Werewolf Lite CCVIII - The Pack

[Malurous]

I dunno, I'd advocate removing the potential of ties from the game, making whoever is lynched random or something, because they're mostly created in a situation to compensate for the lack of a well played game by the village.

My take is that you can't legislate against stupidity. The tie can be a useful tool and a good element of danger in close situations. I think the problem in the scenario you mention is "the lack of a well played game by the village", not the tie. I mean seriously, look at the beginning of this game: is the problem the rules or the players?

Besides, I don't like the idea of adding artificial randomness...

[randakar]

Besides, I don't like the idea of adding artificial randomness...

The only thing you can do if ties do not lynch multiple people is simply extending the deadline for that day by another 24 hours.
That would slow down the game though - and that is also a bad thing, for various reasons. Not the least of which has to do with keeping people interested.

[humancalculator]

My lesson from all of this: Don't let Tamius be the one to determine TIES!.

[Boris ze Spider]

If a tie in lite is going down, you can rest assured that there is not one wolf in it.

[Najs]

Ties are also dangerous at the last day simply because the wolves can just break them any way they like and win the game that way. All they really need is one villager with his vote on a nonwolf and all the wolves will need to do is mass switch to that person.

What I believe King is primarily thinking of is the scenario that most recently occured in The Asylum, where there is 4 people left and the village goes for a tie with their two suspects just to make sure that they win without taking any chances. Pretty lame really. Last time snoop sniped it and allowed the wolf to win, but that is hardly usual is it?

[humancalculator]

If a tie in lite is going down, you can rest assured that there is not one wolf in it.

Not necessarily. But as a general rule, that is usually correct.

[Najs]

If a tie in lite is going down, you can rest assured that there is not one wolf in it.

I suggest you look back to December sometime. That should prove you sufficiently wrong.

[Kingepyon]

What I believe King is primarily thinking of is the scenario that most recently occured in The Asylum, where there is 4 people left and the village goes for a tie with their two suspects just to make sure that they win without taking any chances. Pretty lame really. Last time snoop sniped it and allowed the wolf to win, but that is hardly usual is it?

This.

After a bit of thought it isn't really ties in general I have an issue with, it's artificially created ties. Ties like in the current big are ok. Just because everyone voted for whomever they wanted and that was the end result. My issue with ties are when someone goes "hey let's tie them!" then there is a concious effort in order to tie them. That's what I disagree with, usually because the reason for an artificially created tie is exactly what I said earlier - a band-aid for a poor played game.

[randakar]

Artificial ties some time before the deadline are usually fine, though. Keeping multiple people in the running is the best way for the village to get information. It's when the deadline approaches that someone will have to make some move to break them ;-)

[the_hdk]

I said Malurous was evil


snoop you are a headless chicken

[Kingepyon]

Artificial ties some time before the deadline are usually fine, though. Keeping multiple people in the running is the best way for the village to get information. It's when the deadline approaches that someone will have to make some move to break them ;-)

Well, yeah. It's the end result I have an issue with. That would be a good move by the village. Again, I dislike ties that are made as a substitute for analysis, so people (usually near the end of the game) can make sure they lynch the wolf, by voting everyone remotely suspicious instead of using the previous days and deciding who the wolf is through analysis.

If you artificially create a tie for analysis and break it, that's fine. If you keep the tie in order to substitute for analysis, then I have an issue with it.

I know there isn't much the rules can do in order to prevent this, it's just annoying and unfair to those (who may be in the tied few) who played a good game.

[snoopdogg]

I said Malurous was evil


snoop you are a headless chicken

Ha! I keel you!

[humancalculator]

Ha! I keel you!

no u.

[Capt. Kiwi]

The world's greatest boy band? The horror! But entirely deserved by the village.

Artificial ties have their place - for example, the justice league and injustice league opposed outings in Wimbledon. That was a good example of how the village can use a tie to their benifit, if I do say so myself

Trust me, my sniper hand is as good as they get.

The best.

You played excelent. There was nothing flawed about your arguments and everything you said made complete sense from a villager perspective. You actually played like you do as a villager. Well done.

Now just pray you get to show your talent in an actual game.

Seconded - although I do think you went a little too strongly into it on day two, that got my attention as a spectator. It did seem a little too much like a wolf going for the kill with the seer gone. Still, it matched what I knew of you when playing as a villager. I think Hearth made me suspicious too, although I made the mistake of meta-gaming that he wouldn't quit when so close to victory.

[Kingepyon]

Artificial ties have their place - for example, the justice league and injustice league opposed outings in Wimbledon. That was a good example of how the village can use a tie to their benifit, if I do say so myself

That would be a tie for analysis. It may have eliminated two people, but in doing so you received information valuable to the village.

It wasn't a cop out of a few people wanting to win so they purposely tied the remaining (even remotely) suspicious ones. Or, in the case of this game, a tie for the sake of amusement, which achieved nothing except ruined the position of the village, and annoyed several people.

I dunno. Ties can be nice, but I think they're generally unneeded. Even in the wimbledon example, you could have lynched one the first turn and the other the second and you would have almost been in the same situation.

[Malurous]

Seconded - although I do think you went a little too strongly into it on day two, that got my attention as a spectator. It did seem a little too much like a wolf going for the kill with the seer gone. Still, it matched what I knew of you when playing as a villager. I think Hearth made me suspicious too, although I made the mistake of meta-gaming that he wouldn't quit when so close to victory.

Yeah, Hearth was the only one of my mates that I came up with as a lynch possibility in my "think like a goodie" analysis. In addition to myself, that is.

Still, I have to emphasize that from what I've seen from my games and the ones I've read, it's too easy for wolves (in the general sense of the word, not this game's version) to just shut up and lurk in the shadows. The only reason even one of the wolves got any attention here is because I played a relatively active game. Like I said, I think it's self-destructive by the village to tolerate "just because" voting - you're relying too much on JL there.

[Capt. Kiwi]

I dunno. Ties can be nice, but I think they're generally unneeded. Even in the wimbledon example, you could have lynched one the first turn and the other the second and you would have almost been in the same situation.

The tie was necessary in Wimbledon, because it saved us a turn without bringing us closer to parity. The key to it was freezing the votes where they were, with "touch the tie and you die". The wolves weren't expecting that, and between that and some hard work it left their pack blown wide open - they were all stuck voting the wrong way, and couldn't get out of it wthout outing themselves.

Yeah, Hearth was the only one of my mates that I came up with as a lynch possibility in my "think like a goodie" analysis. In addition to myself, that is.

Still, I have to emphasize that from what I've seen from my games and the ones I've read, it's too easy for wolves (in the general sense of the word, not this game's version) to just shut up and lurk in the shadows. The only reason even one of the wolves got any attention here is because I played a relatively active game. Like I said, I think it's self-destructive by the village to tolerate "just because" voting - you're relying too much on JL there.

Have you read Wimbledon? We were analysing everything right from the night 0 hunt. It went badly for the wolves, I think only one villager plus one in a tie were lost to lynches, but it was a lot of work. As for the wolves shutting up and lurking, it depends on who it is. Someone like Vain will immediately be accused if he's not making at least twice as many posts as the next highest player. Even if he's not playing. Others might get away with it, but if it gets too extreme CAWZ may see the light of day again.

[joebthegreat]

I've never accused Vain of being too quiet.

[Malurous]

Have you read Wimbledon? We were analysing everything right from the night 0 hunt. It went badly for the wolves, I think only one villager plus one in a tie were lost to lynches, but it was a lot of work. As for the wolves shutting up and lurking, it depends on who it is. Someone like Vain will immediately be accused if he's not making at least twice as many posts as the next highest player. Even if he's not playing. Others might get away with it, but if it gets too extreme CAWZ may see the light of day again.

No, maybe I should. But from what you're describing, I hope I end up participating in such a game at some point.

Yeah, I understand that you can't shut up and lurk if that doesn't fit your style. But in the games I know, silent people have got too little attention IMO, too little pressure. In this one, most of the wolves were in that category, and it's not the first time. I can see that in games with proper analysis that wouldn't necessarily be such a problem, but in some games you don't get that. I think that if no-one's doing that, you should at least demand a reason for votes in order to force more people to get involved and maybe make themselves suspicious.

Also, CAWZ? EDIT: Thanks, Adamus.

[Adamus]

Coalition against werewolf zombies