-
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.
Because it was utter and total cr*p, the worst game of werewolf I have ever played. I was a wolf, and it was a very hollow victory. Nobody had the faintest idea what was gojng on, the seer was more redundant than a public servant under a Tory government and the whole thing was a total disaster.
There is an old WW discussion thread where that was debated extensively, basically Gonzo v everyone else.
EDIT: Here it is
EDIT: Here it is
Last edited:
If your goal is to end my influence on Lite, then this would do it as I simply would not play.
Gonzo'ed Lite is retarded.
Opinion was very much divided on the matter, all the other players said it was daft, Gonzo said it wasn't.
As I hoped to make clear in my post, I don't want to loose you, because (despite the fact that it's not your goal), I do like your presence in this community. Since PM is also a big part of your game (and that goes for lots of the fun players around here), I think limiting PM will drive many of them away.
True, in "campfire" WW, there is no PM, neither for the wolves. But this is forum-WW, and it is different. A JL that could be created is part of that as well. Restricting PM's is not the answer, I believe.
Regarding the OT-forum: I don't think the mods will look kindly upon the need to manually move a thread once every 3 weeks. We should better not ask them to do that. We just need to maintain self-restraint.
Opinion was very much divided on the matter, all the other players said it was daft, Gonzo said it wasn't.
Actually,
The following players were in favor of removing PMs, at least from Lite intially:
Zast
Darthmaur
TheGonzo
Olaus Petrus -- was willing to consider the idea
Ayeshteni -- vaccillated and then left an inconclusive answer
While the following players were opposed:
Yakman
Sainte-therese
jonti-h
Ironhead5 - who gave the best logical posts against the idea
Illira
HebrewHammer
AOK.11
Arguments for: It returns the paranoia, allows for more aggressive 'public' play and argumentation, since lies cannot so easily be filtered.
Arguments against: Basically boiled down to the following two:
In Big: The roles and culture of the big game pretty much demands the PM capability for the game to be fun.
In Lite: The players were completely unskilled at playing without private information and found it boring.
Note, the argument in Lite wasn't that it unbalanced the game or created situations that were ludicrous...the argument was that the current player didn't know how to function in a world without information and thus did nothing so the game was boring. So much for 'skill.'
After reading that thread, I have come to the conclusion that what is played in this thread is not really WW. The game played here is like mingling Mao with WW.
Anyway, thanks for the link as it was an interesting read...particularly the part where AOK.11 bemoans the tactic of vote-switching at or near the deadline as completely against the spirit of the game...and how he demands that it end now, or be replaced with a flexible deadline!
I find it incredibly illuminating that this tactic is now a firm part of his repertoire...so much for not 'messing with WW...'
Two people I cannot even recall seeing in a Lite game, the original Orange Yoshi (Gonzo), one of the more bizare players as far as rules are concerned (Olaus), and Aye, another player I cannot recall seeing in Lite who does not really support what you are putting forth. So these are your champions? Really?
And those opposed include three of the most successful players of all time (Jonti, AOK, I5), another quite excellent player that could have been one of the best if his career had not ended(Illria), and another crazy yet experienced player GM (Yakman). In addition to these names, take a current poll and I guarantee all the best players will say no PM games suck.
So basically every player of note...ever..in the entire history of Paradox WW...against the worst GM of all time, a couple of insignificants, a player who never left the 15th century (Olaus) and our new player Executer.
Just stop. It will not happen.
Since I could not get it banned I had to figure out how to use it. If you want to implement a serious rule change, then implement anti-sniping rules. If anyone votes in the last 5 minutes the deadline is extended 20 minutes and if anyone causes it to be extended more than once, they get autokilled. I only added sniping to my arsenal because I could not get it banned. I will use all means at my disposal. Even if I prefer they not be in the game.
Relax. I was pointing out that the discussion was not nearly unanimous, as was first alluded.
AOK.11 said:
The current poll would be statistically irrelevant, since very few players (save the ones against it) would have actually played that way. The community decided to continue using PMs...those who disagreed left...and so the current community vehemently prefers PMs. This is in no way surprising, nor does it bolster your argument that using PMs is an inherently better game. All it shows is that the community MIGHT HAVE segregated over this issue (and or others) thus leaving a smaller shell of like-minded players. This isn't wrong, per se...just interesting in light of Ironhead's initiative to find new players.
It actually confirms my hypothesis that the reason WW has shrunk has nothing to do with advertisement, and much more to do with playstyle. It is much more fun for a rookie to enter a game in which he has an equal (or slightly subequal) chance of winning, given adequate skill level. It is quite another thing to have a rookie enter a game where veterans have an innate advantage due to being able to conduct business in private (which is contrary to the whole idea of 'mob rule' in the game). What inevitably occurs is that those with influence and friends, generally the veteran players, parley their advantage and form an ad-hoc governmental like structure that rewards following the JL and punishes dissonance in the crowd.
This helps the village function more efficiently, and results in a stronger village in much the same way that a feudal governmental system is better than anarchy. However, this results in members of the elite getting to play the game, and the new players getting pushed into line and told to mind their own bloody business like the peasants they are...hardly fun at all for them...and does nothing to develop their skills.
AOK.11 said:
I only found it amusing as it is a great illustration of your character. I actually agree that the point of the village is to reach a DECISION...not make a race against time. The village should only hang someone after all the votes have been cast and no one is willing to move their vote...however impractical that is online...that works really well in person.
Correlation =/= causation. Gonzo left, but he was an idiot so nobody cared, the rest of the names you mentioned left later for other reasons.
So you want to neuter the game and make it so that noob sheep are as likely to win as the best players and thereby remove skill from the victory equation.
Sorry Nancy, but that is not how you make the game fun. All of the best games in Werewolf history would have been largely destroyed without PMs. All the great schemes, the plots, the treachery, the planning of coups and widespread destruction. It would all be gone. If you cannot utilize PMs, then that's your fault. You do not have to be a veteran to do it. By about my 3rd game I was beginning to be active behind the scenes.
You are talking about destroying the game. If its too hard for you, go play Hungry Hungry Hippos with your nephew or occupy yourself with a coloring book. Proper werewolf with 10 people is better than what you are proposing.
Sorry Nancy, but that is not how you make the game fun. All of the best games in Werewolf history would have been largely destroyed without PMs. All the great schemes, the plots, the treachery, the planning of coups and widespread destruction. It would all be gone. If you cannot utilize PMs, then that's your fault. You do not have to be a veteran to do it. By about my 3rd game I was beginning to be active behind the scenes.
You are talking about destroying the game. If its too hard for you, go play Hungry Hungry Hippos with your nephew or occupy yourself with a coloring book. Proper werewolf with 10 people is better than what you are proposing.
The first game I played in had 24 hour days followed by a 24 hour night. However the day would end early if at any time one person had more then 50% of the votes, meaning that at that time a Majority of the village wanted them dead. The extra 24 hours of talking during the night meant that a lot more people threw up votes early, rather then sit back and see how people would might not even be awake for another 6 hours react to the person lynched, and the wolfs had a full 24 hours after the lynch to pick out who the hunt. The seer would get his scan result as soon as he sent in a name, and yes I have seen days with a time of about 15 minutes. Full J-L taking down the last two wolfs when both where scanned makes it rather quick and easy to do.
Is the main issue a lack of players/new players/quality players or is there a general perception of something instrinsically wrong with the games' setup as a whole here on the forum?
I plan to, if it's okay with everyone. Starting with:
Agreed. Let's let the current thread fade away peacefully -- no more reviving it. When the current game is done, we can start a new thread with a little more pizzazz -- starting with a title that will make someone want to click on it. From there, we need a good marketing strategy for what it says inside -- nothing incoherent or esoteric, but something intriguing.
Eh, I'm a little leery of such an idea. But if everyone else likes it, then we can try... but as Lurken says, let's ASK first. If Blade! is okay with it, we can go with it -- let's not piss him or any other mods off by just doing it on our own initiative.
I play that way on most other sites, and I'm okay with it... on those sites. The reason I like Paradox more than the rest is because of what makes us unique; and unrestricted PMing is a substantial part of that. And like jonti-h, I hate how ineffective it makes the seer.
I know this is blasphemy, but I'm really not that impressed with him. He had a great game a few years ago that I played with him, and I confess that I helped feed the exaggeration by making a big deal of it. But I don't recall him ever replicating such success -- he was and still is good, but only as good as other veterans with his experience with other players. But back then, when others (including me) were making him to be Jack the Giant Killer, he smugly alluded to some algorithm he used to deduce who the wolves were. We all stood in awe of him, and he parlayed this reputation into an outstanding and sustained PR campaign.
Again, I can only remember the one game that was truly outstanding, and then several dozen games that were mediocre or slightly above-average. But now the legend has taken on a life of its own -- even AOK champions the alleged slew of wolf corpses littered in his wake. I'm just not seeing it. What I do see is a slew of varied corpses, now that he has a fearsome reputation to use to engineer his directed vote snipes. But there are far more villager corpses than wolf corpses. I know, I know -- AOK says that you've gotta break a few eggs to make that omelette, and so you're gonna have plenty of dead villagers to find the wolves. But how is this special? Any of us can kill wolves if we kill a shitload of villagers first.
Great minds think alike -- I also considered these ideas:
1. Sudden deadline: I was thinking about a trait that allowed the player to call an early end to voting by PMing the GM. From the moment of the timestamp on his PM to the GM, no vote switches will be counted in the final vote count -- although other players won't know this until the deadline. Anyone who hasn't voted will be allowed to cast a single vote (otherwise he will just cast his own vote immediately after the previous day's update, send in his order, and thus control the lynch with a 1-0 final vote). This ability would have to be more than a one-time use thing (otherwise it will become like a leader ability -- never used, since he never knows who is good until it is too late to put it to any good use). But not an unlimited use thing -- don't want him using it every goddamn day, he needs to be somewhat judicious about it.
2. Limit the number of vote switches: I like this idea better than the one above. Say, everyone is allowed one new vote, and one switch -- that way if fresh evidence comes to light later in the day he can switch his vote, but he cannot throw votes around like party favors. It would also provide an interesting dynamic -- not only because people would be more reserved with their initial vote, but also because the vote count would take on an added ominous undertone of the number of unswitchable votes: so-and-so has 6 votes, and 2 of them are permanent; while the runner-up has 5 votes, but 4 of them are permanent. Who should be more nervous as the deadline looms?
EURO was right it seems. If you really want to argue that I am not an efficient wolf killer than you are totally disconnected from reailty. You were not witness to most of my villager masterpieces....except that one where I blew up your pack of course. Other than that, you are not seeing it because you were not there.
If you want to argue play style fine. However, arguing that I am not an efficient wolf killer is just silly. If you want references I can provide them.
And if you ever use those rules count me out. They will not help anything.