Yes, I am experimenting but as long as you can have two ongoing lites, it is not a problem, is it?
-
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.
Yes, I am experimenting but as long as you can have two ongoing lites, it is not a problem, is it?
All the Bigs I've been in (last four or five?) have followed the same lines as Johho's, and mine would have been in much the same vein if I'd done it. As for Lite, my original proposal turned out to be exactly the same as one of the formats used by Ironhead back in the day, with a GA replacing the seer and slight tweaks to villager numbers. Of course, no one has payed much attention to what my first choice proposal is, and I haven't gotten in first with GMing it myself
I like experimenting so I have been thinking about various different setups and rule changes. One of the things that's been bothering me is the importance of the deadline.
One thought I had to correct that was to disallow vote switching. In a way, it might not solve my deadline issue, but it would mean that everyone has to take their one vote pretty seriously.
Another thought was to have all votes by PM, revealing the final count but not who voted for whom. You're allowed to 'vote' in the public thread but they don't count. Of course, people not revealing their votes are suspicious and when the official count doesn't match the public count, people have a lot of info to go on.
One thought I had to correct that was to disallow vote switching. In a way, it might not solve my deadline issue, but it would mean that everyone has to take their one vote pretty seriously.
Another thought was to have all votes by PM, revealing the final count but not who voted for whom. You're allowed to 'vote' in the public thread but they don't count. Of course, people not revealing their votes are suspicious and when the official count doesn't match the public count, people have a lot of info to go on.
I've been thinking the same thing since Meso I. People complained even then, and yet j-L has stated clearly, repeatedly, that it's okay to have 2 non-Big games at any time, so long as people play in only one at a time. And yet no one has started a Stock Lite (I'd do it myself, even though I support tinkering, but it would need to wait until my study break next week).
If I know enough will sign up, at least 12 players needed though not everyone needs to say here, to make a normal lite work I will fire up a thread by tonight.
??
??
We can only barely fill one lite at a time. I don't think trying to run two will work very well.
This would be pretty fun to try actually imo. And make the seer a more skillful role too. I don't know where the 2:1 is coming from though, for how long? I think the whole idea of making a true optimal setup is rather flawed though, as the closer we come to playing a solved game the more boring it gets. Complete success would just mean having to change the setup again.
This would be pretty fun to try actually imo. And make the seer a more skillful role too. I don't know where the 2:1 is coming from though, for how long? I think the whole idea of making a true optimal setup is rather flawed though, as the closer we come to playing a solved game the more boring it gets. Complete success would just mean having to change the setup again.
Having the seer unable to PM? I'd enjoy that, and it would make the seer a much more skillful role I agree. But there seemed to be some pretty strong opposition to ruling out PMs.
As for some of the other proposals: I agree that there are a lot of things that could be tweaked that might imprive the game here, but it's no good rushing round changing everything in one go or doing nothing but experiments. For all I'm advocating change, I think it should be little steps. Meso was tried and (probably predictably) didn't work. Now we're trying just villagers vs wolves, and while I suspect it won't work it's what we're trying. If we're trying another experimental setup next, it should be another small change - cutting PMs OR GA instead of seer OR some sort of wolf sorcery. I don't think we need to be looking at voting procedures or keeping track of the number of PMs sent or whatever else when we can't get the basic game right yet.
I'd enjoy that as much as your mom enjoyed joeb last night. (Read: not at all)
For all you know joeb could be my father. Which would put his earlier banter with me in an entirely new and entirely disturbing light.
Regardless, why the objection to no PMs? And please note that I've stated I'm not proposing changing this with the opposition I've seen.
Go back and read the first and second games of werewolf on this forum. Specifically, The Gonzo.
Of the last 10 LITE games, the village won 6 and the wolves won 4.
I would argue that we have too many new players who don't know how to play as wolves.
Also, if you go 4 days without hunting the seer, you have not immediately lost the game. Whoever thinks that is a moron.
I would argue that we have too many new players who don't know how to play as wolves.
Also, if you go 4 days without hunting the seer, you have not immediately lost the game. Whoever thinks that is a moron.
I went back further than the 9 valid result games of those 10 when asked. Still 2:1 under 12/4/1 or 9/3/1. And considering that I went back nearly a year and a half and only found one game where the wolves won without hunting the seer by their fourth hunt, and several occaisions where they hunted the seer before then and still got beaten by the JL remnants... Sorry, your argument is lacking substance.
What you're saying would imply that the 50% ratio of wins in the WW history post is either a lie, or else completely and drastically changed with the recent games.
"Recent games" being the last 20 since February, which has seen a dramatic shift in the player base from a cycle of 30 players to the same 17 playing over and over again?
What I do think, however, is that streaks happen and we shouldn't freak out about the game being unbalanced just yet. However, I've always thought the seer was too strong in WWL, so I am in favor of finding an alternative.
No, I'm saying that a lot of those wolf wins came under different rule variations or with sub-optimal villager play. Looking through the archives made it clear that 12/4/1 and 9/3/1 are far from universally accepted setups. And the difference between old school players and the new set has been well discussed. Sudden vote switches and chaotic behaviour makes the wolves' lives much easier. That style of play is deliberately sabotaging your chances as a villager simply to give you more of a chance the 1/4 times you're a wolf.
Sudden vote switches and chaotic behavior was NOT par for the course when I first started playing this game. AOK was considered one of the most brilliant people to play the game, and it was years before he came up with his "third party switch" style.
I consider you to be a lot like the early AOK, Capt. Kiwi. At least in the way you analyze things. A lot of those older players were brilliant players and great at analysis. Don't flatter yourself in saying "new" players are simply better villagers than the old ones. I am glad that we have had a surge of players willing to analyze and avoid crazy third person switches. You've also had reis91, tamius23, and Boris ze Spider playing in all these recent games. They have certainly not been "ideal" villagers. It seems more reasonable to me to say the "new" players are simply worse wolves (and frankly, more of this game depends on how wolves play than on how villagers play, a perfect villager won't catch a perfect wolf, but an imperfect villager may catch an imperfect wolf).
12/3/1/1 was the standard universally accepted setup when I joined (3 wolves, 1 sorc, 1 seer). They removed the sorc and added an extra wolf, because they felt the 12/3/1/1 setup gave the goodies way too much of an advantage (the wolves always ended up hunting the sorc before he could get in contact). That 12/4/1 setup was agreed on, and played for years with no complaints. 12/4/1 is easily the most universal and accepted setup. 12/4/1 has been played more often than every single other type combined. It would be impossible to have a near 50% win ratio if 12/4/1 was so imbalanced.
I consider you to be a lot like the early AOK, Capt. Kiwi. At least in the way you analyze things. A lot of those older players were brilliant players and great at analysis. Don't flatter yourself in saying "new" players are simply better villagers than the old ones. I am glad that we have had a surge of players willing to analyze and avoid crazy third person switches. You've also had reis91, tamius23, and Boris ze Spider playing in all these recent games. They have certainly not been "ideal" villagers. It seems more reasonable to me to say the "new" players are simply worse wolves (and frankly, more of this game depends on how wolves play than on how villagers play, a perfect villager won't catch a perfect wolf, but an imperfect villager may catch an imperfect wolf).
12/3/1/1 was the standard universally accepted setup when I joined (3 wolves, 1 sorc, 1 seer). They removed the sorc and added an extra wolf, because they felt the 12/3/1/1 setup gave the goodies way too much of an advantage (the wolves always ended up hunting the sorc before he could get in contact). That 12/4/1 setup was agreed on, and played for years with no complaints. 12/4/1 is easily the most universal and accepted setup. 12/4/1 has been played more often than every single other type combined. It would be impossible to have a near 50% win ratio if 12/4/1 was so imbalanced.
Okay, many people here still believe that the setup of the lite needs to be revamped - here is an another piece of 3rd-party info to the discussion (I am not saying that all described cases are valid for our setups)
banned
banned
Last edited:
I sort of feel we need a Werewolf Tactics and Strategy thread...but...since it seems to come up a bit here...
Analysis...I'm sure it is my lack of experience and limited background in game and information theory...but almost all of it ends up yielding results far far below what I'd consider significant. On top of that, I get the impression that mostly the game moves by emotional hunches and so is highly highly biased by whichever names randomly came under focus early on. There seems to be a lot of over-confidence in fairly noisy signals.
So as a request for the wiser and more accomplished players of the game, I'd love to see a discussion of general heuristics, methods, and systems used...as well as possibly any analysis of the performance of those systems. This isn't just game theory, it is psychology, it is manipulation...lessons could have wide-applicability both as goodies and baddies in other contexts.
Analysis...I'm sure it is my lack of experience and limited background in game and information theory...but almost all of it ends up yielding results far far below what I'd consider significant. On top of that, I get the impression that mostly the game moves by emotional hunches and so is highly highly biased by whichever names randomly came under focus early on. There seems to be a lot of over-confidence in fairly noisy signals.
So as a request for the wiser and more accomplished players of the game, I'd love to see a discussion of general heuristics, methods, and systems used...as well as possibly any analysis of the performance of those systems. This isn't just game theory, it is psychology, it is manipulation...lessons could have wide-applicability both as goodies and baddies in other contexts.
Psychology works, sometimes. Some players are more susceptible than others, however. The problem is that revealing such techniques has an impact on future behavior (whether they are good or crap techniques).
There is one problem. When joeb says that I am not an ideal villager, he is totally right. Ideal villagers are predictable, so that behavior analysis can clear them more easily. However, a clever wolf will take advantage of that predictability. And so villagers must become more unpredictable, to avoid being read by wolves. When we introduce the Seer role, even more so. And this allows wolves to be unpredictable too, so this becomes quite a conundrum.
There is one problem. When joeb says that I am not an ideal villager, he is totally right. Ideal villagers are predictable, so that behavior analysis can clear them more easily. However, a clever wolf will take advantage of that predictability. And so villagers must become more unpredictable, to avoid being read by wolves. When we introduce the Seer role, even more so. And this allows wolves to be unpredictable too, so this becomes quite a conundrum.