-
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.
So a wolf can sell out a cultist and cultist can sell out a wolf....
Isn't this all... werewolf basics? Am I missing some sort of Captain Obvious joke? You and Cliges should have dealt with the modern take on cultists many times before.
Could be, I just found it much more likely that a cultist lynched on day two has not found a pack but is instead pack-tied from the very beginning. But I guess we'll find out in due course.
Bravo!
That one shits me off no end as well. Let's lynch him tomorrow.
It says that all cultists start off unbonded but in contact with a wolf master. Not a pack, but a wolf. Wouldn't take much to say "Hey, I want in on your pack. Let's bond".
Duh, I really should read the first post rules more carefully. Right you are, I'm just relying on the old rules stuff from back in the day.
vote Cliges
Reasons, day 1 vote on Narref (who we don't know yet btw), so that's not compelling enough. However second days vote on Panzer was a little bit off for me. Panzer switched votes to GUG, while he could have just kept it on Narref and save GUG. This makes him an unlikely red candidate. Although he could be black or whatever colour the third one is, I'll go with pink, it still made him less likely.
I'll spare everyone the "he's throwing away a vote, WOLF!" comments. If we are close to tie and my vote counts, I will opt to change to the most likely candidate.
Reasons, day 1 vote on Narref (who we don't know yet btw), so that's not compelling enough. However second days vote on Panzer was a little bit off for me. Panzer switched votes to GUG, while he could have just kept it on Narref and save GUG. This makes him an unlikely red candidate. Although he could be black or whatever colour the third one is, I'll go with pink, it still made him less likely.
I'll spare everyone the "he's throwing away a vote, WOLF!" comments. If we are close to tie and my vote counts, I will opt to change to the most likely candidate.
Arguement being you not voting a wolf till now. Also voting on someone that was less likely to be a wolf for no reason.
This is what I like about this game. You are creating a tie; WOLF. You are breaking a tie; WOLF. You are casting a throwaway vote; WOLF. You are joining a bandwagon; WOLF.
Come on people, a vote for Arkasas is a vote for truth, justice and the old school ways.
That's a weak argument. Chances are that with 3 packs, each pack only has a few members. Therefore, any given baddie would only have a very small number of players upon whom he wouldn't place a vote. (And that's assuming the old chestnut that wolves vote to protect packmates is actually true {and it often [maybe even the majority of times mostly] isn't true}. That's a pretty big assumption to make.) It's still earlier enough that this is even more so when looked at proportionately.
That's also what I like about it.
Agreed, that even if you had placed a vote on someone that is a wolf, you could still be part of the other 2 packs. However there isn't much information to have (unless you are a wolf or JL member). So if someone is 'cleared' of actually being part of atleast 1 pack, that makes him 33% less likely of being a wolf. Hence I tended not to join the Panzer wagon.
However in your case, there is no proven record of you not being a wolf based on votings. Which makes you a slightly more likely candidate. I do not want to cast a throwaway vote, unless I have no clue (eg: day 1). So probably I'll switch if this doesn't catch on to one of the front runners, if I find any of them at least a bit suspicious.
That attitude is annoying and counterproductive: players can have valid reasons for doing many things that can be assumed to be wolf actions.
You vote for a candidate in the middle of the day and bring him closer to the leading candidate - you're a wolf trying to save a packmate, right? Or are you a villager who is keeping the race tight for informational purposes?
You cast a vote on someone who has no other votes - you're throwing your vote away because you're a wolf, right? Or are you a villager who is trying to propose a better target than the others who already have votes?
You place a vote on someone who has already got several votes on him, because you're a wolf just following a convenient leader whom you can denounce later. Or you're a villager who doesn't want to waste their vote.
You get named as a lynch target for the day and furiously deny the validity of the argument - you're a wolf in a panic, right? Or are you a seer, in a panic because you're about to get strung up by your own village? Or just a villager who is invested in the game and hates specious arguments?
It goes on like that. It's all a matter of context and interpretation. Players need to examine behavior for themselves and come to conclusions about why someone did what they did. If someone is more suspicious, regard them as more suspicious, but grade their actions on a scale according to how consistent their behavior would be for a good player or bad player. It's not binary: wolf suspect/non-suspect. There's a continuum with poles of relatively unlikely wolves and highly likely wolves; people need to rate people somewhere on that continuum as to how suspicious they are, based on their own interpretation of actions, rather than simply concluding wolf/not wolf.
From my short experience I know there is moment in all werewolf games at which euro must die, I think that moment has come.
Vote Euro
Vote Euro