There have been hundreds of games under a setup that was considered balanced for years. After a few months some new people are suggesting that the system was terrible.
Then again, maybe all those great old players were idiots who didn't know how to balance a game? I wouldn't know either way. I'm an idiot.
WW MATHS
A game with 12 villagers and 4 wolves gives the wolves
near certainty of winning, assuming ideal play.
Upon the inclusion of a seer, those chances are brought back into a linear model. We account for how many villagers learn about each other as well as how many wolves get caught.
Statistically, if the seer dies right at the beginning, the wolves will, once again, have
near certainty of winning, assuming ideal play.
Statistically, if the seer never dies, then the chance of winning for the village is dependent on how many of those seer scans got hunted. If none of them get hunted, the village has
near certainty of winning, assuming ideal play. If all of them get hunted, the wolves have
near certainty of winning.
If you want to look at the actual maths insanity, check the link and read the PDF. It's very VERY long and detailed.
It should also be noted that, in reality as opposed to "ideally". The chances of wolves winning goes down with less ideal play, as they begin to give themselves away.
So, what? Is the standard LITE model unbalanced? Not really. I'd say it is simply a delicate setup, that has the possibility to swing one way or another based on random chance, and the possibility to swing the other way based on a lack of ideal play.
Out of the last 10 LITE games (From Cluedo to Wimbledon, counting "Original Werewolf" as it would have resulted in a baddie victory). We have had 6 wins by the village and 4 by the wolves.
If you think the current system is unbalanced, then follow that link, read the proofs, and devise your own balanced setup that's under 20 players, without having dramatic shifts based entirely on luck.