[WW] Scoreboard, Stats, and Rules

[Don't panic]

No. My understanding is that the power must be used at the time it is bestowed, or it goes to waste. The Hunter doesn't 'lose it completely'; it means that s/he will revert to his or her normal power if the amplification is not used.

As DP has noted, - there is a difference between powers that are 'once off' and recurrent powers, and this will have an effect on how the 'amplification' power gets used.

Other than that, the powers that are normally used each night, will continue to be used - it is just that for one night, the use of these powers will be doubled if that particular player happens to be the target of the Amplification Power.

actually, the way it is written -and was designed- is in fact that the amplification FORCES the power amplified to be used immediately at its amplified strength, or it ALL goes to waste.
the point is that the amplification doesn't give the use of an additional iteration of the power, it enhances the current power potency.


so if the hunter is targeted, they have to take a decision whether to use the instakill now (doubled) or not to use it at all.

it is the equivalent of the rioter, but applied to powers. one person that is publicly rioted will have their vote doubled. they cannot avoid it, the only option the retain is who to double-vote, or to cast a no-vote. but they are not going to have a single vote that day.

 

[Don't panic]

i just want to add that the genesis of many of these powers goes back to the Mistborn game, and reflect the 'mechanics' of the powers in that context.

at the time i had thought long and hard on how to 'translate' the powers from the mistborn universe to the [WW] format, and how to keep them balanced and playable.

in addition, there was a symmetry which i wanted to keep between powers (again, based on that present in the mistborn universe)

so in this case it was
............................... enhance ------ block
normal (vote) .......... RIOTER ------- SOOTHER
special (power)......... AMPLIFIER----- BLOCKER

in the case of the amplifier specifically (or burster as it was called in the game, while the blocker was called leecher), when burning a special Nicrosil alloy, they can cause a targeted Allomacer to consume the reserves of their metal in a short, intense burst.
so they get the enhanced power, but after that they are depleted.
in a recurrent power, they would have a stock of metal which was used every day/night. in a one-shot power once the metal was burned, it was used up.

in addition to these thematic reasons, i felt -and still do- that making the amplifier force the target to use their power gives a more active tactical role to the player, rather than just than be a 'boost-up item', and keep it balanced preventing to over-power too much the target.

 

[Don't panic]

not sure what happened to the images.
i am afraid the migration broke them.
will see if i can re-upload them

 

[Queen of Spades]

Mmm, I don't like that. I like the idea of the amplification aspect needing to be used immediately...but in the case of the Hunter, being forced to use your power now or lose it completely removes a lot of the agency of the Hunter. Doesn't seem to be what the amplification aspect is going for and really gives way too much power to the amplifier. Just my opinion. I'm fine with the "use it now for a double kill, or lose the doubling" part of it.

 

[twietee]

Fully agree with QoS on that. I know I didn't change the wording in my very own game and will follow that setup, but I don't really like it either. Seems too forced without real need. Only thing I'd say, not sure if you meant it as well QoS, that if the Hunter gets amplified he can't uses his insta-kill THAT precise one day or night without naming two targets.

 

[Don't panic]

Fully agree with QoS on that. I know I didn't change the wording in my very own game and will follow that setup, but I don't really like it either. Seems too forced without real need. Only thing I'd say, not sure if you meant it as well QoS, that if the Hunter gets amplified he can't uses his insta-kill THAT precise one day or night without naming two targets.

i fully disagree.
if the amplifier just gives an extra instakill, or an option instakill, the power is too unbalanced and it favors the hunter/village way too much.
what balances the power is precisely that it is a double edged weapon. it can be very powerful, but the amplifier needs to be careful in using it, because it can backfire. this applies to all target powers, so the hunter shouldn't get special treatment.

besides, the hunter still get to decide the victim of the shots, so that's pretty decent 'agency'. the ampliifcation just moves some of the agency from the holder of the power into the hands of the amplifier, who otherwise would be just delgating his power to another player
if they don't want to kill two people, they can just kill one (or target the same person twice), but the essential part is that they have to do it 'now'.

 

[twietee]

Well, just noticed a week or so ago by chance that my German football forum plays WW as well (well, Mafia technically..). Got curious and joined for one game (ugh! - not going to do that twice, lol) but despite some strange design choices I thought it interesting because everybody gets only two votes each day. Not sure I like the outcome (was quite nazi-like 'everybody posts first votes at xx time' and you'd get voted off for not really following (teehee) but that concept was somewhat fascinating. Anybody played it like that? Makes it quite difficult at the deadline since switching gets more complex but not sure I dislike that method completely. I'm more of the laissez-faire type but would like to try that once, maybe in a smaller game (with 10-12 peeps).

 

[jav6454]

I have to say this is an interesting thread; however, I must raise a small voice of discent since not all games have been tallied. I mean the game runs much longer than 2014.... Some of those early games can be considered the most complex and hard given that everyone was learning and adapting constantly to ever changing situations.

That said, this is a start.

 

[twietee]

Nope, wrote a long text but don't think it's that easy DP. I have to think about that some more thoroughly, sorry.

Already 9 PM and still at the office.. :/

 

[Don't panic]

Nope, wrote a long text but don't think it's that easy DP. I have to think about that some more thoroughly, sorry.

Already 9 PM and still at the office.. :/

i suppose this refers to the counting of votes from the other thread?
if you don't have time to double check/validate the counts present in the thread (which is fine as they are usually accurate) you can just note in your narration post if any vote was modified.
if they were just say "the official vote count for players X is this". if no modifiers have been used, just say "no changes to the vote count".

but -not to be difficult or anything- vote counting kind of comes with the GG job description. just sain'...

 

[twietee]

erm, total vote count in MY narration can differ from what you guys come up with in the thread. I don't just copy n paste if you meant that...I thought that you'd be able to deduct the rest from there.

And I did count the votes?! What do you mean by that? Maybe I missed it but we never had a full n' official tally in any of our games before, did we?

I won't disclose if the judge or die-hard were responsibly for a no-lynch too btw if those were in play. Same with other powers. The Hunter isn't revealed when insta-killing privately either.

 

[Don't panic]

I have to say this is an interesting thread; however, I must raise a small voice of discent since not all games have been tallied. I mean the game runs much longer than 2014.... Some of those early games can be considered the most complex and hard given that everyone was learning and adapting constantly to ever changing situations.

That said, this is a start.

​

I am truly happy you volunteered to process all the older data!

the data in the thread include all games from the beginning of 2013.
if you can get me all the games from 2012 and earlier it would be fantastic.
the ionfos i need are:

Game: some descriptive title, plus a link to the OP of that game
GG: gamegod name
type: simple, complex, etc.
players: #
WW: #: plus description of the types of WW, and infections
specials: what specials are involved (or put mulitple if too many to list
Game value: this is the ratio between villagers and wolves (including infected)
winner: WW or villagers

• plus i need the following individual infos:
• list of all villagers
• list of all initial wolves
• player infected, if any
• seer
• guard (or hunter, the one providing protection at night)
• player lynched on day 1
• player killed on night 1
• players surviving when the game is over. if wolves win, all villagers are considered dead. if the last wolf is a kami, the villager taken away is not a survivor, even if by killing him the game is over
• players present at the end of the game. this is the time when the last determining action occurred. for example if the villagers win by lynching the last wolf, all the players present at the lynching, plus the last wolf are counted. if wolves win by getting 3-3. the last 3 villagers are counted even if they are not survivor.

in games with vampires or equivalent, i would need the name of the head vampire, the goth and other significant infos.

thanks!!!!

 

[Don't panic]

erm, total vote count in MY narration can differ from what you guys come up with in the thread. I don't just copy n paste if you meant that...I thought that you'd be able to deduct the rest from there.

And I did count the votes?! What do you mean by that? Maybe I missed it but we never had a full n' official tally in any of our games before, did we?

I won't disclose if the judge or die-hard were responsibly for a no-lynch too btw if those were in play. Same with other powers. The Hunter isn't revealed when insta-killing privately either.

​

i am not sure i am following.

you certainly should NOT disclose which specific power was used, much less who used it.

you should just provide the official tally of the game so that we can figure out, by comparing to the public votes, if any power were at play. to figure out the specific powers would be a job for the players, of course.

if you have time to go back along the thread and count the votes, then adjust the count based on modifiers, then publish the final official count, that would be ideal.

i understood that you don't have time to do that, so a shortcut would be just to use fenris's or other tallies provided in the thread, adjust those and publish those.
an additional shortcut would be just to announce the effect of a vote tampering, for example: intell received 3 final votes. if any of the people who voted him was rioted, or if the bluff had secretly voted intell, you'd say "intel has 4 votes" if any of them was soothed or one of his votes was from the bluff who secretly voted someone else, you'd say "intel has 2 votes" .

in you narration post you only say that the 'count is 5' i assume that applies to astroboy, but the -public- effect of vote tampering could have been applied to other players.

in games without the possibility of secretly modifying votes, an official tally is not necessary, since everyone should be able to reconstruct them from the thread. the GG is just responsible for lynching the right person.

in the new games, either the GG announces when a vote-tampering occurs (without specifics other than the net effect), or posts the official tally at the deadline

​

 

[twietee]

dp, you have a link to your mistborne game? could find it before..

 

[Don't panic]

dp, you have a link to your mistborne game? could find it before..

​

sure thing
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ww-mistings-wars-insurgency-wins.1730546/

all the last twelve games are linked to from the OP of this thread.
correction: they links are in post 3 (the title of the game)

 

[twietee]

ah, thx. strange, searched for ww before and only knee-deep, ours and plains d'.. came up. thought they were lost in transistion..

anyway, had some time on the way back home and thought about it. i won't discuss this anymore, but just so you know: i think it's unbalanced to publish a full on tally with the final votes as it would making spotting the bluff, which may be in game and is a wwexclusive in my game, rather easy. it would basically be a 50/50 call whether it's a bluff or the soother appeared and i wouldn't think that fair. not saying this role is in play and certainly not doing this because i'm lazy but as long as the bluff is a ww exclusive i wouldn't think that fair.

I'll only post the official vote count of the leading player, which can under certain circumstances differ from the lynched player or in case nobody got lynched at all. today leading player = astroboy = 5 votes

 

[Don't panic]

just to cap the discourse on the vote count, i wanted to add that the way it is written in the rule, you would disclose at deadline that vote-tampering occurred,

"If rioting is used privately, it will count twice ONLY at the deadline, when the adjusted COUNT is disclosed (not which specific vote was doubled, nor the reason it was doubled)."
same language for the others

​

but it doesn't specify how it is going to be disclosed, that would be up to the GG.

the obvious way is just to say it at the deadline.

At some point (i think in this thread, but could be in an older one, i am not sure) we had reasoned that a subtler way to do it would be to just communicate the adjusted count at the deadline, without specifying that a change occurred.
if the villagers pay attention they would notice, if not, too bad for them.

this does require a bit of extra work from the GG, but not much since s/he would be counting the votes anyway, or they would be available in the thread. basically a +1/-1 to the regular tally.
i thought you were of the same opinion, which is why i asked in the thread. but if you want to say it only when it occurs, than that is absolutely fine too.

 

[Don't panic]

ah, thx. strange, searched for ww before and only knee-deep, ours and plains d'.. came up. thought they were lost in transistion..

anyway, had some time on the way back home and thought about it. i won't discuss this anymore, but just so you know: i think it's unbalanced to publish a full on tally with the final votes as it would making spotting the bluff, which may be in game and is a wwexclusive in my game, rather easy. it would basically be a 50/50 call whether it's a bluff or the soother appeared and i wouldn't think that fair. not saying this role is in play and certainly not doing this because i'm lazy but as long as the bluff is a ww exclusive i wouldn't think that fair.

I'll only post the official vote count of the leading player, which can under certain circumstances differ from the lynched player or in case nobody got lynched at all. today leading player = astroboy = 5 votes

​

well it is your prerogative as a GG, although -for the record- i disagree.

the scenario you mention only applies if the bluff casts a solitary vote, if their "public" vote is among others, than any of them could be from the soother or the bluff. Part of the strategy in using the various powers is to weight the cost/benefit, imo.

in any case, maybe you want consider a compromise, which can work thematically and addresses your concerns: the reverber/rioter/soother work normally, as described in the rules, whereas the bluff -as a particularly 'secretive' role- does not show up anywhere (except of course when it affects the final result of a lynch)


EDIT: in any case, you should communicate your final decision in the game thread, because i don't think most people would be reading this one.

 

[Queen of Spades]

i fully disagree.
if the amplifier just gives an extra instakill, or an option instakill, the power is too unbalanced and it favors the hunter/village way too much.
what balances the power is precisely that it is a double edged weapon. it can be very powerful, but the amplifier needs to be careful in using it, because it can backfire. this applies to all target powers, so the hunter shouldn't get special treatment.

besides, the hunter still get to decide the victim of the shots, so that's pretty decent 'agency'. the ampliifcation just moves some of the agency from the holder of the power into the hands of the amplifier, who otherwise would be just delgating his power to another player
if they don't want to kill two people, they can just kill one (or target the same person twice), but the essential part is that they have to do it 'now'.

Then I would vote to get rid of the amplifier power altogether. Again, I don't mind if the amplifying aspect is "use it or lose it" but forcing a player to use their own power at that exact moment or lose it completely is no fun and I would not be on board with that happening.

And yes, twietee, that is how I meant it.

 

[jav6454]

​

I am truly happy you volunteered to process all the older data!

[...]

thanks!!!!

Oh boy, me and my mouth at it again. Anyways, I will, just give me a few days to process and check if those threads are still alive (given the transition).

 

[Don't panic]

Oh boy, me and my mouth at it again. Anyways, I will, just give me a few days to process and check if those threads are still alive (given the transition).

it was more said in jest, but if actually can/want to do the old games it would be quite the achievement.

if you really want to do it, i can tell you what i did exactly and pass to you my excel file.
i warn you, it is more work than it looks!

btw, you should re-join the games.

 

[Don't panic]

Then I would vote to get rid of the amplifier power altogether. Again, I don't mind if the amplifying aspect is "use it or lose it" but forcing a player to use their own power at that exact moment or lose it completely is no fun and I would not be on board with that happening.

​

i obviously hold a different view on the amplifier, but this is one of the reasons i wanted to have this thread as a venue to discuss rules.
some are complex and everyone has different preferences, and -importantly- interprets the same role in very different ways.

when ravenvii, chrmjenkins, myself or others introduced (or modified) some of these roles, we had something specific in mind, which might or might not have been well conveyed in the way they were explained or written.
in addition the roles have considerably 'evolved' from game to game, in accordance and in response to themes, twists and game situations.

here we can hash them out and come to some sort of 'default' role gallery, with an accepted general interpretation. then the GG du jour can decide what roles to use (not all need to be used all the time) and what variants or modifications to apply.
so that everyone is on the same page from the beginning and there is no surprises and misunderstandings during the games

 

[TechGod]

When is it best for info gathering roles to come out? I'm not one if reading that made our wolfish friend's ears perk up in our current game. Just wondering about strategies and such.

 

[Queen of Spades]

​

i obviously hold a different view on the amplifier, but this is one of the reasons i wanted to have this thread as a venue to discuss rules.
some are complex and everyone has different preferences, and -importantly- interprets the same role in very different ways.

when ravenvii, chrmjenkins, myself or others introduced (or modified) some of these roles, we had something specific in mind, which might or might not have been well conveyed in the way they were explained or written.
in addition the roles have considerably 'evolved' from game to game, in accordance and in response to themes, twists and game situations.

here we can hash them out and come to some sort of 'default' role gallery, with an accepted general interpretation. then the GG du jour can decide what roles to use (not all need to be used all the time) and what variants or modifications to apply.
so that everyone is on the same page from the beginning and there is no surprises and misunderstandings during the games

I hear what you're saying, and obviously I think the GG should get to run his/her game as they see fit. That's just my opinion on that role. That said, I'm torn on having this many roles in play for every game. One the plus side, it gives everyone something to do, theoretically, and would encourage participation. It also introduces a great deal of nuance and necessitates a lot of mental acrobatics in figuring out which roles could be responsible for which moves - including overlapping possibilities. On the other hand, it is a LOT of information to keep in mind for every game, it's almost overload. If we kept the same roles for a few games in a row I think it would help somewhat.

 

[Don't panic]

I hear what you're saying, and obviously I think the GG should get to run his/her game as they see fit. That's just my opinion on that role. That said, I'm torn on having this many roles in play for every game. One the plus side, it gives everyone something to do, theoretically, and would encourage participation. It also introduces a great deal of nuance and necessitates a lot of mental acrobatics in figuring out which roles could be responsible for which moves - including overlapping possibilities. On the other hand, it is a LOT of information to keep in mind for every game, it's almost overload. If we kept the same roles for a few games in a row I think it would help somewhat.

yep, keeping the rule consistent for a few games would definitively help.
as people learn better about the new roles, the start using more efficiently and more dynamically.
in addition, patterns on how to best harness them and understanding the implication would emerge.