Werewolf General Planning Thread

[johho888]

Somebody voting everyday (or missing the odd vote in a big game) is not a zombie or at least not the kind of zombie that should be punished by the GM for it. Aren't we talking about the people who regurlarly join the big games and then have to be subbed out after 5-6 days because they only voted once or twice. Since I seldom play Lite games I can't say what counts for a zombie there.

 

[the_hdk]

I've got an idea for lite...

how about after each game people vote for the Best player of the game Award? the winner gets the 2nd place next to the old gm in the next game?

 

[Yakman]

yes.

people who vote are NOT zombies. they leave a voting record that can be examined.

real zombies are the non-voters.

 

[AOK. 11]

yes.

people who vote are NOT zombies. they leave a voting record that can be examined.

real zombies are the non-voters.

I would disagree with this.

In a big game a zombie definition is indeed based on non votes, however in Lite it is different. In Lite, the zombie definition has to include activity.

You can have a good big game with a relatively boring thread. If the thread in Lite is boring, then the game is boring. The point is to have fun games. The zombie issue has to reflect this.

 

[OrangeYoshi]

Somebody voting everyday (or missing the odd vote in a big game) is not a zombie or at least not the kind of zombie that should be punished by the GM for it. Aren't we talking about the people who regurlarly join the big games and then have to be subbed out after 5-6 days because they only voted once or twice. Since I seldom play Lite games I can't say what counts for a zombie there.

Yes we are talking about the no-voters with TAM's suggestion, and I agree that the imitation zombies should be killed off by the players and not the GM's.

I've got an idea for lite...

how about after each game people vote for the Best player of the game Award? the winner gets the 2nd place next to the old gm in the next game?

No.

yes.

people who vote are NOT zombies. they leave a voting record that can be examined.

real zombies are the non-voters.

And each vote may be a throw-away vote which gives you nothing to analyze, or they may vote early in the day and never come back and post again. These imitation zombies need to be eliminated ASAP.

I do not think going farther than that is a good idea. I would likely be considered a zombie by any point system, as I have had many dropouts, gone AWOLs, and no-votes over my career due to medical and real life stuff.

Which as the_hdk pointed out, could be forgiven as you has RL stuff to deal with, and you weren't actually being a zombie.

 

[Yakman]

I would disagree with this.

In a big game a zombie definition is indeed based on non votes, however in Lite it is different. In Lite, the zombie definition has to include activity.

You can have a good big game with a relatively boring thread. If the thread in Lite is boring, then the game is boring. The point is to have fun games. The zombie issue has to reflect this.

that's horse----

some people aren't sitting at their computers for hours playing Werewolf. They log in when they can, and make a vote based on what they see. That's not something that the GMs should punish.

some people also don't have the time, or the will, to do an analysis for every given vote--particularly in the early rounds. they shouldn't be ostracized or kicked out of a game. they make a vote based on what they see, and that's that. again, hardly something that damages the game

finally, there are people who make "throw away votes" those are the guys who see something about a player that they think is wolfish, or they are just randomly picking off the list and walking away. this is also something that should not be penalized. I'm often accused of this--i don't vote randomly, I often vote based off of something that I see, in a post. I don't post an analysis because THERE ISN'T ONE TO MAKE. Other times people vote randomly... you know what happens? Either they are villagers and the wolves eat them, or the village lynches them and they turn out to be wolves.

 

[the_hdk]

No.

y ?

 

[OrangeYoshi]

y ?

Because then things like meta-gaming, favortism, and simply not knowing all the details get in the way of picking who actually played the best. And perhaps the best player actually died before the end of the game, but he likely wouldn't get votes as the MVP usually goes to a player of the winning team.

 

[AVN]

I'm against this proposal.

In Lite players are in general subbed once they miss one vote. And IMO that works perfectly. During a game only a minimal number of votes are lost and this has almost never had a big influence on my analysis and the results of my games. So why change the system there when it isn't broken. Bans will only give a negative appearance to new players and we will loose players, because of these bans. A situation we certainly don't want.

In the big game missing votes are however a problem. Unfortunately a lot of GM's don't give sufficient attention to this issue. They don't record the people who are missing the vote and/or don't mention the total number of votes missed by certain players, so that they can know that they are close to getting subbed/GM-killed. Finally they tend to sub/GM-kill too late.
This can give players the idea that missing of votes is not a big deal. Or worse not sending of orders (which is similarly important) is no big deal.

But of course it's important that players vote and send their orders (if they have them) to the GM.

So from a situation where there is great tolerance for missing votes we suddenly go to a situation were missing votes is unacceptable. IMO we go a few steps too fast then and we have the big risk that we are losing lots of players for the big game in a very short period. And I don't believe we want that too.

I have checked the WW (big game) threads of the last 2 pages. Of those which had a decent administration on the 1st page I found that in general 4/5players need to be subbed during a game. I haven't checked in detail, but I assume that's mostly for missing too many votes. (players asking to be subbed happens in the minority of the cases, based on my experience).

That would mean that those players would be banned for at least one month and possibly more if they have been subbed/GM-killed before. IMO this will reduce the number of potential players we have for the big game significantly. And I don't think we can afford that.

And then we have the players who just stay within the limit by missing one or two votes during the game. Which can still have a significant influence on the game. So even with the proposed bansystem in place analysis is still negatively influenced by missed votes.

Are stricter voting rules a solution? For example limiting the amount of votes which can be missed. I'm afraid that will reduce the amount of participating players again.

The only possible solution I see is longer voting periods (2 or 3 days instead of 1). And IMO that can be combined with stricter voting rules.

And of course a stricter administration of missed votes by the GM's. But I guess that's common sense.

Just my 2 cents.

(It's not my intention to critisize the GM's too much here. But I see a certain trend in how they handle the not-voting issue. And I hope it will get more attention. Finally I'm also aware that finding subs can be difficult/impossible and that also limits the GM. I apologize if you as GM, feel too heavily atacked).

 

[Raczynski]

The only possible solution I see is longer voting periods (2 or 3 days instead of 1). And IMO that can be combined with stricter voting rules.

IMO this would lead to ever decreased activity, as people would tend to get bored over a long periods of nothing happening (and that's quite a lot of days even in the best of games)

And of course a stricter administration of missed votes by the GM's. But I guess that's common sense.

Just my 2 cents.

(It's not my intention to critisize the GM's too much here. But I see a certain trend in how they handle the not-voting issue. And I hope it will get more attention. Finally I'm also aware that finding subs can be difficult/impossible and that also limits the GM. I apologize if you as GM, feel too heavily atacked).

I'm guilty of too much lentiancy, and I already see that's a bad thing Totally non-active people who needs to be killed are plague for GM as they can wreck havoc with game balance.

 

[jonti-h]

I'd favour a warn, then kick of players who post just:

Vote EUROO7

And then piss off. They contribute nothing to the game, and make an active village impossible.

This would only be used against repeat offenders, but it is probably necessary.

 

[AOK. 11]

that's horse----

some people aren't sitting at their computers for hours playing Werewolf. They log in when they can, and make a vote based on what they see. That's not something that the GMs should punish.

some people also don't have the time, or the will, to do an analysis for every given vote--particularly in the early rounds. they shouldn't be ostracized or kicked out of a game. they make a vote based on what they see, and that's that. again, hardly something that damages the game

Correct. They should not be punished by the GM or ostracized. They should be lynched and then shot while they are hanging there.

I never said anything different.

 

[TheArchMede]

This discussion is getting sidetracked into imitation zombies.

Whether or not someone is an imitation is a matter of judgement on their style of play. Whether or not someone is a zombie is a matter of record. Either they have a vote in the thread or they are a zombie.

This is not about making judgements on playing style, it is about enforcing the rule that requires voting.

 

[Yakman]

This discussion is getting sidetracked into imitation zombies.

Whether or not someone is an imitation is a matter of judgement on their style of play. Whether or not someone is a zombie is a matter of record. Either they have a vote in the thread or they are a zombie.

This is not about making judgements on playing style, it is about enforcing the rule that requires voting.

WELL, one thing that GMs can do in big games is keep track of non-voters using a simple "*" after their name.

Get two "*"s after your name, and you get auto-lynched or subbed. Furthermore, it should become common place for players who are killed early in the game who wish to continue playing to automatically say "sub" after their deaths. Some players do this, but if more did, it would make the GM's job easier.

 

[AOK. 11]

WELL, one thing that GMs can do in big games is keep track of non-voters using a simple "*" after their name.

Get two "*"s after your name, and you get auto-lynched or subbed. Furthermore, it should become common place for players who are killed early in the game who wish to continue playing to automatically say "sub" after their deaths. Some players do this, but if more did, it would make the GM's job easier.

I do not like people subbing back in after death. Personalities and the quality of player is a huge part of the game. Letting someone back in after they are lynched or hunted is not good practice.

It ruins long term strategy. "If I get X lynched, then I can set up Y". Then X is subbed back in and it blows up. "I will hunt X to rid me of a problem". Then X is subbed back in and the hunt might as well of never happened. That simply cannot happen on a regular basis.

I oppose subbing back in after death. Occasionally subbing someone back in after an early random death, then I can deal with that. For it to become stardard operating procedure is terrible in my view. Terrible.

If it must happen, then it must happen only in the first couple of days as you mentioned. Later than that and it does more damage than it repairs. If we are having that much of a problem then we should be more careful at signup and give the GM more leeway as to who actually gets a spot.

 

[unmerged(76495)]

Indeed. When I GM, I tend to become more and more lax with missing votes as the game may go on. Some may say this is simply because I'm lazy, and they may be right. But I prefer to believe that it is for excatly the reasons AOK listed. Often in the late game, people are not hunted for their role but for who they are. Often baddies want to stop a certain line of thought or encourage it by martyring its prophet. Or imagine a baddie pack is in clear control of the village, and although they won't reach parity for another 5 days that doesn't seem like a problem because they have everything under control. Then two zombie villagers get subbed out by two highly intelligent, highly active villagers with little sense of self-preservation. Then the house of cards the baddies have built might crumble and it was none of their doing. They might have eliminated those specific players earlier, for the very purpose of stopping independent thought. Yet, they can't stop the subbing back in.

This is why I'm especially lax with subbing if the baddies are clearly winning. Their victory shouldn't be at risk because of a lucky subbing.

 

[walrus]

Get two "*"s after your name, and you get auto-lynched or subbed. Furthermore, it should become common place for players who are killed early in the game who wish to continue playing to automatically say "sub" after their deaths. Some players do this, but if more did, it would make the GM's job easier.

When I GM I'll be doing something similar to that - two *s on sequential days, and you're out, 3 *s on non sequential days

 

[Yakman]

I do not like people subbing back in after death. Personalities and the quality of player is a huge part of the game. Letting someone back in after they are lynched or hunted is not good practice.

It ruins long term strategy. "If I get X lynched, then I can set up Y". Then X is subbed back in and it blows up. "I will hunt X to rid me of a problem". Then X is subbed back in and the hunt might as well of never happened. That simply cannot happen on a regular basis.

I oppose subbing back in after death. Occasionally subbing someone back in after an early random death, then I can deal with that. For it to become stardard operating procedure is terrible in my view. Terrible.

If it must happen, then it must happen only in the first couple of days as you mentioned. Later than that and it does more damage than it repairs. If we are having that much of a problem then we should be more careful at signup and give the GM more leeway as to who actually gets a spot.

that's the thing--because there are unlimited #s of players in WW games, everyone who wants to play IS PLAYING. There simply aren't surplus players sub in.

As such, when a GM needs subs, he needs to pull them from the earlier dead players. Players killed on days one or two who are clueless villagers are perfectly reasonable substitutes.

Unless a GM decides that subbing is not going to be practiced, and that auto-lynching is the rule of the day, then dead players must be allowed to sub in. Now, I for one would not be opposed to an auto-lynching rule, but because zombie players are overwhelmingly (imle) clueless villagers, it would destroy the game balance in favor of the wolves if it became commonplace.

 

[trespoe]

I'd favour a warn, then kick of players who post just:

Vote EUROO7

And then piss off. They contribute nothing to the game, and make an active village impossible.

This would only be used against repeat offenders, but it is probably necessary.

that's horse----

some people aren't sitting at their computers for hours playing Werewolf. They log in when they can, and make a vote based on what they see. That's not something that the GMs should punish.

some people also don't have the time, or the will, to do an analysis for every given vote--particularly in the early rounds. they shouldn't be ostracized or kicked out of a game. they make a vote based on what they see, and that's that. again, hardly something that damages the game

finally, there are people who make "throw away votes" those are the guys who see something about a player that they think is wolfish, or they are just randomly picking off the list and walking away. this is also something that should not be penalized. I'm often accused of this--i don't vote randomly, I often vote based off of something that I see, in a post. I don't post an analysis because THERE ISN'T ONE TO MAKE. Other times people vote randomly... you know what happens? Either they are villagers and the wolves eat them, or the village lynches them and they turn out to be wolves.

I understand both points. I agree w/ Jonti and it drives me crazy. There are several of them, and I am not referring to Yakman here, that do it all the time. One of them has an amazing number of WWL wins, and he never gets run up, puts out analysis, or puts any amount of activity in the game from a villager or wolf standpoint. It seems if you put out analysis, and it comes out wrong, you get run up in votes. If you are quiet, you survive.

But, I need to agree w/ Yakman. You can't control real life. I am doing that a little now, and haven't been able to read as much as I normally do these last couple of days. Part of me is hoping to get lynched in the big game because of the problems w/ subs there and my possible inactivity. I can still contribute some, just not read 50 pages doing analysis.

 

[trespoe]

I do not like people subbing back in after death. Personalities and the quality of player is a huge part of the game. Letting someone back in after they are lynched or hunted is not good practice.

It ruins long term strategy. "If I get X lynched, then I can set up Y". Then X is subbed back in and it blows up. "I will hunt X to rid me of a problem". Then X is subbed back in and the hunt might as well of never happened. That simply cannot happen on a regular basis.

I oppose subbing back in after death. Occasionally subbing someone back in after an early random death, then I can deal with that. For it to become stardard operating procedure is terrible in my view. Terrible.

If it must happen, then it must happen only in the first couple of days as you mentioned. Later than that and it does more damage than it repairs. If we are having that much of a problem then we should be more careful at signup and give the GM more leeway as to who actually gets a spot.

I generally agree. This last lite was the first time I subbed in after death, and that was only because of being hunted night 1.