-
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.
Edit: Already sorted out, it seems. This moves fast...
Somehow I feel like all that was directed against me?
I guess that would be fine, I will sort it out in a bit today and then after the update from tomorrow.
EDIT:: Oh right, sorted then it seems.. Thanks J-L
There's plenty of blame to go around, you needn't take it all.
I was protecting the village from TIE loving snipers.
With a working JL and the seer still alive there is no reason to create a last minute TIE unless orchestrated by the JL.
.png){kind=avatar}
I feel that says less about me and more about the general weakness of cases yesterday.
kthxbai!
Well, that's good actually.
I'll admit I'm still learning the game. I wouldn't call myself a good player, certainly not when it comes to methodical play and analysis. I'm better as a wolf when I can use crazy tactics and such, still not really good, but as a villager I do have much room for improvement. A bit over-excited, too easily swayed, and basically maybe not taking this seriously enough. But I guess I'll improve, right?
More precise criticism on what exactly I can improve is very welcome, I always try to take that into account
Arkansas was a really bad lynch option today I tried to explain on #1718 and was totally ignored...
Anyway...
Vote vainglory
Anyway...
Vote vainglory
Ive started on first page update, will update fully tomorrow... Just goto first post and follow link J-L has kindly done..
I'm not going to quote all the posts I'm replying to, but re: "vote analysis":
There's a difference between simply going back and looking at someone's final vote, and going back and looking at when and where there votes were. Methodical play is about making sure all votes either matter (or lose the power of manipulation). When votes matter you can go back and see what effect may have been intended by them. It's not important that a villager hasn't killed a wolf, when all the people they've voted are alive; it is important if they tried to engineer a situation where a certain player could live - and that player was a wolf. There are so many packs that some of those unlynched candidates are bound to be wolves too. We're not looking for the people who voted them instead of known wolves, we're looking for people who tried to get people to not vote the known wolf.
There's a difference between simply going back and looking at someone's final vote, and going back and looking at when and where there votes were. Methodical play is about making sure all votes either matter (or lose the power of manipulation). When votes matter you can go back and see what effect may have been intended by them. It's not important that a villager hasn't killed a wolf, when all the people they've voted are alive; it is important if they tried to engineer a situation where a certain player could live - and that player was a wolf. There are so many packs that some of those unlynched candidates are bound to be wolves too. We're not looking for the people who voted them instead of known wolves, we're looking for people who tried to get people to not vote the known wolf.
That presents problems of its own. Any pack, MORE SO in this game with 3 packs-each presumably smaller than the usual pack size, will have only a small pool of players it need to "protect". A fairly large number of people, total, in both total numbers and proportion-wise will probably not vote any given candidate (sans firm evidence like an outing), so it's huge assumption that "did not vote"="protecting".
And even that is based on the often shake notion that wolfs vote to save packmates. If anything, getting lucky and landing a vote on an opposing pack as a wolf is usually seen, unfairly, in my mind, as less suspicious than a villager with no insider contacts who has been unable to successful deciding a good candidate to vote. Meanwhile, a baddie will point out having voted a wolf 3 or four days ago as some sort of alibi.
And even that is based on the often shake notion that wolfs vote to save packmates. If anything, getting lucky and landing a vote on an opposing pack as a wolf is usually seen, unfairly, in my mind, as less suspicious than a villager with no insider contacts who has been unable to successful deciding a good candidate to vote. Meanwhile, a baddie will point out having voted a wolf 3 or four days ago as some sort of alibi.
Which is why I focussed on looking at people who caused a specific candidate not to be voted, rather than just the ones they didn't vote. Voting a front runner further out will cause people to vote the trailing candidates (and/or shift off the original leader), and if followed by a switch off the early front runner may be a sign of protection of that person. EUROdynamics, pretty much. Another common one is to vote on a person, so that the person you've voted is forced to shift their vote to save themselves - and therefore protecting the person they were originally voting, who may have only been on the fringes of the race.
One instance is never enough, but you start looking for people making those kinds of votes, and if it's often enough it means they know something.
That's still more thought involved than most wolves seem to usually use.