for why they shouldn't be lynched. Again, this forced interaction and allowed for more information in the game.

Hmm... anyone else have thoughts on this matter?

Comeagain? · Jun 28, 2012

I've seen these threads die almost completely for multiple days, because we didn't reach majority. At some point we have to move on in the game.

abijnk · Jun 28, 2012

mscriv said:
Looking at the past few games and our current one, I'm wondering if Ravenvii didn't have things right in the beginning with requiring a majority lock for all votes and not having time deadlines. I know we changed things because a few games really dragged out with people not voting. Additionally, there were some concerns due to the the time zone differences between players.

However, I just find it so odd that with our current time based system that a player can literally be lynched with just a few votes while there are multiple throw away votes. It's becoming increasingly common to see a player lynched with say 4-6 votes when there are more are 20+ players in a game.

I'm beginning to think that despite some potential drawbacks, forcing the village to reach majority actually forces players to interact more. People can't hide behind throw away votes as enough players will have to make a choice in order for the game to progress. When we played this way in the past voting usually quickly focused around two or three players and then those players had to plead their case for why they shouldn't be lynched. Again, this forced interaction and allowed for more information in the game.

Hmm... anyone else have thoughts on this matter?

I tend to agree.

Tomorrow · Jun 28, 2012

mscriv said:
Looking at the past few games and our current one, I'm wondering if Ravenvii didn't have things right in the beginning with requiring a majority lock for all votes and not having time deadlines. I know we changed things because a few games really dragged out with people not voting. Additionally, there were some concerns due to the the time zone differences between players.

However, I just find it so odd that with our current time based system that a player can literally be lynched with just a few votes while there are multiple throw away votes. It's becoming increasingly common to see a player lynched with say 4-6 votes when there are more are 20+ players in a game.

I'm beginning to think that despite some potential drawbacks, forcing the village to reach majority actually forces players to interact more. People can't hide behind throw away votes as enough players will have to make a choice in order for the game to progress. When we played this way in the past voting usually quickly focused around two or three players and then those players had to plead their case for why they shouldn't be lynched. Again, this forced interaction and allowed for more information in the game.

Hmm... anyone else have thoughts on this matter?

I do. In a game with this many people, it could take forever to get 13 people to agree on one person. Sometimes the game drags on as it is.

Majority lock makes sense with fewer people, or in later rounds. But with 25 people it could take forever.

Don't panic · Jun 28, 2012

mscriv said:
Looking at the past few games and our current one, I'm wondering if Ravenvii didn't have things right in the beginning with requiring a majority lock for all votes and not having time deadlines. I know we changed things because a few games really dragged out with people not voting. Additionally, there were some concerns due to the the time zone differences between players.

However, I just find it so odd that with our current time based system that a player can literally be lynched with just a few votes while there are multiple throw away votes. It's becoming increasingly common to see a player lynched with say 4-6 votes when there are more are 20+ players in a game.

I'm beginning to think that despite some potential drawbacks, forcing the village to reach majority actually forces players to interact more. People can't hide behind throw away votes as enough players will have to make a choice in order for the game to progress. When we played this way in the past voting usually quickly focused around two or three players and then those players had to plead their case for why they shouldn't be lynched. Again, this forced interaction and allowed for more information in the game.

Hmm... anyone else have thoughts on this matter?

yes. you are wrong.

Don't panic · Jul 1, 2012

following my erroneous take on the instakill/deadline rule in the current game, i would like to add as one of the things to discuss the effect of insta-kill on votes and deadline.

i think there should be none. the instakill is a strategic decision, including when to use it. one might want to use it at the end of the day to maximize the effect or minimize the response.
i think there should be no delay in the deadline, except maybe the time incurred between when the instakill PM was sent and when it was posted by the GG. but not a difference of several hours.

in addition, i see no reason at all to void any of the preceding votes.
they should stand as they are. if people want to change their vote following the insta-kill, they can obviously do that already.
in my opinion, the only vote voided should be that by the killed player (obviously), while the votes for the dead player should be temporarily considered 'no-votes"

chrmjenkins · Jul 5, 2012

I am currently thinking of running the next game. Narration would be serious rather than funny. After current game concludes of course.

Queen of Spades · Jul 5, 2012

chrmjenkins said:
I am currently thinking of running the next game. Narration would be serious rather than funny. After current game concludes of course.

I think you should go for it.

And I think we should discuss limiting the number of "no vote"s a player gets. Not to be rule monger, but yeah. Just a thought.

Plutonius · Jul 5, 2012

chrmjenkins said:
I am currently thinking of running the next game. Narration would be serious rather than funny. After current game concludes of course.

Lately, I think GMs are too concerned about narratives. I would much rather have an error free game (at least no major errors) for the next game instead of a big narrative.

I'm looking forward to your game.

chrmjenkins · Jul 5, 2012

I like limiting no votes as an idea.

I have a very good track record for errors.

Don't panic · Jul 5, 2012

you are going to hear it from mscriv now....

mscriv · Jul 5, 2012

No worries, I think the "no vote" thing is a good discussion and probably one that needs to be had.

Surely · Jul 5, 2012

chrmjenkins said:
I like limiting no votes as an idea.

Me too. Once or maybe twice a game per player is enough IMO.

[to piss off mscriv]I think 'no votes' shouldn't be allowed on the first day of voting.[/to piss off mscriv]

Plutonius · Jul 5, 2012

chrmjenkins said:
I have a very good track record for errors.

I would have to agree. Both you and Appleguy run a very good game.

----------

It would probably surprise mscriv, but I'm in favor of no-votes. I believe you should able to vote abstain which means you are not voting for anyone or No hanging which means you are voting not to hang anyone.

abijnk · Jul 5, 2012

2 observations from my first experience running a game:

1) It's amazing how little people read of a TEXT BASED GAME.

2) The number of unnecessary and downright rude PMs I have received regarding a mistake I made is disgusting. 1 would be too much, but seriously people, it's a game. Grow up.

Moyank24 · Jul 5, 2012

Plutonius said:
I would have to agree. Both you and Appleguy run a very good game.

----------

It would probably surprise mscriv, but I'm in favor of no-votes. I believe you should able to vote abstain which means you are not voting for anyone or No hanging which means you are voting not to hang anyone.

For what it's worth, I ran a mistake free game as well - and it featured Queen of Spades in a Yankees jersey. So I win.

*I kid. It's a hard thing to do and everyone that does it has my utmost respect*

Queen of Spades · Jul 5, 2012

abijnk said:
2 observations from my first experience running a game:

1) It's amazing how little people read of a TEXT BASED GAME.

2) The number of unnecessary and downright rude PMs I have received regarding a mistake I made is disgusting. 1 would be too much, but seriously people, it's a game. Grow up.

Wow, seriously? I have to say I'm a little surprised, I thought most of the people that play this game weren't anal retentive, especially considering it's a game.

I ran one and rather enjoyed it. It was a simple game, and I focused on the narrative. Not sure I'd be volunteering to run another one in light of this, though.

Moyank24 said:
For what it's worth, I ran a mistake free game as well - and it featured Queen of Spades in a Yankees jersey. So I win.

*I kid. It's a hard thing to do and everyone that does it has my utmost respect*

Worst game ever! I kid. I'd rather wear a Skank jersey than be a man, like appleguy and others started doing before that.

Plutonius · Jul 5, 2012

Moyank24 said:
For what it's worth, I ran a mistake free game as well - and it featured Queen of Spades in a Yankees jersey. So I win.

*I kid. It's a hard thing to do and everyone that does it has my utmost respect*

Having just had my own Moyank moment (leave it at that

), I agree. Actually, I was referring to all the people running the games (all of you running the games do a great job and put in a lot of effort). My point was only that running the game smoothly should be the top priority and any narrative should just be a bonus to a good game.

chrmjenkins · Jul 5, 2012

Queen of Spades said:
Wow, seriously? I have to say I'm a little surprised, I thought most of the people that play this game weren't anal retentive, especially considering it's a game.

Yeah, I think the error was very minor too. No narrative had to be undone and impact on game was very minor IMO. If that's all that happens this game, it's a very good game given the size of the field and number of roles in my not so humble opinion.

And yes, it's just a game. It surprises me how genuinely angry and upset people get. I've had people be negative in PMs, but not actually insulting. Need to examine why you play if it gets that bad.

It's also affected my play style. People seem to take things personal when I try to press buttons in context of game. It's unfortunate that that happens but people always need to remember they're talking to others with feelings, which is something I obviously hasn't considered the full impact of

abijnk · Jul 5, 2012

Queen of Spades said:
Wow, seriously? I have to say I'm a little surprised, I thought most of the people that play this game weren't anal retentive, especially considering it's a game.

I ran one and rather enjoyed it. It was a simple game, and I focused on the narrative. Not sure I'd be volunteering to run another one in light of this, though.

I totally understand people being upset about it. Heck, I've been kicking myself since I realized it. But going out of your way to send a PM to the GG after they've already acknowledged and done their best to fix it fairly is over the top, IMO.

But overall this has been ridiculously fun. Luckily when I got back to work I discovered that they have installed more computers with regular internet access, so it's much easier for me to keep up with everything. Yay!

Watching the game from the GG's perspective has been so exciting, and I can't wait to see how it continues to unfold. I also think hosting will make me a bit of a better player overall, but of course I wasn't a very good one to start with.

Don't panic · Jul 5, 2012

abijnk said:
1) It's amazing how little people read of a TEXT BASED GAME.

true, but consider that you are enjoying a very privileged perspective and things that appear very obvious to you, might not be during the game.

plus, all this people obfuscating everything....

abijnk · Jul 5, 2012

Don't panic said:
true, but consider that you are enjoying a very privileged perspective and things that appear very obvious to you, might not be during the game.

plus, all this people obfuscating everything....

I don't mean people missing hints or other points, I just mean people flat out not reading posts, thread titles, etc. Perhaps it's a bit more obvious from the GG perspective, but it's something you can tell when you play, too.

For example, there was actually discussion about what killed Melrose despite the fact that the title of the thread at the time contained the word "wolf", the players list says "eaten" and the day's narrative talked about the person who discovered the body seeing furry things and not wanting to draw the wolves back. I was like

but then I LOL'd.

[WW] General Game, Rules, and Strategy Discussion

macrumors 68040

macrumors 603

macrumors 601

macrumors 601

macrumors 68020

macrumors 68040

macrumors 604

macrumors 603

macrumors 603

macrumors 603

macrumors 68030

macrumors G3

macrumors 603

macrumors 603

macrumors 601

Guest

macrumors G3

macrumors 68040

macrumors 601

macrumors 68030

macrumors G3

macrumors 603

macrumors 68040

macrumors 603

macrumors 68040

Our Staff