Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

[WW] Bloodlust GAME OVER - WEREWOLVES WIN

Don't panic said:
In the first round, there actually shouldn't be any 'suspicious' behavior on the part of the bad guys. the wolf should just behave exactly as the other villagers. they have no interest in accusing anyone, as noone should be seen as a particular threat at the beginning.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree at the same time. I think this is where previous gameplay matters. At this point only the werewolves know who is on their side and who isn't. For this reason the players from previous games who have shown themselves to be "dangerous" might be vulnerable to an early vote and the wolves or vamp could take advantage of that. This is why I don't like the random.org voting. The wolves could easily see a player like chrmjenkins, you, aggie, or myself as dangerous players and use the random voting excuse to start piling up votes.

I think another thing that we all need to be aware of is what I would call the "drag factor". If the game starts to drag due to voting stalemates or a lack of consensus then people will sometimes ignore strategy or obvious factors just for the sake of moving the game along. I've see this cause problems in the past as it usually works in the favor of the baddies because they can easily sway voting as a team.

Just some random thoughts here that I'm sure aggie will complain about. ;)
 
stonyc said:
That, and if you are correct about iBookG4user, the WW will have lost one of their own and will be likely to look to you as a target of infection.
Click to expand...

True. But my visibility also potentially makes me a higher target for hunter protection, which would block the infection. My high profile status may also make me too risky for infection since I am guaranteed to be a prime suspect indefinitely.

Don't panic said:
you will be, but everybody else will be as well, i think.
Click to expand...

Me more so for the reasons stonyc mentioned. I'm also a heightened infection target.
 
chrmjenkins said:
By coming out this strong, I cannot avoid further suspicion. I'll be under the microscope the rest of the game.
Click to expand...

Now where have I heard that before.... :confused:

Oh yeah, it was last game when I put my cards on the table for the benefit of the village and in turn you all lynched me. ... Er, umm, I'm sorry, my therapist and I are working on getting past this...

Forgiveness is more about me than those who have wronged me, forgiveness is more about me than those who have wronged me, forgiveness is more about me than those who have wronged me.

I will not be bitter, I will not be bitter, I will not be bitter.... :D ;)
 
Uggggh I hate the beginning of the game... there's not that much at stake at this point guys! Sure it'd bite to lose a hunter or something but all this waiting is driving me batty!
 
mscriv said:
Now where have I heard that before.... :confused:

Oh yeah, it was last game when I put my cards on the table for the benefit of the village and in turn you all lynched me. ... Er, umm, I'm sorry, my therapist and I are working on getting past this...

Forgiveness is more about me than those who have wronged me, forgiveness is more about me than those who have wronged me, forgiveness is more about me than those who have wronged me.

I will not be bitter, I will not be bitter, I will not be bitter.... :D ;)
Click to expand...

You have to admit that at the time, expressly asking for hunter protection was unheard of, tantamount to madness even. I've since learned the error of my ways.
 
mscriv said:
I agree and disagree at the same time. I think this is where previous gameplay matters. At this point only the werewolves know who is on their side and who isn't. For this reason the players from previous games who have shown themselves to be "dangerous" might be vulnerable to an early vote and the wolves or vamp could take advantage of that. This is why I don't like the random.org voting. The wolves could easily see a player like chrmjenkins, you, aggie, or myself as dangerous players and use the random voting excuse to start piling up votes.
Click to expand...

i see this point and this was also Chris argument as ibook's 'motive', which we all know from countless law and order episodes to be the essential element of an investigation.
i would agree except the way it was purportedly done (by ibook and philbeeney) would be an unnecessary risk.
if you were the WW, would you have jumped at the first chance of voting for chris or would you have waited to see what the mob was going, and then support the demise of one of the supposedly 'dangerous' characters? and wouldn't you have spread the two votes, to avoid perilous vote linkings?
 
Don't panic said:
i see this point and this was also Chris argument as ibook's 'motive', which we all know from countless law and order episodes to be the essential element of an investigation.
i would agree except the way it was purportedly done (by ibook and philbeeney) would be an unnecessary risk.
if you were the WW, would you have jumped at the first chance of voting for chris or would you have waited to see what the mob was going, and then support the demise of one of the supposedly 'dangerous' characters? and wouldn't you have spread the two votes, to avoid perilous vote linkings?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's something to consider. However, he may have been banking on the first round being a 'free' vote and that the first person's name to be mentioned would accrue quickly. Indeed, after those 3 votes, it stands to reason that others might start piling on at that point. That's why my argument is that while my analysis is highly circumstantial, at least it's not 'random'.
 
chrmjenkins said:
Yes, that's something to consider. However, he may have been banking on the first round being a 'free' vote and that the first person's name to be mentioned would accrue quickly. Indeed, after those 3 votes, it stands to reason that others might start piling on at that point. That's why my argument is that while my analysis is highly circumstantial, at least it's not 'random'.
Click to expand...

agree, and that's why i switched my vote from you to him. but that said, the most likely outcome is that he is a villager after all. we shall see, hopefully soon.
 
stonyc said:
+2 to chrmjenkins for Dragon Age references.
+1 to SilentPanda for getting Dragon Age reference.
Click to expand...

Where's my + for having had Enchantment! in my sig?!

I just beat the game a few days ago and Sandal's last "Enchantment!" made me laugh out loud for the first time in the game I think...
 
SilentPanda said:
I rescued Sten (I rescued everybody) but I never had him in my party or even talked to him... maybe next playthrough.
Click to expand...

I never gave him gifts, so that's all he said to me. I plan to buy the ultimate edition when it comes out, as I haven't touched any of the DLC yet and it'll be cheaper to do that.

And now, back to the ww game (although dragon age did have WW's).

SilentPanda said:
Where's my + for having had Enchantment! in my sig?!

I just beat the game a few days ago and Sandal's last "Enchantment!" made me laugh out loud for the first time in the game I think...
Click to expand...

My favorite comic relief characters from Bioware games have been hk-47, The Black Whirlwind and Henpecked Hou. Sandal was funny though :D
 
SilentPanda said:
Where's my + for having had Enchantment! in my sig?!

I just beat the game a few days ago and Sandal's last "Enchantment!" made me laugh out loud for the first time in the game I think...
Click to expand...
Amended above.

chrmjenkins said:
I never gave him gifts, so that's all he said to me. I plan to buy the ultimate edition when it comes out, as I haven't touched any of the DLC yet and it'll be cheaper to do that.

And now, back to the ww game (although dragon age did have WW's).



My favorite comic relief characters from Bioware games have been hk-47, The Black Whirlwind and Henpecked Hou. Sandal was funny though :D
Click to expand...
I actually liked Sten... so serious, but when he stated his fondness for cookies, LOL.

I've made a slight addition to Abjink's spreadsheet which I think might help further down the line (hint, hint): I've added annotation for vote order to each player. I think that noting changes in votes is extremely helpful, but sometimes the reference in which those changes are made is lost. Hopefully, adding vote order can add a little back... feel free to copy over to your sheet if you like Abjink. This is current up to iBlue's changed vote to iBookG4user.

I think the order is correct (went through the votes twice), but I didn't add anything additional for SilentPanda's double-vote for -aggie-... though I did mark him as the first voter for his 'no-lynch' vote.

See attachment.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-09-10 at 2.07.10 PM.png
    Screen shot 2010-09-10 at 2.07.10 PM.png
    50.7 KB · Views: 51
stonyc said:
I've made a slight addition to Abjink's spreadsheet which I think might help further down the line (hint, hint): I've added annotation for vote order to each player. I think that noting changes in votes is extremely helpful, but sometimes the reference in which those changes are made is lost. Hopefully, adding vote order can add a little back... feel free to copy over to your sheet if you like Abjink. This is current up to iBlue's changed vote to iBookG4user.

I think the order is correct (went through the votes twice), but I didn't add anything additional for SilentPanda's double-vote for -aggie-... though I did mark him as the first voter for his 'no-lynch' vote.

See attachment.
Click to expand...

Although she can't edit at work (googledocs blocked), she may do that. Could also consider using post number instead of strict chronological order, as it would still indicate timing with an added reference.

And for those paying attention, please notice I can convince random strangers I'm an ok dude, but my wife remains fervent in her assertion of my guilt :D
 
That might be better... can see the actual post of the vote change, I'll think about re-doing that after my afternoon meeting.
 
chrmjenkins said:
Although she can't edit at work (googledocs blocked), she may do that. Could also consider using post number instead of strict chronological order, as it would still indicate timing with an added reference.

And for those paying attention, please notice I can convince random strangers I'm an ok dude, but my wife remains fervent in her assertion of my guilt :D
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't. You posted this while I was catching up. ;)

I think I will use the post # instead. I'll work on that on Saturday night or Sunday, when I can actually sit back down and look at it. It's hard enough finding all the vote changes, let alone counting who went where...

I'll change my vote to iBookG4user if for no other reason than if he IS a ww and I didn't vote for him I'll never hear the end of it at home. Sorry, dude, unless we are correct.

Only one more to go I think.
 
philbeeney said:
Unless the two of you are working as a husband and wife werewolf tag team. :eek:

I've seen that movie with Brad Pitt and Lara Croft as married assassins. You can't fool me that easily. :D
Click to expand...

The only thing we're good at killing together is a box of donuts.
 
chrmjenkins said:
Alright, enough messing about and I'll make a serious post.

I understand that the first round is usually random and impersonal. I don't begrudge anyone for that, and that's why I've been making light of it with my posts.

The power of the villagers lies in the voting record. mscriv pointed that out brilliantly last game when he picked the three wolves out early based on voting record alone before we foolishly lynched him, with me at the head of the charge. I also kept my vote for Rodimus Prime despite his threat, when mscriv pointed out that it was better to back off and keep caution. While you may regard me as calculating, you have to admit I am prone to impulsiveness. Consider that moving forward when I discuss the reason behind my vote.

First, let's consider how the vote started off in my favor.

Mexbearpig voted first, claiming random.org:



iBookG4user followed up a mere 22 minutes later, also claiming random.org. The odds of two people landing on the same person are 1 in 20. For instance, say Mexbearpig got anyone randomly. The probability iBook gets the same person is the probability someone gets any one person independent of all other random votes, since they are essentially both the same independent process. Now, pick out a single player and consider the odds of two people getting that particular person. That's (1/20)^2, 1/400.



Now, while improbable, that's perfectly possible. So, it's not exactly fair to use that as ammunition without motive and a more detailed analysis. Does he have motive to vote for me? Sure he does. He was a bad guy last game and said himself that he feared my abilities late on in the game:

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/10926610/



Now, we return back to the voting record. What have people been complaining about in this thread? People abusing random.org and it leading to little progress. However, if you notice, we're not able to blame anyone person, because everyone does it. Thus, that blame cannot turn into a vote, because it never has focus. What better cover than a direct attack for the people you fear other than the guise of a random vote? iBook could have easily punched the button until he got my number and posted it to show "proof" of his impartiality. It's the perfect way to out a high profile player early on without drawing suspicion to yourself.

Does he have an accomplice? I think so. philbeeney. He posted a mere 3 minutes after iBook, and for guess who? Me. Why didn't he use random.org too? Because 1/8000 is just bat**** crazy.



But hey, you may ask "Isn't it possible he just wanted to vote for the wave and used that logic to fluff his post?"

Sure, I'll concede that. But why, then, would he outright lie about my role in previous games?



Sorry, but I've never been a bad guy in previous games. Check the first post for the links. In the first simple game, I was a villager. In the first complex game, I was a villager. In the last two complex games, I've been the undertaker. I've never had anything but the interest of the village at heart. Why would you make such a careless post about me unless you were trying to shore up your buddy's logic?

To sum it all up, I don't necessarily suspect Mex. I think ibook may have simply jumped on his actual random vote as an excuse to vote for me.

So, there you have it. You can jump on the random bandwagon and vote for me, or you can test my logic and see if it's right. Just consider this, we have enough substance in this drawn-out vote process to actually have some content to use against people before the first round of voting even closes. If you side with me and I turn out to be wrong, then just lynch me next round. If I'm really that nefarious, you get a bad guy in the first two rounds either way. That's an excellent start.

At the very least, I hope the seer is paying attention. iBook, myself, philbeeney, mscriv; we all deserve scans. Whether it be we are high profile players or there is reasonable guilt, you have some good targets.
Click to expand...

So, people are believing this swill? :)

I’ve been a WW a number of times, as you all know. The stuff you describe is NOT how a winning WW acts. What do winning WW’s do?

  • They let others vote and hope the mob mentality takes hold.
  • They never vote in groups until the end of the game. More often one WW votes one way and the other votes another way.
  • They love when villagers mob vote. It’s a WW’s dream.
  • If villagers are mob voting for a WW, the other WW(s) try to swing the vote in a different direction by casting FUD.
  • If they can get away with waiting to vote, they will, and then vote for someone else when the mob has already taken over.

The stuff you describe as suggesting certain people are WW’s sounds all analytical, but it’s just not logical. If you guys insist on voting for iBook, I may tag along, but if he’s not a WW, your next lynching should be Chris, if he insists that his thinking suggests iBook is a WW even after reading what I have to say.

Edit: @mscriv: Just saw your post after reading Chris’s discussion/analysis. I agree totally with you. You even kept the post relatively short. :) Why is Don’t panic a threat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back