• 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.
Why not? You make rivals, and then you are surprised they actually try everything to kill their rivals? Or are you saying that the hunter should not have done the favor, which would still leave many other ways to get rid of your rival early, like outing them to a wolfpack.

Yes, I'm saying the hunter shouldn't have done the favour. Johho only did it because he thought Nautilu could win with any team, and I gather Nautilu only sent the PMs because he also misunderstood the rule. If they'd known the actual rule, they would have bided their time and looked for an opportunity less likely to blow up on them.

Rival seer and apprentice is an obvious setup. Seer scans the rival night 0, and they both know where they stand. Instead the apprentice misread the rule and went crazy.

As for selling out your rival to a wolf pack, that's just stupid. Your team comes first, it's irrelevant if your rival is still alive if the other side wins. Patience is a far better approach. In fact... I've been an unclaimed apprentice and rival to the seer, and that's exactly what I did. Voted him when he was run up, but otherwise just let things get on with it. The odds are very high one or both of you will die anyway. Me in that case, with the seer going on to lead the village to victory.
 
Yes, I'm saying the hunter shouldn't have done the favour. Johho only did it because he thought Nautilu could win with any team, and I gather Nautilu only sent the PMs because he also misunderstood the rule. If they'd known the actual rule, they would have bided their time and looked for an opportunity less likely to blow up on them.

Rival seer and apprentice is an obvious setup. Seer scans the rival night 0, and they both know where they stand. Instead the apprentice misread the rule and went crazy.

As for selling out your rival to a wolf pack, that's just stupid. Your team comes first, it's irrelevant if your rival is still alive if the other side wins. Patience is a far better approach. In fact... I've been an unclaimed apprentice and rival to the seer, and that's exactly what I did. Voted him when he was run up, but otherwise just let things get on with it. The odds are very high one or both of you will die anyway. Me in that case, with the seer going on to lead the village to victory.

They both know where they stand, and they are both going to try to kill the other before the other guy does the same. It could happen, for instance, that both players go out each other, and then you lose both seers. Not very refined gameplay, and not good for balance either.

It's not very stupid, it's a case of prisoner's dilemma. If you have absolute trust in each other, then it can work, but if you do not, and play to win... you will want to preempt the other guy. And in WW, you're justified in doing everything possible to win the game. Killing a Seer, especially when there are two possible seers, doesn't make you lose the game.
 
Would people be by chance interested in another lite game or would a small break be a better idea? I really don't know how it works here, if it is a continuous stream of games that people sometimes join and sometimes don't or if you get waves of activity followed by periods of inactivity...
 
Would people be by chance interested in another lite game or would a small break be a better idea? I really don't know how it works here, if it is a continuous stream of games that people sometimes join and sometimes don't or if you get waves of activity followed by periods of inactivity...

In QI this would be the moment for the 'Nobody Knows' card :)

It's hard to say. but as both games ended I assume the one that starts first gets players faster :)
 
They both know where they stand, and they are both going to try to kill the other before the other guy does the same. It could happen, for instance, that both players go out each other, and then you lose both seers. Not very refined gameplay, and not good for balance either.

It's not very stupid, it's a case of prisoner's dilemma. If you have absolute trust in each other, then it can work, but if you do not, and play to win... you will want to preempt the other guy.

It's not the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma you get a reduced punishment for selling the other guy out. Here selling the other guy out increases your risk of getting the worst punishment (losing), because you still lose if the wolves win - the seer is a key part of reducing the odds of that, and having a backup really helps. Not to mention that with fatality rates usually upward of 75%, with juicy seers a wolf delicacy, you don't need to worry too much about going out of your way to kill your seer rival. And just how are you planning on selling him out anyway? Contacting the wolves and saying "hey guys, I'm the seer's apprentice, we can totally work together!"?

You'd have to be insane to sell out the seer if you were his rival and apprentice. Of course, this is Werewolf...
 
Would people be by chance interested in another lite game or would a small break be a better idea? I really don't know how it works here, if it is a continuous stream of games that people sometimes join and sometimes don't or if you get waves of activity followed by periods of inactivity...

Normally the next one would start signups as soon as the last one finished. However, things went on a bit of a hiatus recently. A large group of players have stopped playing, so it's hard to get full signups.
 
Normally the next one would start signups as soon as the last one finished. However, things went on a bit of a hiatus recently. A large group of players have stopped playing, so it's hard to get full signups.
Well nobody posted anything yet and I can easily send PMs to people involved in the last few games and see what happens :)

@HDK: What is QI?
 
Werewolf Lite CCXXXIII


M1870111_SlaaneshP2Mb3.jpg


Disciples of Slaanesh



Location:
The town of Hoffnungslosigkeit deep in Drakwald Forest, Heart of the Empire

Date:
Wellentag, Vorgeheim 1st, 2132

From the town chronicle written by venerable Lothar Telemann:
In the year of Empire 2132, our beloved count Siegfried 'Stark' von Steinburg left with the town garrison to help the Emperor Martin defeat the threat comming from Sylvania, where yet another vapire lord of the von Carstein clan - this time Manfred - raised the banner of his undead army and marched on Altdorf. Unfortunately the troubles of Empire left our once great but now dying town severly unprotected during the worst time possible. Beastmen are once more gathering under a new powerful shaman and there are rumors, that there is even a cult devoted to Chaos in our midst.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-Werewolf-Lite-CCXXXIII-Disciples-of-Slaanesh
 
Last edited:
It's not the prisoner's dilemma. In the prisoner's dilemma you get a reduced punishment for selling the other guy out. Here selling the other guy out increases your risk of getting the worst punishment (losing), because you still lose if the wolves win - the seer is a key part of reducing the odds of that, and having a backup really helps. Not to mention that with fatality rates usually upward of 75%, with juicy seers a wolf delicacy, you don't need to worry too much about going out of your way to kill your seer rival. And just how are you planning on selling him out anyway? Contacting the wolves and saying "hey guys, I'm the seer's apprentice, we can totally work together!"?

You'd have to be insane to sell out the seer if you were his rival and apprentice. Of course, this is Werewolf...

Make a matrix, and assume that both players want to do everything to win.

A sells B and B sells A : A -, B -
A doesn't sell B and B sells A : A -, B ++
A sells B and B doesn't sell A : A ++, B -
A doesn't sell B and B doesn't sell A : A +, B +

The rationale for the +, ++ and the - is that losing the game is always the same, regardless of how it was done, while + doesn't solve your problem, merely means you survived, and ++ has your rival victory condition addressed. A sells B and B sells A are the superior options, but if both agents pick the superior options, the outcome is inferior to if they both picked the inferior option. Google Nash Equilibrium.

As for how it would be done... well, I can think of some ways... rival A goes over to the baddies and says "Hey, I'm a cultist who got scanned by the Seer and infiltrated the JL, hunt B, he's the Seer.", which even opens up possibilities whose potential far exceeds the one of your rival, like figuring out the baddies and getting them to do your bidding.

Not to mention variants where apprentices can be stolen/turned etc, which means that the sooner you kill your apprentice, the better...
 
We actually WON!! What a great game Rendap, really enjoyed the challenge.. The no cultists in the game just made the mind work is there/isnt there..
I was rather paranoid about Johho being a cultist somehow, but then again id always talk myself out of it again and go back to trusting him. As the lynches went by i got less paranoid.. So glad i shouted out to stop the Johho bandwagon that was forming, nice work Johho.
I was shocked to see Falc as a GA, i just put a random vote on him and he ended up lynched.. haha, i didnt private PM anybody, not my style just pure luck. But when i saw the GA trait, i waqs waiting to be killed, but it never came. Thats why i clicked and deep down knew that Nautilu was good, I thought maybe 2nd Seer or an apprentice due to Split would scan him straight away. I was pretty much right. So i told Johho we need to keep him alive as i thought a Hunter is 80% goodie most the time.
I didnt save anybody with my Protecting,, just looked after Nautilu and Johho at first and then went on to random villagers..
I was going to Protect Deaghaidh the night he got hunted, but changed it to him as Back-up. I was thinking to try and save the last Yellow Wolf, because that was the only thing keeping us from plarity and me being eaten. (Thats if there were cultists anyway)
Im sure the only reason Nautilu, Johho and Me were still alive, was the packs trying to find each other and im thankfull for that. Enjoyed the hard work victory and even more, my analysis was good for a change :D
 
I had no idea that Nautilu was an apprentice. I assumed he was an ordinary villager or possibly a wolf.

I had him as a backup scan on day one prefering a random scan of paendrag I think as my primary choice. I am not good with setups, likely roles, etc. I couldnt go after Nautilu right of the bat because I was the seer and didnt want to attract unwanted attention. I did have an evil plan to sell him to the other side as the seer :evil:

But thanks to the little twunts lobbying I never got to put it into action...:sad:...

...atleast I was victorious in Lite!!!:cool:...

And I got to kill Nautilu en route to victory making it all the sweeter!...
 
Yes, I'm saying the hunter shouldn't have done the favour. Johho only did it because he thought Nautilu could win with any team, and I gather Nautilu only sent the PMs because he also misunderstood the rule. If they'd known the actual rule, they would have bided their time and looked for an opportunity less likely to blow up on them.
Well, even if the rules were as I thought they were I shouldn't have panicked and shot one rival. I was overthinking things and thought that if Nautilu found a baddie, they ate his rival then not only would he be a dangerous infiltrator but also I'd be dead meat. This was just stupid reasoning by me. No way Nautilu only PMed only one baddie and me. No way the baddies would manage to kill both me (and every other goodie Nautilu PMed) and the rival at the same time. I'm surprised noone called me out on that one. I was overthinking things in combination with being late to a movie (about spacenazis) when I sent in that fatal hunt order. Sorry, Cakravati. :( But at least the whole game got more exciting because of it. :)

As for selling out your rival to a wolf pack, that's just stupid. Your team comes first, it's irrelevant if your rival is still alive if the other side wins. Patience is a far better approach. In fact... I've been an unclaimed apprentice and rival to the seer, and that's exactly what I did. Voted him when he was run up, but otherwise just let things get on with it. The odds are very high one or both of you will die anyway. Me in that case, with the seer going on to lead the village to victory.
Absolutely agree on this one and that is how I handled rivals last time I was one. I suggested a non-aggression pact, saying odds are one of us will get killed anyway before the endgame. Unfortunately my rival was a cultist and his master ate me night 1...
 
Make a matrix, and assume that both players want to do everything to win.

A sells B and B sells A : A -, B -
A doesn't sell B and B sells A : A -, B ++
A sells B and B doesn't sell A : A ++, B -
A doesn't sell B and B doesn't sell A : A +, B +

The rationale for the +, ++ and the - is that losing the game is always the same, regardless of how it was done, while + doesn't solve your problem, merely means you survived, and ++ has your rival victory condition addressed. A sells B and B sells A are the superior options, but if both agents pick the superior options, the outcome is inferior to if they both picked the inferior option. Google Nash Equilibrium.

As for how it would be done... well, I can think of some ways... rival A goes over to the baddies and says "Hey, I'm a cultist who got scanned by the Seer and infiltrated the JL, hunt B, he's the Seer.", which even opens up possibilities whose potential far exceeds the one of your rival, like figuring out the baddies and getting them to do your bidding.

Not to mention variants where apprentices can be stolen/turned etc, which means that the sooner you kill your apprentice, the better...

The matrix looks more like this:

A sells B and B sells A : A -, B -
A doesn't sell B and B sells A : A -, B -
A sells B and B doesn't sell A : A -, B -
A doesn't sell B and B doesn't sell A : A +, B +

Because killing the seer reduces the chance of your side winning, and the odds of you both surviving are small regardless. Your mistake is to assume that "rival" is the critical win condition. A balanced game will have a 50/50 win rate for each side. A typical game might have an 80% fatality rate. If you just let things go as normal, you have P = 0.5*0.8*0.2 = 0.08 for winning. Kill the seer, and assume the game remains balanced, and you have P = 0.5*0.2 = 0.1 for winning. You're gambling that killing the seer will leave your side with a better than 40% chance of winning, because any lower and you just screwed yourself over. Given how advantageous it is to have a seer and apprentice, I wouldn't take that bet.
 
The matrix looks more like this:

A sells B and B sells A : A -, B -
A doesn't sell B and B sells A : A -, B -
A sells B and B doesn't sell A : A -, B -
A doesn't sell B and B doesn't sell A : A +, B +

Because killing the seer reduces the chance of your side winning, and the odds of you both surviving are small regardless. Your mistake is to assume that "rival" is the critical win condition. A balanced game will have a 50/50 win rate for each side. A typical game might have an 80% fatality rate. If you just let things go as normal, you have P = 0.5*0.8*0.2 = 0.08 for winning. Kill the seer, and assume the game remains balanced, and you have P = 0.5*0.2 = 0.1 for winning. You're gambling that killing the seer will leave your side with a better than 40% chance of winning, because any lower and you just screwed yourself over. Given how advantageous it is to have a seer and apprentice, I wouldn't take that bet.

But your side winning and you losing is, under the conditions of the problem, as bad as your side losing and you losing. And like I said, you cannot draw the conclusion that killing the seer reduces the chance of your side winning as if it was an universal conclusion. And no, you didn't screw yourself over, remember, you are playing to win the game. And, if you let things go as normal, the other guy is bound to realize he's got to take you down before you do the same to him.

So, under my initial "play-to-win" condition, your matrix does not represent the situation properly.