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] DAY 4 HAS BEGUN,KOODAUW HAS BEEN EATEN BY WOLVES.
- Thread starter rick snagwell
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
its def not an easy task running one of these, this one more work than the one before...you learn more as you go and what rules need to be addressed and looked at. im taking a break, as i wanna play the next one, but look forward to running another soon now that i have a few simple ones under my belt.
Much respect to you for doing this. I know it isn't easy, and I'm pretty sure i would screw up everything. So thanks. Also thanks for being so enthusiastic in PM's!
I edited as I was afraid that I had made a mistake in outing ourselves.
[doublepost=1452750785][/doublepost]
Watch your back
[doublepost=1452750785][/doublepost]
I won't forget for next gameApologies to Tech God. Sorry I led you astray
Watch your back 
As for balancing, I think protection re scans is an interesting mechanic so would like to see that again, infection anytime as well but protection should definitely work against it then.
From my / our perspective a NW of three is powerful. But interesting, so I would like keep that. We spend a lot of thought about them since you really don't want to vote for one of those when a ww by accident but would like to eat one eventually.At first we thought Chris and Phil were either the NW or Phil the Seer, but when the latter was lynched scrapped that idea. So hitting it was completely random at the end (and not a really deciding factor for the outcome too).
And although one can argue that we had an easy going I do have to point out, not padding our shoulders of course, that there was a lot of work backstage - we had as many private posts as there were in the whole game excluding sign-ups and after-hour-party and spend a lot of thought into our actions. So Anyway, good game villagers, mayber next time.
And although nobody really talked about that I have to get one thing off my chest: editing crucial parts of posts or votes is just poor sportsmanship. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
From my / our perspective a NW of three is powerful. But interesting, so I would like keep that. We spend a lot of thought about them since you really don't want to vote for one of those when a ww by accident but would like to eat one eventually.At first we thought Chris and Phil were either the NW or Phil the Seer, but when the latter was lynched scrapped that idea. So hitting it was completely random at the end (and not a really deciding factor for the outcome too).
And although one can argue that we had an easy going I do have to point out, not padding our shoulders of course, that there was a lot of work backstage - we had as many private posts as there were in the whole game excluding sign-ups and after-hour-party and spend a lot of thought into our actions. So Anyway, good game villagers, mayber next time.
And although nobody really talked about that I have to get one thing off my chest: editing crucial parts of posts or votes is just poor sportsmanship. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Why not have a compromise in future games where majority lock moves the deadline up so it is an hour or so after the majority lock if no one changes their vote. That would make it much more of a gamble for the wolves to use as a tactic, but still speed the game along.
That sounds like a good compromise.
I'm not entirely sure that I understand @twietee's post re scans. As things stand, allowing for the infection to over-ride the Hunter's protection, and allowing a See's scan to be blocked if that subject of the scan is protected by the Hunter tilts the balance too much in favour of the wolves.
Personally, I'd like to see one - or the other - of those amendments tweaked, so that the village are able to avail of either the See's scans, or the Hunter's protection fully.
Another thing I'd suggest would be a Night Start; that would mean one scan, one protection and one kill (of an unfortunate) already done as the game actually commences, and would speed things up slightly as a little more is known and a little more is in play.
I think I'd like a majority lock that would work as it does now - but that a majority lock wouldn't work in case it would end the game.
Let's keep in mind that not only WW can profit from a majority lock - and that extending the deadline would negate those as well.
ss, I meant it the way that infection would be blocked by the hunter's protection as well as scans are. I think that could work.
About a night start I have to strongly disagree. I played that way once in another forum and really dislike the fact that somebody gets killed before the game already started. Getting lynched day one is bad enough but at least you have some kind of say there and possibility to participate and inlfuence the outcome.
Also, I don't think we need to tinker too much now. 1-2 tweaks and we're good imo.
Let's keep in mind that not only WW can profit from a majority lock - and that extending the deadline would negate those as well.
ss, I meant it the way that infection would be blocked by the hunter's protection as well as scans are. I think that could work.
About a night start I have to strongly disagree. I played that way once in another forum and really dislike the fact that somebody gets killed before the game already started. Getting lynched day one is bad enough but at least you have some kind of say there and possibility to participate and inlfuence the outcome.
Also, I don't think we need to tinker too much now. 1-2 tweaks and we're good imo.
Last edited:
That might place the WWs at a marked disadvantage starting off, unless one awarded them a possible double kill on N2.
However, I like the idea of a Hunter's protection offering a shield against infection and against a scan. That makes sense and delivers a balance in how the power can be used.
I think that we should only give the seer at least the name of one simple villager (no hunter, NW or wolf) at the start of the game doesn't give much power to the villagers and give the seer at least some information if he live up to day 4 and at least he knows one person on the first who should live. But we need to remember, it's a game MOSTLY base on luck than anything else...
personally i would hate this.
in my opinion majority lock is interesting only as a tactical device.
it really doesn't speed the game up that much, but it can make it for very interesting dynamics
in general it helps the wolves, but it can also be used as a wolf-hunting technique. since this particular game was already very wolf-leaning, it compounded the problem since it was more likely to get to a position where a lock would be used by the wolves to win
also in this case one problem was that it wasn't completely clear it was on since it wasn't in the rules and i had missed rick's comment on it during the game. thus it was harder to prepare for it.
when it was cleared it was in play, it was too late and the wolves had basically won the game (even without Scepticalscribe's mistake)
I had sleepwalked into being voted off before, and I genuinely thought that you were trying to set me up as a convenient target, and thought to preempt that by drawing you out. Mind you, it had the effect of bringing the house of cards on us, but the game was well lost by then, and beyond salvaging (which doesn't detract from superb play, and well seized chances by the WWs).
Agreed, that majority lock is a tactical device, which can often - but not always - help the wolves.
However, I would also like to float the issue of non-participating players, who sign up but don't bother exerting themselves to actually participate in a meaningful manner: This is a recurring feature in these games, and is one that I have come to find hugely annoying (and no, I do not mean either @Don't panic or @Moyank24 who always pour themselves completely into what ever role they are assigned).
it really doesn't matter if you change your mind.
once you post something it is out. you cannot take it back. if it is a mistake than be it
it really is one of the core rules of the game.
imagine it like it is a live game. if you say something, you cannot unsay it.
plus, to erase/edit a post is unfair because some players might have seen the post when it was up (me, sythas), and not others (most other people), which gives a distinct advantage to whoever chances to be looking at that moment
besides in the specific, it wasn't mistake to come out at all. in fact, it could have saved the game. rather, it was the vote for plutonius (and SS vote for me) that sealed the game in favor of the wolves
Funny enough, I was almost convinced that the complete NW retreated on purpose in D2 to watch events unfold. I accept that as a totally legit tactic (if a good one I can't say) - flying under the radar by non-participation as a ww is just plain boring gameplay though - but to each their own. Can't say I've seen many of those actually.
The thing I like about protection working against scans is that it potentially breaks the usual routine of scanning one of the same 1-3 players. Protecting one of the same 1-3 players...
Infection could be very well night-time only if you ask me.
I would absolutely prefer to start with a day though! I always love those pointless one-liners and the good mood at the start. Giving the Seer an isolated heads-up about one plain villager for example seems constructed imo - I'd rather balance out by other mechanics. And I have no doubt that this is possible by only a few tweaks.
[doublepost=1452785531][/doublepost]
Agreed, and not only this but besides the ethical reason, back bone of this game, also doesn't really accomplish that much most of the time anyway - on the contrary: somebody noticed it likely and the one editing looks already super suspicious, same with Meister: changing your vote just creates a huge conundrum giving ww plenty of possibilities to exploit.
That being said, I can very well remember being called out to stop editing myself some years ago.
But that was basically due my horrible English, especially when under timely pressure. Now you guys have to live with it.
The thing I like about protection working against scans is that it potentially breaks the usual routine of scanning one of the same 1-3 players. Protecting one of the same 1-3 players...
Infection could be very well night-time only if you ask me.
I would absolutely prefer to start with a day though! I always love those pointless one-liners and the good mood at the start. Giving the Seer an isolated heads-up about one plain villager for example seems constructed imo - I'd rather balance out by other mechanics. And I have no doubt that this is possible by only a few tweaks.
[doublepost=1452785531][/doublepost]
Agreed, and not only this but besides the ethical reason, back bone of this game, also doesn't really accomplish that much most of the time anyway - on the contrary: somebody noticed it likely and the one editing looks already super suspicious, same with Meister: changing your vote just creates a huge conundrum giving ww plenty of possibilities to exploit.
That being said, I can very well remember being called out to stop editing myself some years ago.
But that was basically due my horrible English, especially when under timely pressure.
Now you guys have to live with it.
Last edited:
please don't take it personally, but no matter how you slice it it was a major mistake to vote for ANYONE at that point, unless you were 100% sure they are wolves. even if you are suspicious of me, you still hold your vote until things can be hashed out
what they did was not out of the left field, it was exactly what they should have done, and it was exactly what i told you they would have done.
this applies also to techgod's vote for plutonius, but at least he wasn't around to take his vote back.
and while the game was very hard to win, it wasn't necessarily lost yet .
i think if not for your's and techgod's hasty votes we probably could have netted ourself a wolf, or at least narrowed the chances very significantly.
i thought you were the seer because of your outing post, and believed it was a mistake to 'partially come out' (still think it was). But even like that, if you had come out as the hunter, and i would have come out as the undertaker (which i was holding off to see if you calimed to be the undertaker yourself), then we would have narrowed down 3 wolves between twietee, sythas, plutonius and woodnufc.
On N3, you were the person urging people - strongly - to out themselves. At the time, I resisted, because I thought that the night's events might offer some further information that could be usefully used.
Your about face on Thursday, - after I had hinted that I was a special - along with that multi-colour coded post, which I was convinced was an attempt to set me up for a majority lock, absolutely convinced me that you were a wolf trying to kickstart or stampede a lynching. Nothing short of a seer scan would have proven your innocence to me at that point.
Besides, with patchy participation, and limited leadership, by D4, I felt impelled to move things along one way or another. Above all, the peculiar appearance of so many just after the deadline on D2 struck me as too convenient for words.
We all played poorly, and made poor choices.
Btw, DP can you explain that? I completely held back at that time since I thought you meant 50% = one ww between chrmjenkins and TechGod at first glance and didn't want to call you out at that later too - you played sloppy enough already
- so correct me if I'm wrong but:4/9 = ~45%
3/7 = ~43%
I understand all that completely. I don't think I'll repeat that mistake again.
Just something I'd like to say regarding my participation, I'm certain that the last two games that I played in, I was very active it's just this game I was in India and I never expected to get so busy suddenly.
Btw, DP can you explain that? I completely held back at that time since I thought you meant 50% = one ww between chrmjenkins and TechGod at first glance and didn't want to call you out at that later too - you played sloppy enough already
4/9 = ~45%
3/7 = ~43%
3 wolves amongst twietee, sythas, plutonius, scepticalscribe, woodNUFC, mrkramer and myself.
i knew i was not a wolf so it would be 3/6 - 50%, same for scepticalscribe, mrkramer and plutonius.
But the same could be said about 4 / 9-1 (Don't Panic) = 50%
Nothing really changed, you just tried to fool the villagers!
But the same could be said about 4 / 9-1 (Don't Panic) = 50%
Nothing really changed, you just tried to fool the villagers!
Exactly.
i strongly disagree with all the above
- on N3 i was arguing for outing, which IMO (then and now) would have been the best move for us.
- on D4 i didn't do any about face, since i was still strongly arguing for the same outing. just not a pointless half-hearted one.
- the heatmap post put you out of the top group, and only pointed to you as a very likely infectee (again because of your partial come out, which opened you for infection before you could communicate your infos -if you were the seer)
in addition, your partial coming out made you look like a wolf feeling which special you could pretend to be, which is why you remained a possibility. if you had come out saying "i am the hunter", i would have come out saying i was the undertaker and we would have most likely lynched a wolf
- even if i suspected you to be a probable infectee (as a seer, not as a hunter), i still made it very clear we should forget about infection for now and focus on the original wolves. i don't see how you could see i was setting you up for majority lock since i didn't vote for you, i didn't advocate to vote for you and i was strongly arguing against anyone voting for anyone at that point.
if i wanted a majority lock i would have shut up about it and waited for a villager to make a mistake and vote for another villager, which is exactly what happened.
it is the reason mrkramer fell down my suspect list (warned and was worried about the majority lock), while twietee and others became prime suspects (knew about it and didn't mention it).
- once again, to vote for anyone before getting a consensus of who to go with was a clear mistake on D4, as was 'push things along', when the wolves only needed one vote to win
[doublepost=1452789911][/doublepost]
But the same could be said about 4 / 9-1 (Don't Panic) = 50%
Nothing really changed, you just tried to fool the villagers!
nice try, but we were talking about the original wolves, so 3/6 is still better than 3/8
besides, i was right wasn't I?
Last edited:
Well, @Don't panic, by D4, as a result of my readings of your actions, I was absolutely convinced of your guilt.
And, by D4, with absolutely no information for anyone, I was convinced that the game was lost, and was determined to take a WW - you - with me.
Your means and motivations were clear to yourself, but not to me.
And, by D4, with absolutely no information for anyone, I was convinced that the game was lost, and was determined to take a WW - you - with me.
Your means and motivations were clear to yourself, but not to me.
nice try, but we were talking about the original wolves, so 3/6 is still better than 3/8
besides, i was right wasn't I?
Bah, pure semantics I say.
Especially considering the theoretical exclusion of oneself when still a real factor. So I stand by my original post
4/9 = ~45% is even better than 3/7 = ~43%. You even might have won the battle but definitely lost the war.
Edit: I can understand excluding oneself when making a list, I do that myself, but when talking numbers you should paint the whole picture.