[WW] Knee-Deep in the Dead - WOOF WOOF WEREWOLVES WIN

[Moyank24]

so lets see what we got so far. usually there is a wolf in the pack, if the first death is a villager.

Astroboy907: 5 rick snagwell, Moyank24, Scepticalscribe, TechGod, Intell

so im going to take out the first vote, me. that leaves four.

can we get the oracle to ask if there is a wolf between those four?

i doubt intell is a wolf, piling on a villager would be a stupid and obvious wolfy thing to do.

First, If the Oracle asks this question, why in the world should you be taken out of it? That makes zero sense.

Secondly, in terms of the first vote, villagers have zero information to go on, so it's much more likely that villagers vote each other off than the wolves do.

Thirdly, I'm all for asking the question.

 

[Moyank24]

DP with the rare triple post. Probably a wolf tactic.

Why aren't they being merged??

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Why aren't they being merged??

Our new system seems to be offering unusual challenges, and I suspect that not all of the glitches have been ironed out fully as of yet.

For example, yesterday the 'multi-quote' button worked much as intended, whereas today, I seem to need to add in each post manually.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Why aren't they being merged??

Not built into this forum software. I hope they add it. I'm careful about editing posts together because most forums don't do it.

 

[Sythas]

I like the way you can easily reply to the thread.

 

[Sythas]

and I think I have an avatar now !

 

[Koodauw]

If the oracle asks a question, please include me on the list of names.

 

[chrmjenkins]

If the oracle asks a question, please include me on the list of names.

Care to explain?

 

[Melrose]

Boy I miss a few hours and the place goes to hell



Wait wait wait I mean

ps Twietee I love the narration formatting you have going on. Well done.

Care to explain?

I think it means he's either trying to get saved (Praise The Twietee! Halalujah!) or he's really bluffing hard. This early, who can tell....

 

[Koodauw]

Care to explain?

No

 

[Don't panic]

i posted my thought on theoffical count issue in the scoreboard/rule thread, so this doesn't get cluttered.

but basically my point is this:
you need to give the players a way to know if real votes are different form perceived ones, and by how much they differ.
Not who caused it or how it was achieved, just the net end result.
it is an essential part of this format

 

[Queen of Spades]

Oracle-ing would be keen.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

In the WW universe, the "nights" sometimes resemble the movement of a swan; all dignified and - apparently - disdainful - movement above water, gliding effortlessly and elegantly through liquid resistance, while below the surface of the water, frantic paddling ensures continued forward movement and propulsion. This is because, for some, the "nights" are a busy time…..

 

[Tomorrow]

This is killing me - how do I change the setting for more posts per page?

 

[chrmjenkins]

This is killing me - how do I change the setting for more posts per page?

You can't.

 

[Don't panic]

I updated the spreadsheet, even though with fenris' script it becomes a bit less useful, especially on day 1.

obviously not much info to be extracted from day one at least for now.
if intell or SS turn out to be WW, then this can be revisited.

as far as the oracle, if we have one i would suggest limiting the names to only a few if the question is the standard "is there any WW among these people?".
tonight, after the (daylight) likely kill by the WW, there will be 17 people left in Wolfmouth.
3 of them are certainly wolfs (3/17=17.6%), if they chose to infect they are 4 (4/17=23%). in the unlikely case there is morpher who picked a ww, then there could be up to 5 (5/17=29%)

if the oracle picks 3 and the answer is yes (assuming no meddling), then we have 1/3=33% chance of getting a wolf (way better than above), and we would have to sacrifice at most 2 people to get them. if the answer is no, then we have 3 people cleared who are (barring infection) trustworthy.
Clearing up people is almost as important as finding the bad ones.

picking 4 would be great if they are all cleared, but t=if the answer is 'yes' the odds (1/4=25%) are not much better than with no question.
picking 5 would make little sense unless the question is formulated in a different way
picking 2 would be great if the answer is yes, but would only clear to people in the more likely case it is no.

of note, infection is only at night, therefore it is likely it will be used earlish, as the risk of losing the alpha -and the infection- increases as times goes on. the morpher -if there is one- would have to select their role now (or already during the day), so if they picked a role that turns out to be a ww, they would be 'transformed by the next deadline.
in this sense, waiting day-2 for the oracle could be a good strategy. if they make it alive, obviously.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I agree that the pool of individuals who may be among those selected to be scrutinised by the Oracle should be limited. Obviously, I'd prefer if I were not included in a group that may contain a guilty name, but such is life. I'm game. My recommendation is that the pool be three names, or - at absolute most four. Otherwise, we run the risk of losing days to verifying whether four or five people are innocent or guilty, when over ten others are running around unscrutinised.

Pick three names out of the five who voted for Astroboy and have done with it. I'm not among the guilty, but then, (you will hypothetically argue) I would say that, wouldn't I? Include my name with the three; I'm fine with that.

 

[chrmjenkins]

For the Oracle:

Narrowing it to 1 gives us a (15/18)*(3/17) + (3/18)*(1/1) = 31.4%

Narrowing it to 2 gives us a (15/18*14/17)*(3/16) + (15C1*3C1/18C2)*(1/2) + (3/18*2/17)*(2/2) = 29.5%

Narrowing it to 3 gives us a (15/18*14/17*13/16)*(3/15) + (15C2*3C1/18C3)*(1/3) + (15C1*3C2/18C3)*(2/3) + (3/18*2/17*1/16)*(3/3) = 27.8%

Narrowing it to 4 gives us a (15/18*14/17*13/16*12/15)*(3/14) + (15C3*3C1/18C4)*(1/4) + (15C2*3C2/18C4)*(2/4) + (15C1*3C3/18C4)*(3/4) = 26.2%

So you can see, the best option is to just single someone out and ask if they are a wolf. This effectively gives you two chances on the same day, nearly doubling your 16.7% odds on one day. However, this also makes someone the most susceptible to infection if you don't happen to find a wolf doing it that way.

You can scale the odds above to what will likely be a 17 person field tomorrow, but the base logic still holds. Pick one person and ask the gods.

It seems likely that choosing too large a field allows for a guessing game of exactly how many wolves have been identified in a given pool. It's best to narrow it to a single option by selecting a single person. You essentially have a public seer.

edit: one more note - since the Oracle is in the general pool, it could be a wolf role from the start. After the first day, it could be an infected wolf role. So the Oracle outing themselves in the process of using their power could improve the odds further using the above method if we could trust them. In this case, we cannot necessarily. It's also possible that the wolf is the Oracle and they've specifically chosen not to use the power.

 

[Don't panic]

For the Oracle:

Narrowing it to 1 gives us a (15/18)*(3/17) + (3/18)*(1/1) = 31.4%

Narrowing it to 2 gives us a (15/18*14/17)*(3/16) + (15C1*3C1/18C2)*(1/2) + (3/18*2/17)*(2/2) = 29.5%

Narrowing it to 3 gives us a (15/18*14/17*13/16)*(3/15) + (15C2*3C1/18C3)*(1/3) + (15C1*3C2/18C3)*(2/3) + (3/18*2/17*1/16)*(3/3) = 27.8%

Narrowing it to 4 gives us a (15/18*14/17*13/16*12/15)*(3/14) + (15C3*3C1/18C4)*(1/4) + (15C2*3C2/18C4)*(2/4) + (15C1*3C3/18C4)*(3/4) = 26.2%

So you can see, the best option is to just single someone out and ask if they are a wolf. This effectively gives you two chances on the same day, nearly doubling your 16.7% odds on one day. However, this also makes someone the most susceptible to infection if you don't happen to find a wolf doing it that way.

You can scale the odds above to what will likely be a 17 person field tomorrow, but the base logic still holds. Pick one person and ask the gods.

It seems likely that choosing too large a field allows for a guessing game of exactly how many wolves have been identified in a given pool. It's best to narrow it to a single option by selecting a single person. You essentially have a public seer.

​

yes and no.
if you include more than one person, you also have the chance to clear more people, which is the more likely outcome for 1, 2 or 3 people.
in addition, when you ask about two or more persons, you also affect the odds of the following days

i think the best overall scenario is 3, i can see 2, but i don't think 1 is such a great idea. most likely you'd clear the name, for them to be killed the following night.

 

[rick snagwell]

First, If the Oracle asks this question, why in the world should you be taken out of it? That makes zero sense.

Secondly, in terms of the first vote, villagers have zero information to go on, so it's much more likely that villagers vote each other off than the wolves do.

Thirdly, I'm all for asking the question.

because coming from me, that makes perfect sense. being a villager that is. you would say the same thing chica.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

​

yes and no.
if you include more than one person, you also have the chance to clear more people, which is the more likely outcome for 1, 2 or 3 people.
in addition, when you ask about two or more persons, you also affect the odds of the following days

i think the best overall scenario is 3, i can see 2, but i don't think 1 is such a great idea. most likely you'd clear the name, for them to be killed the following night.

Or, better still, (from the "wolk" perspective) perhaps infected……..

I agree that three is a pretty good number; four, or five will cause you to waste several days flailing about and distracting the entire flow of attention.

One would be too limited and limiting; two - perhaps too rigid. Three is a good number…..

 

[Scepticalscribe]

because coming from me, that makes perfect sense. being a villager that is. you would say the same thing chica.

Yes, but that is still no reason to exclude you, any more than it is a reason to exclude me.

We both may argue vehemently (or know - for certain) that we are villagers. However, nobody else has any independent verification of this fact, until we are scanned, cleared, lynched or otherwise 'wolk' nibble…..

 

[Melrose]

Or, better still, (from the "wolk" perspective) perhaps infected……..

**shivers**

 

[chrmjenkins]

​

yes and no.
if you include more than one person, you also have the chance to clear more people, which is the more likely outcome for 1, 2 or 3 people.
in addition, when you ask about two or more persons, you also affect the odds of the following days

i think the best overall scenario is 3, i can see 2, but i don't think 1 is such a great idea. most likely you'd clear the name, for them to be killed the following night.

What you do with clearing 3 names is give 3 sequential targets with the guard having to guess which one to protect and possibly getting it wrong. No matter how you structure it, you're going to create a list of more ideal candidates for the wolves to target. It's mostly a play of if you want the highest odds to get someone on day one versus the most informative list late in the game to help decision making. If you choose half the field, the wolves can't realistically kill all of them, and it gives them less wiggle room further down the road if they're still alive.

Yes, you alter the odds for the subsequent days, but only until the wolves have exhausted the list of people you singled out. Perhaps one would want to choose the smaller of half the field or the number that would result in villagers and wolves being equal in number after n consecutive hangings and wolf kills, so as to engineer superior odds over the norm for each of those days.

Do you feel the villagers are best off getting the first wolf as fast as possible, or getting them in a cluster later in the game?

 

[Don't panic]

if the oracle is a wolf, the answer is still true, so unless it is a carefully worded question, it would still give information to the village.
but more likely the ww-oracle could just ask about the seer