Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Werewolf Lite CCXXVIII - The right stuff

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Falc said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's the problem, your rules make assumptions on what is optimal play.

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.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

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.
Click to expand...

Banking on wolves using random.org doesn't hold much water as an argument, sorry.

That'll get you dead at parity faster than you can say Stalingrad.
Click to expand...

Did you read what I said? You can vote for one guy with the intention to get another one lynched and succeed. In fact, I've used it to get a Stalingrad as a wolf, having my whole pack voting me to provoke the village into react and lynch a villager instead. I've also used it as a goodie in order to pinpoint baddies.

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.
Click to expand...

But you can't prove your rules are the optimal way to play WW. Last player who tried to come up with "Rules of WW" failed tremendously, as it was shown that his rules could be ruthlessly exploited. (it was Ironhead, by the way). Best thing about WW is that you only have a goal, and any legal means you can take to achieve that goal are completely justified.

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.
Click to expand...

Suicidal villagers isn't necessarily a good addition to WW, as some games have shown...
 
reis91 said:
That's the problem, your rules make assumptions on what is optimal play.

[...]

But you can't prove your rules are the optimal way to play WW. Last player who tried to come up with "Rules of WW" failed tremendously, as it was shown that his rules could be ruthlessly exploited. (it was Ironhead, by the way). Best thing about WW is that you only have a goal, and any legal means you can take to achieve that goal are completely justified.
Click to expand...

And yet, they boil down to this: you get points for voting a wolf and for scanning a wolf. I have a hard time seeing anything fundamentally wrong with that.

Now, might there be situations where not voting a wolf is the undeniably smartest thing to do? Perhaps. I personally haven't found any and your examples so far are not clear cut.

Voting a wolf so that he gets lynched now is undeniable progress for the village. Point for that.

Any other option involves risk. It involves trading the immediate guaranteed benefit for the chance of a greater reward later on. And that is fine. But, you will not get a point merely for taking the risk. If your gambit pays off and you expose even more wolves, then that will pay off in points.

Not only that, but imagine this: you're making one of these risky maneuvers and the wolf gets away, but his allies have exposed themselves. Unfortunately, one of them doesn't like the fact you hunted him in the Big game just last night, so you still get hunted that night. You've gambled, you've won, you've spotted three wolves but you can't tell anyone anymore...

Except that in this game, you can still rack up a whole lot of points for it. You can still get the reward for your gambit, which you couldn't before.

The strategies you're talking about are all about short term benefit vs. long term gain and the proposal, as it stands, seems to reward this appropriately: you can either score a point now or score more points later on.

If you still don't agree, I'd like to make the following proposal: point me to a previous Lite game where you or anyone else pulled off such a maneuver and I will calculate their points. Though I do need the Seer's scanlist to be 100% sure and there won't be votes from the dead guys so it won't be very accurate, but perhaps it could set your mind at ease.
 
Unfortunately, one of them doesn't like the fact you hunted him in the Big game just last night, so you still get hunted that night.
Click to expand...

I despise such petty feuds. That's also banned in the rules as it is known as metagaming.

Voting a wolf so that he gets lynched now is undeniable progress for the village.
Click to expand...

Depends. If that wolf, given time, could give away his pack, then it is the opposite of progress to the village. If, to secure the kill on a wolf, the Seer must break the tie and get hunted, then it might be good to get someone else to vote for you. This is penalized by the rules, however.

You've gambled, you've won, you've spotted three wolves but you can't tell anyone anymore...
Click to expand...

No, if you can't tell anyone, you didn't win. Either your fellow villagers put the pieces together, or your effort was for naught, and thus, you lost the gambit. Make a better one where you get to either stay alive or arrange things so that the village can lynch the baddies.

Empirical evidence would be incomplete, and I cba to dig it, but theoretically, this approach is fundamentally flawed as it places additional constraints on player strategy.
 
I have no idea what the point scoring system does exactly and I fully plan to completely ignore it.
Just so you know :p
 
in?
 
We're now at 14 players. Three still missing. Bit migrainy again, so I'll leave you lot to it for now, but if we don't get 3 more by tomorrow evening I'll start PMing. I've got the day off on friday anyway
 
I think a lot of players (I think a lot at least) don't play "to win" anymore but to simply enjoy the game. Journey vs destination aspect. Now we COULD start asking GMs to appoint a team MVP for each side as a little extra bonus for players that enjoy that? It wouldn't alter the basic system but would instead build upon it and for those that dislike it can ignore it and those that like it can strive for it.
 
Someone please PM me when this is over. Unless changes hit in a bad way I will GM the next lite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back