-
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.
fun game, even if I am absolutely horrible as a wolf - not much better as a villager, admittedly, but I am not a good wolf.
anyhoo, I really enjoyed the setting, and would like taiisataii64 to do future games in it - let's see where these coffin ships end up!
finally, a note about the seer rule. It must be totally clear. As it is, I was confused - can the seer PM the results of a scan? Can he *hint hint* those results? Valiant effort, but it will need further work.
anyhoo, I really enjoyed the setting, and would like taiisataii64 to do future games in it - let's see where these coffin ships end up!
finally, a note about the seer rule. It must be totally clear. As it is, I was confused - can the seer PM the results of a scan? Can he *hint hint* those results? Valiant effort, but it will need further work.
If by convinced me you were a goodie, you mean 'throwing your packmates under a bus so I thought you weren't the most likely wolf', then yes. Otherwise, no. There just seemed to be less evidence in favour of miotas and reis, although I didn't realize reis tried so hard to get Yakman killed, all I did was scan the thread. Another thing is that despite everyone voting wolves, basically none of them were properly clearing ones, as Yakman and Suirantes were suspicious after the death of esemesas, and esemesas was a random vote that gathered momentum. That's the hardest type to analyse where everyone has some tangible voting alibi, (but nothing that a wolf couldn't do) and you have to try and judge which are the most likely for a wolf to have done.It would've made a huge difference. Marty doesn't really play with me, so it wasn't hard to convince him I was a goodie (and it worked) if he/vain/Kiwi/miotas would have been alive (I would've hunted reis awhile ago) I would've lived through today and maybe even won.
There was a lot of my strategy lost in marty's hunt.
(I don't mean to have a go at you by the way, it's just that every game recently I've played there's been multiple seelouts which makes vote analysis considerably harder. It can still be done, but it takes much more effort and time which I currently lack. I'm not saying a wolf has to defend an obvious packmate, only that it's a better game for all if the pack tries their best within reason to get a Stalingrad.)
One could consider making a game where at least half the wolves must survive in order for the pack to win, and this would discourage sellouts, but then falls short whenever a JL, random luck, or village analysis gets a couple of the wolves without their packmates voting them. Perhaps a seerless game, where the wolves are only allowed to lose a maximum of one wolf, could work - it would be a markedly different dynamic, but it'd be interesting to see how wolves would maneouvre to save their packmates, and vote analysis would be based more on possible packs of wolves than known wolf voting patterns.
@Taii: Don't worry about it, could happen to anyone. Oh and I didn't mean to be so blunt earlier when I said the zombies should be autolynched, sorry about that.
Oh and about this ruleset: I didn't mind trying it out (for sure there were some interestingly novel dynamics involved), but I do not think it should be used regularly. In one trial game it's fine, but in general I don't like the idea of peope being able to win if they die, even if though it helped me in this game and would in many others. In a lot of cases it would award wins to people who deserved it, who contributed to their side before being hunted shortly before the end game or something. But in a lot more cases it would award wins also to many people who haven't contributed to the game at all. If you let someone like Seen win in this game, then with the same ruleset you also have to let someone - who potentially died on the first night, never spoke another word in the thread and made no impact on the game - win. (In this game randy did still contributed but if it was someone else who done anything, they'd still get a win). And that cheapens the idea of a win. The only other way to allow dead people a victory is to selectively award wins for good play, and that's a route I'd rather not go down. And another thing: if the village wins, you have 13 winners. Wins shouldn't be too uncommon, but at the same time you shouldn't be winning over three quarters of the games you play. Unless you're jonti-h.
Furthermore the issue of the seer's power has been already discussed.
But I digress, I've laboured the point enough.
Furthermore the issue of the seer's power has been already discussed.
But I digress, I've laboured the point enough.
I've read games where Kiwi's sold out packmates for a lot less. In hindsight it is a poor strategy to do that, but in the head of the moment not everyone thinks about the consequences fully. And anyway, as long as Kiwi himself looked good, if it indicted another wolf or two, he may not have cared all that much. Perhaps he might've cared, but he could just as easily not have.
I normally try. Most of my wolf wins have been stalingrads, and before this game I've never lynched a packmate in lite. But this game was different. Yakman and suirantes were obvious wolves, mostly due to suirantes. And with all the cleared people still alive, it would've been hard to attempt to protect them and still do well. So Yakman and I were going to push each other as a way to get suspicion off the other one, but the day with HDK and Falc getting autolynched hurt as well, considering we didn't have time to discuss more and just jumped on Yakman.
Kiwi does have wild bloodlust, I agree. Frankly I think he'd sell out a packmate in exchange for an apple core
and you were partly vindicated by events. Not about Kiwi, but IIRC you were suspicious of me, King, and Kiwi whereas I said to take us off the list unless we had reason to suspect a Clever Wolf. As it was, Kingepyon was the Clever Wolf. Obviously I felt on the final day of play that Kingepyon deserved to be returned to the list, and I don't necessarily think I was wrong to scratch the three of us from the list temporarily, but nonetheless credit where due.I've never been in a EUROO7 Lite. I missed out on Cluedo because I signed up in the wrong thread (and I think I was on your ignore list). I would like to be in that very much, but the Big surely demands all my attention.
Nor have I. I missed out on Cluedo because esemesas signed up 20 minutes before me (grr)
Regarding the rule set, I liked it, but there needs to be clarification about the seer. Personally I'm happy for the seer to reveal themself in public, but not in private.
As for higher win ratios, I'd say have the survivors count as winners for the stats, and keep a separate tally of "team wins".
And regarding my play style, I may be a blood thirsty wolf, but I don't sell out a pack mate for nothing. esemesas was unnecessary, and as it turned out had too many people who would be revealed by his death.
Single player. I prefer to take my time, with liberal use of pausing. As far as you can be with Paradox grand strategy, I suppose I'm a casual gamer more than anything. A casual gamer who sees Victoria Revolutions as casual gaming
HoI 3, since I haven't played more than a few years of gametime since Semper Fi, and none with For the Motherland :blush:
Semper Fi and For the Motherland are huge improvements. There is still a lot of micro, which would be hell in multiplayer, but it's not too bad for me and much better in that regard than 1.3. I'm only up to 1938, so we'll see what it's like when the war hits, but so far it's matched my experiences of Doomsday Armageddon.
As for higher win ratios, I'd say have the survivors count as winners for the stats, and keep a separate tally of "team wins".
And regarding my play style, I may be a blood thirsty wolf, but I don't sell out a pack mate for nothing. esemesas was unnecessary, and as it turned out had too many people who would be revealed by his death.
Single player. I prefer to take my time, with liberal use of pausing. As far as you can be with Paradox grand strategy, I suppose I'm a casual gamer more than anything. A casual gamer who sees Victoria Revolutions as casual gaming
HoI 3, since I haven't played more than a few years of gametime since Semper Fi, and none with For the Motherland :blush:
Semper Fi and For the Motherland are huge improvements. There is still a lot of micro, which would be hell in multiplayer, but it's not too bad for me and much better in that regard than 1.3. I'm only up to 1938, so we'll see what it's like when the war hits, but so far it's matched my experiences of Doomsday Armageddon.
I agree with that. I am a Stock Lite fan but I like novelty types like Meso, Sans Seer, alternating scans, and this was interesting. Public seer makes sense.
Yeah, that was a big part of why I didn't think you were a wolf. Deliberately sending Ese to hell was a strategy for a loss. As I've said repeatedly, even if you evade detection eventually it'll be 3/1 or 2/1 and you probably end up standing out.
Seen has pestered me into joining this little adventure of yours. Is there a chance i can join in the next game? Or is it filled up already by regulars?
The next Werewolf Big game is up and taking entrants now. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?581630-Werewolf-CXXI-Deus-Omnia-Vincit
The next Werewolf Lite isn't yet ready. It has a limit on players, normally at 17.
yeah i figured i'd join the Lite before going into the big league
Lite has less rules, but that's the only sense in which it's Lite
Usually it's much more involved than a Big.
Lite has less rules, but that's the only sense in which it's Lite
It's Lite as in Elite.