• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I suggest this point system.

Everybody starts with 10 points.

We lose 1 point per lynched villager if you're a villager, and 2 if you're a seer.

The wolves gain 1 point per lynched villagers, but lose 3 points if they hunt the seer.

The seer gets 1 point for each scanned wolves, and 2 additional points if he manages to get the wolf outed, but not by him of course. One more point if he gets the wolf lynched, along the villager that outed the wolf.

A villager can get 1 points if he calls dibs while on the lead of 2/3 of the votes between 5 to 6 hours beofre deadline. IF he calls dibs, wolves have to use a secret word given to them by the GM in a post and thus they counter-dibs. If counter-dibbed the villager will lose 1 point.
If not counter-dibbed the villager earns 2 points, unless he dies.

Wolf can call dibbs too, but in that case they only get 1 point if they manage to avoid being lynched, while all the villagers lose 1 points.

The seer can dib as well and thus gains 2 points. If the seer is lynched, that's called a fumble and thus all villagers lose 4 points, while the wolves get one point.

If the wolves hunt a scanned villager that's called a drop, and they get one point.

Survivor winning villagers get 5 points. Survivor winning seer gets 7.

Surviving wolves get 3 points.

A wolf that survives alone gets 5 points, plus 1 extra point per turn he was alone.


GAME ON.

Great idea! But I'd hate to steal your idea, it's so brilliant that only you could ever do it justice!

Everyone, it's clear to me that the next game must be GMed by drxav. No-one else is worthy.
 
IN as Major Tom.
 
Find this ruleset confusing but wateva...

IN as Isaac Asimov!
 
I suggest this point system.

Everybody starts with 10 points.

We lose 1 point per lynched villager if you're a villager, and 2 if you're a seer.

The wolves gain 1 point per lynched villagers, but lose 3 points if they hunt the seer.

The seer gets 1 point for each scanned wolves, and 2 additional points if he manages to get the wolf outed, but not by him of course. One more point if he gets the wolf lynched, along the villager that outed the wolf.

A villager can get 1 points if he calls dibs while on the lead of 2/3 of the votes between 5 to 6 hours beofre deadline. IF he calls dibs, wolves have to use a secret word given to them by the GM in a post and thus they counter-dibs. If counter-dibbed the villager will lose 1 point.
If not counter-dibbed the villager earns 2 points, unless he dies.

Wolf can call dibbs too, but in that case they only get 1 point if they manage to avoid being lynched, while all the villagers lose 1 points.

The seer can dib as well and thus gains 2 points. If the seer is lynched, that's called a fumble and thus all villagers lose 4 points, while the wolves get one point.

If the wolves hunt a scanned villager that's called a drop, and they get one point.

Survivor winning villagers get 5 points. Survivor winning seer gets 7.

Surviving wolves get 3 points.

A wolf that survives alone gets 5 points, plus 1 extra point per turn he was alone.


GAME ON.

That is awful, even by your standards...
 
As proposed, points would be gained as follows:
- Voting for a Wolf: 1 point
- Voting for a Villager/Seer: 0 points
- Voting for a known Wolf: 0 points
- Scanning a Wolf: 1 point for everyone in that JL

A Wolf is known to the JL as soon as he is scanned. A Wolf is known to the rest of the village as soon as he is outed.

Known wolf is arguable. What about fake-outings of real wolves? What about wolves who out themselves, for instance, with a failed snipe? What about a Seer that manages to have every one of his scans alive at the end? What about a goodie who wants to avoid voting wolves so that they do not get hunted? And who's JL? Only scanned guys? What about villager-only JL?

Far too many holes, and an awful idea anyway. In.
 
Known wolf is arguable. What about fake-outings of real wolves? What about wolves who out themselves, for instance, with a failed snipe? What about a Seer that manages to have every one of his scans alive at the end? What about a goodie who wants to avoid voting wolves so that they do not get hunted? And who's JL? Only scanned guys? What about villager-only JL?

Far too many holes, and an awful idea anyway. In.

Good points. The intention is to discourage people from just sitting there and waiting until the JL comes along and points out the wolves. But that is hard to achieve because as you pointed out, there's many different scenarios possible.

Should we keep this line as it is, my responses to your queries would be:
1) Only scanned wolves count. This means only an outing based on a scan counts. An outing of a non-scanned actual wolf will score points for the voters as usual (ie. 1 for each vote on the wolf).
2) Only scanned wolves count. Failed snipe is not 100% proof. Points as usual.
3) If no unscanned Villagers remain, I'd say everyone alive gets 1 point per wolf. Actually, come to think of it, if the last wolf surrenders, it's the same case. So that'll get added to the list.
4) It's impossible to deliberately not vote for a Wolf, unless you know who all the Wolves are...
5) JL is Seer plus scanned Villagers. Anything else is based on assumptions and educated guesses and doesn't count.

 
4) It's impossible to deliberately not vote for a Wolf, unless you know who all the Wolves are...

It's called deduction, Watson...

Still sucks that your points are highly conditioned on whether the Seer got you scanned or not. Seers are not required to win the game, you know? Basically, what you are doing here is conditioning the way people play WW with a point system, and imposing possibly sub-par play as condition to score points. You end up with a silly and meaningless point system which cannot be used in any way to reflect merit. Truly, I think that everyone can recognize merit on a WW game far better than any point system could do.

If you want to discourage zombieing your way to wins, then have a poll at the end so that the players vote for MVP's.
 
Last edited:
It's called deduction, Watson...

Still sucks that your points are highly conditioned on whether the Seer got you scanned or not. Seers are not required to win the game, you know? Basically, what you are doing here is conditioning the way people play WW with a point system, and imposing possibly sub-par play as condition to score points. You end up with a silly and meaningless point system which cannot be used in any way to reflect merit. Truly, I think that everyone can recognize merit on a WW game far better than any point system could do.

If you want to discourage zombieing your way to wins, then have a poll at the end so that the players vote for MVP's.

I like this idea.
 
vote reis!
 
I agree with reis, voting for MVP would be much better. I mean, the post-game banter lasts two days anyway.
 
MVP voting is at the end, not at the start. So, go vote someone else. Not that my ego needs outside recognition, it is self-sustainable...

We are voting for your excellent idea dumbass.:rolleyes:;)
 
It's called deduction, Watson...

Still sucks that your points are highly conditioned on whether the Seer got you scanned or not. Seers are not required to win the game, you know? Basically, what you are doing here is conditioning the way people play WW with a point system, and imposing possibly sub-par play as condition to score points. You end up with a silly and meaningless point system which cannot be used in any way to reflect merit. Truly, I think that everyone can recognize merit on a WW game far better than any point system could do.

If you want to discourage zombieing your way to wins, then have a poll at the end so that the players vote for MVP's.

If you correctly deduce the identity of a wolf and cast your vote for him, you'll get a point.
If you correctly deduce the identity of a wolf and do not wish to vote for him in fear of getting hunted, then you'll still need to cast a vote somewhere else. Possibly on another wolf. My previous statement should probably have read: "It's impossible to deliberately not vote for any wolf unless you know them all".

I don't quite get what you're going for in the rest of your post, though. Can you give me a concrete example of a situation where sub-par play would get you a point and correct play wouldn't? Because I really don't see it so I don't get why you claim I'm imposing sub-par play.

As for an MVP vote... Interesting idea. However:
1) popularity will play a factor
2) feuds will play a factor
3) being vocal or not will play a factor
4) people voting for their own pet octopus who chose all their votes will be a factor

In other words, good plan in theory, but it won't survive contact with the enemy real world.
 
To be fair falc, point scoring systems will probably not survive contact with the real world either. At least initially.
Systems like this tend to reward those who game the system, rather than those who actually contribute. So you can't apply this mechanically, at least. There needs to be some human judgement somewhere.
 
If you correctly deduce the identity of a wolf and cast your vote for him, you'll get a point.
If you correctly deduce the identity of a wolf and do not wish to vote for him in fear of getting hunted, then you'll still need to cast a vote somewhere else. Possibly on another wolf. My previous statement should probably have read: "It's impossible to deliberately not vote for any wolf unless you know them all".

I don't quite get what you're going for in the rest of your post, though. Can you give me a concrete example of a situation where sub-par play would get you a point and correct play wouldn't? Because I really don't see it so I don't get why you claim I'm imposing sub-par play.

As for an MVP vote... Interesting idea. However:
1) popularity will play a factor
2) feuds will play a factor
3) being vocal or not will play a factor
4) people voting for their own pet octopus who chose all their votes will be a factor

In other words, good plan in theory, but it won't survive contact with the enemy real world.

Breaking a tie in favor of a wolf getting you one point, just to be hunted on that same night due to a standing order on tie-breakers that kill a wolf. On the other hand, voting the other guy while still subtly moving to get the wolf lynched will most likely allow you to remain safe.
 
The main advantage of Falc's system is that people will try to be smarter about listening to arguments as to why they should or shouldnt vote for someone, instead of just jumping on the bandwagon started by one of the well known werewolf posters.

EDIT: Maybe we should give it a try.
 
Breaking a tie in favor of a wolf getting you one point, just to be hunted on that same night due to a standing order on tie-breakers that kill a wolf. On the other hand, voting the other guy while still subtly moving to get the wolf lynched will most likely allow you to remain safe.

First of all, from a player's point of view, why would you assume this? I mean, I've never seen it used as a wolf. I see no reason to make this particular assumption and there's a dozen other assumptions I could make about the wolves.

Furthermore, points are for smart villagers. If you refuse to cast a deciding vote on someone you're certain is a wolf just to save your own life, then I'm sorry, but that's selfish play. Someone gets hunted every night and the wolves might as well be using random.org to pick their targets. Putting your own survival ahead of getting a wolf killed is not a winning strategy. That'll get you dead at parity faster than you can say Stalingrad.

I also don't want to end up telling people: "no you don't get this point because you should have realised that with the sun in retrograde Jupiter combined with the high tide it was obvious that reis was actually both villager and a wolf". Points are given based on absolutes, based on objectively provable things.

Plus, dead players will at the very least be allowed to keep on casting votes (though in PM, looking at the response on that point so far). So playing for survival won't be as necessary as before.