I'm still against the Hunter protecting against infection and I am very against the idea of a Shaman or Villager Doctor.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter ravenvii
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dont make me play the n00b card.
But it's the only card you've got and we want you to play.
Don’t make me play the n00b card.
Anyone that believes you're a noob is a fool. Now stop posting that drivel or I really will vote for you first just so I don't have to keep reading that nonsense.
I do have serious game tweak I think we should consider. A few games back ravenvii asked if we wanted the game to start at night or during the day. At that point it was decided that the game would start at day so that one player wasn't immdiately killed off without ever being a part. Since then we have not revisited the idea.
However, there has been a lot of discussion about how random the first day's voting is and how mob mentality seems to take over as no one wants to be the first lynched.
What if we started the game at night and took an initial vote to give one player immunity from slaughter on the first night? This means 2 or 3 players would have immunity the first night (depending on what is decided as far as the hunter's protection). I understand that the individual odds of being immediately out of the game go up this way, but it will encourage immediate converstaion as the village decides who to protect that night and then how to respond to who was killed off first by the wolves.
I'm just thinking of ways to get the conversation and the clues started as quickly as possible as opposed to someone's name getting thrown out there and everyone pounces on it just to save their own skin. If I ever found myself being the first taken out of the game I would much rather prefer it be by werewolf attack than an ignorant and guessing angry mob.
This would also lessen carry over from game to game in voting someone off first just because they were a certain role the pevious game.
Just something to consider... What say you my fine fellow players?
I like this idea of starting at night. We can see who gets knocked off first and maybe have at least a small idea of who might have voted for them. When we start in the day it is more times than not just randomly guessing on which villager we are going to take out.
Guys, new simple thread up. You can participate in both without issue if you'd like. We'll get started as soon as sign-ups slow down and reach a certain threshold.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1004167/
mscriv I like your idea and have posted that before, but it seems people are worried about the fact that someone will get eaten night 1 without being able to do anything in the game, even if it is an arbitrary vote. Your increased immunity may help, but I wonder if people will still buy that idea.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1004167/
mscriv I like your idea and have posted that before, but it seems people are worried about the fact that someone will get eaten night 1 without being able to do anything in the game, even if it is an arbitrary vote. Your increased immunity may help, but I wonder if people will still buy that idea.
don't like the idea of starting at night. gives an additional advantage to the wolves without really adding anything in terms of knowledge. the next day's lynching is equally random as there isn't any time to gather infos (except for the seer).
I agree with this. So, the WWs pick a non-threat (what I would do). The villagers gain no knowledge and are already behind.
Hence, the village wide immunity vote that will spark discussion and could reveal some clues. If the wolves want to take out a certain player in the beginning they will obviously want to steer the votes away from this player. Likewise, the village can choose to protect someone right off the bat that they think will be a valuable player. With one known protection out there the first night then the chances of possibly thwarting the wolves attack goes up slightly.
If we wanted, this first protect could be a blind vote (PM to ravenvii) with say two nominations considered. That would make it more complicated, but it's another option.
My apologies to chrmjenkins if you already put this idea out there. I know how you are about plagiarism.
Keep in mind I only follow the complex threads so if it as in a simple thread then I wouldn't have seen it.
My apologies to chrmjenkins if you already put this idea out there. I know how you are about plagiarism.
Not an issue
. You have to remember that my first allegation was in the context of a game. Everything I say in the game has a purpose driving it.I only cautioned you because of the backlash my suggestion met both in suggesting its return in the complex game and suggesting its use in the simple game.
Why thank you sir. Your concern and general care about my well being is much appreciated. Especially considering the last time we traded posts it lead to an agonizing death by suffocation.
Um... can the village carpenter please make sure the gallows are built to code this time.
i don't think it would work that way. someone throws out a random name to protect. there is no real discussion on whether to accept or not, as there is no basis for it and there is really nothing important at stakes. most people would just go with the flow, including the WW. then the WWs simply pick someone else. their chance of hitting someone unprotected is negligibly affected, but they are ahead one day, with one less villager to worry about. the vamps also get an extra day of scanning.
there is also the option of voting "no lynching" (different from non voting). if this options wins majority, no one is lynched (or at least it was always an option in mafia)
Ok, but wouldn't voting for "no lynching" be the exact same thing I'm suggesting? The first person out of the game is due to the WW's and not a villager vote. These two options sound like the same thing to me, but I still think the immunity vote would spark more discussion as people would be asked to give a reason for their vote to protect someone.
Granted the beginning will always be limited in the amount of information available, but anything that sparks conversation is a plus in my book.
i don't think it would spark too much useful conversation.
i was just proposing the no-lynching as an option if enough people feel the need to stall for one (or more) day.
personally i would never vote no-lynching, i would actually consider very suspiciously anyone who would push for a pass from lynching, as it is a move that always favors the bad guys
Not necessarily in the beginning, where the odds favor the villagers randomly lynching one of their own, particularly where a werewolf can influence a random vote in the beginning with his/her own seemingly innocuous post.
I agree with this. I'd rather do a no-vote the first night since I have NO information to base anything off of. The odds of me killing a villager/special is much higher than me killing a werewolf... sure it gives the WW a headstart but I'd almost rather have an extra person that cares about the villager's well being the next night.
I don't think it should be mandatory though. Those that don't want to vote, don't need to vote such as it is now.
didn't we already have this conversation before (with someone)?
while it's true that the odds of killing a villager are higher than those of killing a baddie (but not just at the beginning, pretty much throughout the whole game), when they lynch at least they have a chance of getting the baddies.
when they don't, that chance drops to exactly zero, and some chance is always better than no chance
in the meanwhile, the baddies get an additional shot (almost a certainty) at killing a villager the next night. plus at the beginning you are increasing the chances to activate the vamps before anything starts to happen.
Which is why it wouldn't make sense for it to happen multiple nights in a row. The peril of a no vote is easily viewed when you consider a late in the game situation where numbers are crucial. Having some mechanism on the first vote only wouldn't necessarily be a leg up for the WWs and/or vamps.
it would be like starting at night: you give the WW the advantage of getting rid of one of the villagers first. A small advantage, but an advantage nonetheless.
i think it would be fine if we think the villagers are overpowered and we need to balance in the direction of the wolves
Think of it this way: it depends how much you value the interpretation of who the wolves killed the previous night.
If you think that choice inherently has value to the villagers, it makes sense to start at night. Otherwise, you're likely giving the wolves 2 villager deaths in a row, only 1 of which you can infer anything from based on their behavior. The only thing that balances this is if you think who people vote for is just as important as who is eaten early on.
i disagree with this.
the value for the villager of starting at day is two-fold:
1) it gives them a chance to randomly kill a wolf/vampire
2) it set a first example of voting pattern
the concept that lynching more likely kills a villager is a strategic non-starter, as that is almost always the case.
Villagers will always have to sacrifice a certain number of their own if they want to succeed, that is how they can win the game.
As i said, starting at night gives a slight advantage to the wolves/vamps; starting at day gives a slight advantage to the villagers. Any situation that prevents a death at night favors the villagers, any skipped lynching favors the wolves/vamps.
You've supplied no heuristic for why a skipped lynching always favors the wolves or vamps. The fact that lynching the first day usually kills a villager is strategically relevant. As I said, it depends which you think it more strategically relevant: the voting record or the werewolf victim history. Unless you can define a clear basis as to why the former is much more important than the latter, I don't buy any tautology that asserts a no-lynch always favors the bad guys.
bringing out the big words, aren't we?
the 'heuristic' of why skipping lynching favors the bad guys is that you give up the chance of killing them, while they retain theirs of killing you at night.
and how is asserting that no-lynch always favors the bad guys a tautology?