[WW] Bloodlust GAME OVER - WEREWOLVES WIN

[chrmjenkins]

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.

Yes, you give up a chance where the odds do not favor you. (likely 3:1 at the beginning of the game). Worse than that, you have almost equal odds of unknowingly killing a villager special, potentially even bypassing their one-time immunity!

The key to villager survival is preservation of numbers AND lynching bad guys. By not voting, you've more than likely retained one more villager than you would have. Otherwise, you're likely handing the wolves a villager/special death on a silver platter. So, I ask again, is voting record so important that it trumps those risks and the odds not favoring you?

and how is asserting that no-lynch always favors the bad guys a tautology?

If you state that regardless of circumstances, something is always true, it's a tautology.

 

[-aggie-]

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?

I didn’t understand half of what he said.

I can’t believe they’re discussing a way to make the WW’s have even more of an advantage. Like I said earlier, if I’m a WW, we’ll kill the least relevant player, probably one who never posts, and you’ll have NO information. Zilch, nada. I hope I’m a WW, if you implement this rule.

 

[Don't panic]

Yes, you give up a chance where the odds do not favor you. (likely 3:1 at the beginning of the game). Worse than that, you have almost equal odds of unknowingly killing a villager special, potentially even bypassing their one-time immunity!

The key to villager survival is preservation of numbers AND lynching bad guys. By not voting, you've more than likely retained one more villager than you would have. Otherwise, you're likely handing the wolves a villager/special death on a silver platter. So, I ask again, is voting record so important that it trumps those risks and the odds not favoring you?

in lynching, the odds almost NEVER favor the villagers. at the beginning there are 3 wolves and 17 non-wolves, so you skip one lynching and you have 3 wolves and 16 non-wolves, so you skip another lynching. then you have 3 wolves and 15 non wolves and so on. according to your logic, based on odds alone, you should wait until most of the villagers are dead until you start voting, and at this point you have no basis for the votes as there is no voting record.
obviously the situation is more complex with vamps and specials, but the point remains that if you wait until the odds are in your favor, you lose because the WW will keep killing the villagers and their odds to get them is 100% (minus the occasional protection) as they know who the other wolves are.

As you said, "By not voting, you've more than likely retained one more villager than you would have", but you also have certainly passed on the chance of killing one wolf. they are not going to return the favor.

If you state that regardless of circumstances, something is always true, it's a tautology.

I think a tautology is when you use a concept to define itself, using other words.

 

[chrmjenkins]

in lynching, the odds almost NEVER favor the villagers. at the beginning there are 3 wolves and 17 non-wolves, so you skip one lynching and you have 3 wolves and 16 non-wolves, so you skip another lynching. then you have 3 wolves and 15 non wolves and so on. according to your logic, based on odds alone, you should wait until most of the villagers are dead until you start voting, and at this point you have no basis for the votes as there is no voting record.

No one ever advocated skipping the lynching on multiple occasions as a strategic element. The idea was simply put forth that it may be strategically beneficial to villagers to skip only the first lynching given their lack of evidence and unfavorable odds.

obviously the situation is more complex with vamps and specials, but the point remains that if you wait until the odds are in your favor, you lose because the WW will keep killing the villagers and their odds to get them is 100% (minus the occasional protection) as they know who the other wolves are.

But it's not solely a game of odds. It's also one of strategy and evidence. Thus, by skipping a vote in the first round, you are saying, due to lack of evidence, that you do not wish to vote and likely kill an innocent villager or good special.

As you said, "By not voting, you've more than likely retained one more villager than you would have", but you also have certainly passed on the chance of killing one wolf. they are not going to return the favor.

With the benefit in return being that you likely retain one villager you would not have otherwise.

I think a tautology is when you use a concept to define itself, using other words.

Sorry for the confusion, I'm using the logical tautology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

 

[SilentPanda]

didn't we already have this conversation before (with someone)?

You and I had this disagreement yesterday.

 

[Don't panic]

No one ever advocated skipping the lynching on multiple occasions as a strategic element. The idea was simply put forth that it may be strategically beneficial to villagers to skip only the first lynching given their lack of evidence and unfavorable odds.

i understand, but the same reasoning you use for day one is equally valid for day two. so, assuming that you skipped lynching on day one, why wouldn't you do also on day two? you'd be in the same situation, with very similar odds, so what is different? at what point the odds become favorable? how do you gather the 'evidence' to convincingly change that strategy?

But it's not solely a game of odds. It's also one of strategy and evidence. Thus, by skipping a vote in the first round, you are saying, due to lack of evidence, that you do not wish to vote and likely kill an innocent villager or good special.

yes, it is a game of strategy and evidence, and to me the best evidence is collected during voting and in looking at voting patterns. if you eliminate voting even temporarily, you reduce the evidence available, and this advantages the wolves, who already know who are the villagers

With the benefit in return being that you likely retain one villager you would not have otherwise.

the key is in contrasting the possibility of losing a villager with a vote, with the certainty of not losing a wolf without a vote.

Sorry for the confusion, I'm using the logical tautology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

yeah, i realized that we were referring to different things too. anyways i stand by my assertion: in general, no-lynching favors the badguys.
can you give me one exanple in which that is certainly not the case?

 

[chrmjenkins]

i understand, but the same reasoning you use for day one is equally valid for day two. so, assuming that you skipped lynching on day one, why wouldn't you do also on day two? you'd be in the same situation, with very similar odds, so what is different? at what point the odds become favorable? how do you gather the 'evidence' to convincingly change that strategy?

The difference is that you now have a kill record to go on, and most likely, some reaction posts and other posts.

yes, it is a game of strategy and evidence, and to me the best evidence is collected during voting and in looking at voting patterns. if you eliminate voting even temporarily, you reduce the evidence available, and this advantages the wolves, who already know who are the villagers

That was my original question. I figured you favored the voting record over the kill record. Besides, you're assuming a non-lynching means no one voted. There are scenarios in which you may not lynch while people have still voted.

the key is in contrasting the possibility of losing a villager with a vote, with the certainty of not losing a wolf without a vote.

It's not a 1 to 1. The villagers' vote has more killing power than a werewolve's vote. They can bypass hunter immunity.

yeah, i realized that we were referring to different things too. anyways i stand by my assertion: in general, no-lynching favors the badguys.
can you give me one exanple in which that is certainly not the case?

Yes, a case in which the villagers would accidentally lynch one of their own. The chaotic nature of the initial vote makes it much easier for the wolves to hide in the numbers, more so than at any other point in the game.

 

[Don't panic]

Yes, a case in which the villagers would accidentally lynch one of their own. The chaotic nature of the initial vote makes it much easier for the wolves to hide in the numbers, more so than at any other point in the game.

what do you mean, the villagers always 'accidentally' lynch other villagers, it wouldn't make any sense to do it on purpose.
to falsify my assertion, you need to give me a scenario where choosing not to lynch is a certain advantage for the villagers.
beginning of the game with no one knowing anything is not such a situation, as in my opinion not lynching gives the wolves a day advantage and doesn't add anything for the villagers, just delays their decision to lynch someone and to start collecting valuable information.

also as far as the 'killing record' if i understand what you say correctly, you say that there is more information in who the WW killed the first night, than in what people voted the first day. i think that there is basically no information in the initial killing record, while there could be some useful information in the voting records, especially in retrospective.

 

[chrmjenkins]

what do you mean, the villagers always 'accidentally' lynch other villagers, it wouldn't make any sense to do it on purpose.
to falsify my assertion, you need to give me a scenario where choosing not to lynch is a certain advantage for the villagers.
beginning of the game with no one knowing anything is not such a situation, as in my opinion not lynching gives the wolves a day advantage and doesn't add anything for the villagers, just delays their decision to lynch someone and to start collecting valuable information.

also as far as the 'killing record' if i understand what you say correctly, you say that there is more information in who the WW killed the first night, than in what people voted the first day. i think that there is basically no information in the initial killing record, while there could be some useful information in the voting records, especially in retrospective.

You have not denied that there is some value in the killing record in addition to the more-valued voting record. Thus, by not losing a villager as a fault of their own in exchange for a killing record is an equitable trade. -aggie- insists that the wolves will pick someone inconsequential for their first choice. It just so happens that the villagers tend to lynch the very same type of person in their initial votes. The more active players do not get accused in the first vote. More often than not, the wolves are pretty active. Given those facts, the villagers are only helping the wolves by killing off the villagers who post less.

also as far as the 'killing record' if i understand what you say correctly, you say that there is more information in who the WW killed the first night, than in what people voted the first day. i think that there is basically no information in the initial killing record, while there could be some useful information in the voting records, especially in retrospective.

No, I never said it holds more information. However, it never holds 0 information, not anymore. The voting record and killing record both gain more value as the game progresses. From previous games, you can clearly see which players think other players are dangerous or who they value killing first. By extension, if someone who posts little dies first time, you could arguably target -aggie- because of that. Hell, wolves may do that in the hopes we lynch -aggie-. Everything is relevant, even previous game tendencies.

 

[Don't panic]

i don't think we are going to agree on this, but i don't completely disagree with this last post, not completely.
i do disagree that giving up the chance of lynching a wolf and of having the voting info is 'equitable' to the killing record gained. not even remotely close.

if I am a wolf i would be a happy puppy every time the villagers give up their chance of skinning me, and i would be more then happy to provide as many 'killing records' as they can handle. and i suspect you would also.

 

[chrmjenkins]

i do disagree that giving up the chance of lynching a wolf and of having the voting info is 'equitable' to the killing record gained. not even remotely close.

It's not only that though. You get to keep a villager too.

 

[Don't panic]

It's not only that though. You get to keep a villager too.

possibly.

 

[mscriv]

Nice debate folks. I think we can all agree that player interaction is what not only makes the game fun, but what provides us the information and clues we need to form a strategy and deduce who could be dangerous. This applies to whatever role you end up with in the game. The baddies have to analyze who is dangerous to them just as much as the villagers have to find the baddies. Sure aggie is correct in that every villager death brings the baddies one step closer to victory since in the end it often comes down to a numbers game.

That being said, I agree that simply skipping a vote is probably not the in the best interest of the villagers since it's the process of voting itself that starts player interaction. And, it's for this exact reason that I've proposed an immunity vote on the first night or it could even be the first day of the game if you wanted to keep the storytelling plausible. (I mean why would we as a village start lynching our own until there was a proven werewolf kill on the first night).

Anyway, I think an immunity vote stands just as much chance of initiating player interaction and giving beginning clues as a first day lynching would. I understand you say it would operate under the same random "follow the herd" mentality, but I don't think so. And if it does, then what have we lost?

Think of it this way, the only way the game starts off "with a bang" is in the event of the first vote falling on an important special like a hunter or the seer. At that point the special is forced to reveal their identity in a effort of self preservation and we're off and running. If the vote just falls on a normal villager then they don't put up too much fuss, we don't learn much, and we're on to the first night anyway.

Additionally, the day 1 majority is 11 which means really only half of the village has to vote. Therefore,the first day's voting information alone is not too helpful, especially since most of us playing are now veterans and the wolves are not making dumb mistakes. I've not voted on day 1 in every game I've played thus far because I think it's too dangerous. Historically, drawing attention to yourself with day 1 posts has been more of a risk than keeping quiet.

Having an immunity vote and then going into the first night gives us a chance to get interaction going without the same risk of losing a villager immediately. In an immunity vote no one is going to get instantly lynched just for having an opinion. We've all seen the "blood thirst" or "why in such a rush, it must be you" excuse used on day 1 and once a couple of people throw in a vote then it's all downhill from there. With a risk free immunity vote on day one people need not be afraid to participate. And then, at the end of the first night we have more clues available to us (a voting record and a kill record) then we usually do.

 

[jav6454]

I didn’t understand half of what he said.

I can’t believe they’re discussing a way to make the WW’s have even more of an advantage. Like I said earlier, if I’m a WW, we’ll kill the least relevant player, probably one who never posts, and you’ll have NO information. Zilch, nada. I hope I’m a WW, if you implement this rule.

Recall we had to take out the perma-immunity hunters had because the villager side was overwhelmingly strong. Before the previous games, wolves never had any chance of winning. Now, at least wolves have the chance of killing a hunter; however, this comes at a balanced cost for the villagers and steep cost for the wolves (2 nights wasted).

I also agree on killing the most quiet player. He goes, people will have no one to suspect because who knew what the quiet one thought after all? Likewise, the most talkative players are always the ones targeted mid to end game because people view them as crowd herders that sway or move the votes to whatever agenda they want. Recall, this is how -aggie- worked in the Simple game. The problem with this strategy if that if you don't know how to execute it well enough, you might turn into the next person to be lynched, which is to say not what you want, specially if you are the wolf in sheep clothes. I learned that the hard way. I talked too much in the first stages of the 3rd installment which ultimately led to my demise.

If -aggie- does become the wolf, I want to be the village idiot.

 

[Don't panic]

i agree that it is all about balance of the game.
to see that however, we need a bit more of data without changing too much. i would keep the beginning of the game as is, so we have one less variable. if we need to encourage the wolves, than we can move to a night start.

i would be fine with a first day 'immunity' vote as mscriv was proposing, although i agree with aggie that it will not do much and is essentially like a night start.
i also remind that if a majority votes "no lynching" than we can still achieve that without changing the rules (but i'd like that this option be 'enshrined' in the first post, as an official option). whether that favors the villagers or the wolves is still an unsettled matter.

i would like to rekindle the discussion about the specific abilities of the hunters, so that by saturday we are settled on some definitive setup. again the most important aspect is that all powers, whatever that end up being, are clearly defined in the rules.

 

[Don't panic]

i thought to do a checklist of the various tweaks proposed, to keep the discussion going in an organized way, so it's easier to tally opinions:

Start of game
[] Day
[] Night
[] Day with immunity instead of lynching

Hunters
[] 2 equal non-specific hunters
[] completely specific vamp hunter and wolf hunter
[] non specific guarding power and specific personal powers (vamp and WW)
[] split guards and 2 specific hunters in 4 different characters

extension of hunters’ guarding protection:
[] extends to day
[] only night

hunter’s tracking ability
[] hunter can scan for their prey at night
[] hunter does not scan for their prey at night

what guarding protects from:
[] only night attacks
[] night attacks and kamikaze wolfe
[] night attacks, kamikaze, infection
[] all sort of attacks (night, kamikaze, infection, instakill)

what hunter immunity covers:
[] only one attack to kill
[] one attack to kill OR infection attempt
[] one attack to kill AND one infection attempt
[] one attack to kill AND any infection attempt

Sorcerer
[] Resurrection revives to exact status of death
[] Resurrection revives but makes a simple villager

WW infection
[] One attempt at infection (if it fails it is lost)
[] One successful infection (if it fails it can be used again)

after WW infection
[] infected maintains his/her specials
[] infected is a normal WW with no specials

WW immunity
[] Cannot be killed by vampires
[] Can be killed by vampires

Vampires
[] One vamp + one goth (with accellerated activation)
[] One vamp + two goths (only first gets activated)
[] One vamp + two goths (both get activated)
[] Three vamps (only two gets activated, third is on side of villagers and maintains scanning for vamp and immunity to WW if present)

Vampire immunity
[] Cannot be killed by WW
[] Can be killed by WW

secret society (neighborhood watch)
[] 3 villagers can PM each other (and thus know they are not monsters)
[] No villagers can PM each other

seer
[] One seer
[] Two seers


i think i put everything, but we can add options

edit: i added the one seer/two seers option

 

[chrmjenkins]

Great summary DP.

Start of game
[] Day
[] Night
[X] Day with immunity instead of lynching mscriv's explanation for community involvement and lack of arbitrariness makes sense.

Hunters
[] 2 equal non-specific hunters
[X] completely specific vamp hunter and wolf hunter
[] non specific guarding power and specific personal powers (vamp and WW)
[] split guards and 2 specific hunters in 4 different characters

extension of hunters’ guarding protection:
[X] extends to day makes wolves ponder their choice more
[] only night

hunter’s tracking ability
[] hunter can scan for their prey at night
[X] hunter does not scan for their prey at night don't want to make hunter too powerful

what guarding protects from:
[] only night attacks
[] night attacks and kamikaze wolf
[] night attacks, kamikaze, infection
[X] all sort of attacks (night, kamikaze, infection, instakill) makes wolves ponder their choice more

what hunter immunity covers:
[] only one attack to kill
[] one attack to kill OR infection attempt
[] one attack to kill AND one infection attempt
[X] one attack to kill AND any infection attempt maintains clear sides. Villagers cannot "infect" WW, for example

Sorcerer
[X] Resurrection revives to exact status of death otherwise, it's only reviving someone who is only good strategically, why wouldn't wolves just kill again immediately?
[] Resurrection revives but makes a simple villager

WW infection
[X] One attempt at infection (if it fails it is lost) makes wolves ponder their choice more
[] One successful infection (if it fails it can be used again)

after WW infection
[X] infected maintains his/her specials interesting dynamic with higher stakes
[] infected is a normal WW with no specials

WW immunity
[X] Cannot be killed by vampires makes it more fun as all the maneuvering is in the voting process
[] Can be killed by vampires

Vampires
[] One vamp + one goth (with accellerated activation)
[X] One vamp + two goths (only first gets activated) gets more people involved without making vamps too powerful
[] One vamp + two goths (both get activated)
[] Three vamps (only two gets activated, third is on side of villagers and maintains scanning for vamp and immunity to WW if present)

Vampire immunity
[X] Cannot be killed by WW makes it more fun as all the maneuvering is in the voting process
[] Can be killed by WW

secret society (neighborhood watch)
[] 3 villagers can PM each other (and thus know they are not monsters)
[X] No villagers can PM each other issue of the spy if the WW infect one of them. Maybe later

 

[Don't panic]

Great summary DP.

thanks.
i might as well put my ballot in

Start of game
[X] Day slight advantage to the villagers
[] Night
[] Day with immunity instead of lynching

Hunters
[] 2 equal non-specific hunters
[] completely specific vamp hunter and wolf hunter
[] non specific guarding power and specific personal powers (vamp and WW)
[X] split guards and 2 specific hunters in 4 different characters keeps same total powers as before, but involves 4 people instead of 2

extension of hunters’ guarding protection:
[X] extends to day makes kamikaze and infection not infallible
[] only night

hunter’s tracking ability
[] hunter can scan for their prey at night
[X] hunter does not scan for their prey at night maybe later

what guarding protects from:
[] only night attacks
[] night attacks and kamikaze wolfe
[] night attacks, kamikaze, infection
[X] all sort of attacks (night, kamikaze, infection, instakill) it fits the guarding duties, also forces ww to think about infection and kamikaze killing

what hunter immunity covers:
[] only one attack to kill
[X] one attack to kill OR infection attempt so in principle the hunter can be turned or killed too
[] one attack to kill AND one infection attempt
[] one attack to kill AND any infection attempt

Sorcerer
[X] Resurrection revives to exact status of death strategically more fun
[] Resurrection revives but makes a simple villager

WW infection
[X] One attempt at infection (if it fails it is lost) better think about it well
[] One successful infection (if it fails it can be used again)

after WW infection
[X] infected maintains his/her specials strategically more fun
[] infected is a normal WW with no specials

WW immunity
[X] Cannot be killed by vampires keep status quo, for now
[] Can be killed by vampires

Vampires
[] One vamp + one goth (with accellerated activation)
[] One vamp + two goths (only first gets activated)
[] One vamp + two goths (both get activated)
[X] Three vamps (only two gets activated, third is on side of villagers and maintains scanning for vamp and immunity to WW if present) almost assures vamps play, but it still only two of them, this is counterbalanced by the rogue vampire playing for the villagers

Vampire immunity
[X] Cannot be killed by WW keep status quo, for now
[] Can be killed by WW

secret society (neighborhood watch)
[] 3 villagers can PM each other (and thus know they are not monsters)
[X] No villagers can PM each other keep status quo, for now

seer
[X] One seer should be a unique power
[] Two seers

i wouldn't mind to see in the future the hunter's tracking ability, the secret society and allow vamps and ww to kill each others, but not in this game. one thing at the time
edit: just a s a suggestion for the future, if we go the way of the secret society/neighborhood watch, we can have them to have to scan for each other, like the vamp/goth do (the secret handshake!)

2nd edit: added comments to votes

3rd edit: added one seer/two seers vote

 

[appleguy123]

i thought to do a checklist of the various tweaks proposed, to keep the discussion going in an organized way, so it's easier to tally opinions:

Start of game
[] Day
[] Night
[x] Day with immunity instead of lynching

Hunters
[x] 2 equal non-specific hunters
[] completely specific vamp hunter and wolf hunter
[] non specific guarding power and specific personal powers (vamp and WW)
[] split guards and 2 specific hunters in 4 different characters

extension of hunters’ guarding protection:
[x] extends to day
[] only night

hunter’s tracking ability
[x] hunter can scan for their prey at night
[] hunter does not scan for their prey at night

what guarding protects from:
[] only night attacks
[] night attacks and kamikaze wolfe
[] night attacks, kamikaze, infection
[x] all sort of attacks (night, kamikaze, infection, instakill)

what hunter immunity covers:
[] only one attack to kill
[] one attack to kill OR infection attempt
[] one attack to kill AND one infection attempt
[x] one attack to kill AND any infection attempt

Sorcerer
[x] Resurrection revives to exact status of death
[] Resurrection revives but makes a simple villager

WW infection
[x] One attempt at infection (if it fails it is lost)
[] One successful infection (if it fails it can be used again)

after WW infection
[x] infected maintains his/her specials
[] infected is a normal WW with no specials

WW immunity
[] Cannot be killed by vampires
[] Can be killed by vampires

Vampires
[] One vamp + one goth (with accellerated activation)
[x] One vamp + two goths (only first gets activated)
[] One vamp + two goths (both get activated)
[] Three vamps (only two gets activated, third is on side of villagers and maintains scanning for vamp and immunity to WW if present)

Vampire immunity
[] Cannot be killed by WW
[x] Can be killed by WW

secret society (neighborhood watch)
[] 3 villagers can PM each other (and thus know they are not monsters)
[x] No villagers can PM each other


i think i put everything, but we can add options

Here's how I feel. Also, I feel that we should be made aware of when(but not whom) the werewolves infect.

 

[-aggie-]

My brain hurts.

 

[lbro]

Great summary DP.

Start of game
[] Day
[] Night
[X] Day with immunity instead of lynching mscriv's explanation for community involvement and lack of arbitrariness makes sense.

Hunters
[] 2 equal non-specific hunters
[X] completely specific vamp hunter and wolf hunter
[] non specific guarding power and specific personal powers (vamp and WW)
[] split guards and 2 specific hunters in 4 different characters

extension of hunters’ guarding protection:
[X] extends to day makes wolves ponder their choice more
[] only night

hunter’s tracking ability
[] hunter can scan for their prey at night
[X] hunter does not scan for their prey at night don't want to make hunter too powerful

what guarding protects from:
[] only night attacks
[] night attacks and kamikaze wolf
[] night attacks, kamikaze, infection
[X] all sort of attacks (night, kamikaze, infection, instakill) makes wolves ponder their choice more

what hunter immunity covers:
[] only one attack to kill
[] one attack to kill OR infection attempt
[] one attack to kill AND one infection attempt
[X] one attack to kill AND any infection attempt maintains clear sides. Villagers cannot "infect" WW, for example

Sorcerer
[X] Resurrection revives to exact status of death otherwise, it's only reviving someone who is only good strategically, why wouldn't wolves just kill again immediately?
[] Resurrection revives but makes a simple villager

WW infection
[X] One attempt at infection (if it fails it is lost) makes wolves ponder their choice more
[] One successful infection (if it fails it can be used again)

after WW infection
[X] infected maintains his/her specials interesting dynamic with higher stakes
[] infected is a normal WW with no specials

WW immunity
[X] Cannot be killed by vampires makes it more fun as all the maneuvering is in the voting process
[] Can be killed by vampires

Vampires
[] One vamp + one goth (with accellerated activation)
[X] One vamp + two goths (only first gets activated) gets more people involved without making vamps too powerful
[] One vamp + two goths (both get activated)
[] Three vamps (only two gets activated, third is on side of villagers and maintains scanning for vamp and immunity to WW if present)

Vampire immunity
[X] Cannot be killed by WW makes it more fun as all the maneuvering is in the voting process
[] Can be killed by WW

secret society (neighborhood watch)
[] 3 villagers can PM each other (and thus know they are not monsters)
[X] No villagers can PM each other issue of the spy if the WW infect one of them. Maybe later

+1 I agree with everything you said.

 

[SilentPanda]

My brain hurts.

Same. I thought the rules were staying the same as last game anyway?

 

[Mexbearpig]

My brain hurts.

Same. I thought the rules were staying the same as last game anyway?

I'm with you guys. I hate the the first 2 or 10 pages because they are always about adding roles and changing things. Everytime I see a new post in here I cringe just thinking what sort of crap is changing.

 

[philbeeney]

Same. I thought the rules were staying the same as last game anyway?

The rules will be largely based on the previous game. There are no new roles or new rules, only tweaks to existing ones. To save time for those familiar with the rules already, here's the tweaks:

Definite tweaks:
a) A tweak to the roles of the Hunters in here the Werewolf Hunter can only protect against werewolf attacks, the Vampire Hunter can only protect against Vampire attacks.
b) The Werewolf Hunter's protection will extend to the daytime in case of a Kamikaze Werewolf attack during a lynching.
c) Stated explicitly that infections are effective against all specials EXCEPT the Werewolf Hunter.

I'm quite happy for the rules to stay as they are. I think we need another few games to determine whether any wholesale changes need to be made.

 

[Don't panic]

I'm quite happy for the rules to stay as they are. I think we need another few games to determine whether any wholesale changes need to be made.

but people have interpreted the rules 'as they are' in different ways, and various 'tweaks' had been proposed or put up for discussion.
the survey is just to clarify what we think the rules are or should be. so that everyone is on the same page when we start
there are a few days before day one, so we might as well iron out the kinks