[WW] Bloodlust GAME OVER - WEREWOLVES WIN

[ravenvii]

Okay, I'm back. Sorry for the lateness, but I've been a bit more busy during the weekend than I thought I would be.

The original post has been updated with the final roster, and the final alterations of the rules. Please read at least the Summary.

Before we start, I have a question to ask: How, exactly, does the first day "immunity" work? You all just shoot the bull for 24 hours, then I bring the night around? Explain (and make a convincing argument) and I might use that idea - it feels like it has potential, but I'm not sure yet.

As for the neighborhood watch/secret society, that will not make it into the game, as I consider that a new role, and will change the dynamics of the game. It is, however, an excellent idea that I will incorporate into the next game.

Once someone explains to me about the immunity-on-day-one thing and I make a decision, the game begins, hopefully tomorrow when everyone's back.

 

[chrmjenkins]

As I understand it, we vote the person who can't be killed. It has the same effect of a hunter advertising who he will protect.

 

[abijnk]

He's back!!! He's back!!!

Oy, I feel like such a junkie.

 

[-aggie-]

As I understand it, we vote the person who can't be killed. It has the same effect of a hunter advertising who he will protect.

So, villagers won’t be picking a lynching, first day? How many “days” are going to go by while we decide who to make immune?

Edit: Looks like Don’t Panic got his way, since there are a lot of rules changes.

 

[jav6454]

I don't like the gimping of the infection. Infection was bound to be for everyone except the WW Hunter, regardless if protected or not. Also what about the vamps? At least make it two opportunities to infect if first fails.

 

[-aggie-]

I don't like the gimping of the infection. Infection was bound to be for everyone except the WW Hunter, regardless if protected or not. Also what about the vamps? At least make it two opportunities to infect if first fails.

I would have voted had I known these ballots were going to change the rules for this game.

Silly me for reading what ravenvii originally said about nothing changing. The infection change is a BIG change.

 

[abijnk]

Edit: I am stupid and cannot read. That is all.

 

[ravenvii]

I don't like the gimping of the infection. Infection was bound to be for everyone except the WW Hunter, regardless if protected or not. Also what about the vamps? At least make it two opportunities to infect if first fails.

It has always been one chance. Based on the feedback, I decided to make the vampires and werewolves more equal in power, even though the edge definitely remains with the wolves, with the ability to infect and kill someone at a lynching. So I had to counter those abilities, making it more likely that they might fail.

However, I also gave the werewolves a chance that hey could actually infect a werewolf hunter (after an attempted attack), making them very powerful indeed. The trick of course is to decide whether the reason an attack failed is because the target is a hunter, or it is a vampire or protected villager.

Giving them two chances will destroy this balancing act so that's not going to happen.

 

[Don't panic]

welcome back ravenvii,
like chris said, the first 'day' would be a vote as before, but instead of sending someone to the gallows, it protects one from the next night killing.
In other words, the wolfs get first blood, but the villagers get to decide one of them to protect and they get the discussion going without lynching someone at the get go.
A minor tweak, i think, without a lot of strategic relevance other then (hopefully) reducing the randomness of the first lynching. we couldn't even agree if such a change would favor the good guys or the baddies

the biggest strategic change introduced is that WW and vamps can kill each other. now they are each other's priority, with a better chance for the regular folks

 

[SilentPanda]

I was under the impression we weren't changing crap....

 

[-aggie-]

I was under the impression we weren't changing crap....

Somehow all those ballots that weren't supposed to be used, were.

Somehow we couldn't agree whether is was a disadvantage to not lynch


First day. Talk talk chat chat. Someonegets immunity

First night. WWs kill some low posting villager. Maybe even a newbie.

Next day. Villagers know nothing and are down one.

 

[Don't panic]

Somehow all those ballots that weren't supposed to be used, were.

Somehow we couldn't agree whether is was a disadvantage to not lynch


First day. Talk talk chat chat. Someonegets immunity

First night. WWs kill some low posting villager. Maybe even a newbie.

Next day. Villagers know nothing and are down one.

at least we agree on one point

 

[mscriv]

Before we start, I have a question to ask: How, exactly, does the first day "immunity" work? You all just shoot the bull for 24 hours, then I bring the night around? Explain (and make a convincing argument) and I might use that idea - it feels like it has potential, but I'm not sure yet.

Once someone explains to me about the immunity-on-day-one thing and I make a decision, the game begins, hopefully tomorrow when everyone's back.

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 conversataion 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?

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.

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.

I think these quotes sum up the immunity vote pretty well. Basically, the game starts in the day, we all vote on one person to protect that night. This protection is in addition to the 1 or 2 available hunter protections given.

 

[Melrose]

Why do these complicated games always move faster than the simpleton ones?

It's like Windows: The progress bar is moving, but the remaining time is going up.

 

[184550]

So, after reading the tweaks section, today we're still voting for a player to be lynched, not protected. Correct?

 

[chrmjenkins]

So, after reading the tweaks section, today we're still voting for a player to be lynched, not protected. Correct?

Looks that way, but until the first narration is up, I wouldn't consider anything final.

 

[184550]

Looks that way, but until the first narration is up, I wouldn't consider anything final.

Ok, good. Just wanted to be sure I didn't miss anything given the amount of discussion that had gone on.

 

[jav6454]

It has always been one chance. Based on the feedback, I decided to make the vampires and werewolves more equal in power, even though the edge definitely remains with the wolves, with the ability to infect and kill someone at a lynching. So I had to counter those abilities, making it more likely that they might fail.

However, I also gave the werewolves a chance that hey could actually infect a werewolf hunter (after an attempted attack), making them very powerful indeed. The trick of course is to decide whether the reason an attack failed is because the target is a hunter, or it is a vampire or protected villager.

Giving them two chances will destroy this balancing act so that's not going to happen.

See the thing is, there can be three vampires now, where as, wolves are down to 2 if the infection fails (example, if they target a vampire). Vampires conversion is a 100% sure thing, infection has a chance of failure. In my opinion that should not be, or it has to be made a very low failure rate for it to be fair in comparison to the vampires. Hence why I suggested the second chance at infection, if and only if the first one fails. Killing is always a sure thing with vampires also (given that they are activated), but nothing stops them from missing the extra vampire.

The WW Hunter infection is sorta useless in a sense because he can't attack the vampires, only villagers. If the WW Hunter does that, suspicions will be aroused as to why.

 

[ravenvii]

I don't really like the idea of the first day immunity vote, so it stays as-is. We should, however, tackle this in the next game. I'm thinking perhaps a role for a player who dies the first day, a vengeful ghost or guardian angel as proposed somewhere in this thread. We'll see.

As for the vampires and werewolves, vampire conversion is definitely not a 100% certain thing. Just look at the last game. If the villagers get lucky and get the Vampire before activation, that's game over for the vampires. The vampires has a chance of not being activated at all, and the werewolves has a higher chance of having an infection fail.

That is much more balanced that it was before. Again, giving second-chance infections damage that balance.

The werewolf hunter being kind of useless? I disagree. If the hunter haven't used his instant kill yet, the werewolves could potentially get rid of 3 villagers in one night (infection of the hunter, instant kill, and the nightly killing). And worst of all, the werewolves will not have to worry about the hunter protecting someone. Remember, the vampire hunter cannot protect from a werewolf attack.

Anyway, without further ado, the game has begun. All the roles has been PM'd out. If you didn't get a PM, that means you're a villager.

START

As the cold stones of the castle groaned under it's own weight, a fragile shadow floated across it's flame-lighted walls. A fragile and ancient hand grasped a goblet full of animal blood.

"We are a dwindling race."

The Vampire continued down the cold hallway, his face shrouded in darkness.

"We must multiply."

As the Vampire gulped down the blood, he paused at a window.

"It is time to feed!"

The outburst frightens a bat, sending it swooping through the window and down into the vast forest below, where there were no sounds of any natural animal. Only a scream of a dying man broke the silence.

The body of the unfortunate traveller was discovered the next morning and brought to the town square where it was displayed as evidence of the return of evil.

As the villagers passed by the body, discussions of a lynching begun to grow. "We must rid ourselves of the evil" a villager claimed. "A lynching is the only way to ensure our safety" cried another.

Eventually mob mentality took over, and it was decided that there shall be a lynching this day, and that it shall be decided by a majority vote.

There are 20 players. 11 is the majority vote.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Ooh, I like the idea of a ghost/guardian angel for the first dead. Then it's not all sour grapes.

 

[SilentPanda]

I'm abstaining from voting today. no vote

 

[jav6454]

I'll copy paste my same vote from the other game.

Originally posted by Jav6454
There is no point in waiting so I'll throw that first stone, even if it gets me slaughtered. Random.org generated

And Random.org gave me the following number: 5

That corresponds to ucfgrad93

And since, last time I was questioned about it, Screen Shot:

 

[184550]

I suppose the Random thing might help this game get started as it did in the Simple Game.

I generated 5 random numbers and number 20 came up twice.

Therefore, I'll be voting for stonyc.

EDIT:
I'll be voting for SilentPanda.

 

[SilentPanda]

And since, last time I was questioned about it, Screen Shot:

Cause you couldn't have kept clicking it until 5 came up....

 

[ucfgrad93]

I'll copy paste my same vote from the other game.



And Random.org gave me the following number: 5

That corresponds to ucfgrad93

And since, last time I was questioned about it, Screen Shot:

I decided to follow jav's example and used random.org as well.

NathanMuir