Nobody commented on this, yet?
Not a bad idea, it could help in Lite games since they get filled fast. Not really a problem with the big games, however.
But we have to make another vote after it is over? Dude, I was just wanting it over.
-
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.
Nobody commented on this, yet?
Not a bad idea, it could help in Lite games since they get filled fast. Not really a problem with the big games, however.
But we have to make another vote after it is over? Dude, I was just wanting it over.
I would take another approach. I would split the signups into two parts: One part for first come first serve, and another part that is reserved for a period of time for the more active and skilled players.
So perhaps half are first come first serve, and the other half are held open for 24-48 hours for players the GM feels will best serve the game. If they do not get them within that time frame, then anybody can signup. We could either let the GM decide, or simply have a thread where players decide who gets first dibs on those spots. I would just let the GM decide.
Roster is the single most important factor in having a good game. At least trying to give a certain number of roster spots to the people who love the game is a good thing. Giving the GM more leeway, and allowing the GM to go beyond the first come first serve is a good way to try and deal with this problem.
Hopefully GMs will implement it then. Proper roster building would also go a long way to solving all of the other problems in Lite. Everything comes down to the roster ultimately. Subs, no votes, zombies, and inactivity could all be helped by insuring a good core of players for every Lite game. The good news is that there are plenty of good, active players around to get a roster built around them every Lite game. I think Lite could be consistently excellent with all the good players we have.
Handling it in big games is more challenging though. I am not quite sure how to handle it there.
Lite games aren't a problem IMO (I don't believe there is a problem with WWL and zombies).
The problems are with the big game and I would like to see a good solution there without too many drawbacks. And unfortunately The Arch Mede's proposal has too many negative consequences.
Would you oppose a GM rationing the signup though? Whether you think it is a serious problem or not, I would have to say it is clearly a good idea to encourage good, quality games. Do you disagree?
Ultimately, this comes down to the GM.
GMs who want to implement particular "anti-"Zombie"" policies are ALLOWED TO DO SO. No rules have been put in place (beyond Blade!'s guidelines) for what a GM can and cannot do in a Big Game (and the only restrictions in the Lite games, that I know of are the roles/traits limitations).
So if a GM wants to make a rule that players MUST make an analysis, or MUST not make several throw away votes, or must post a picture of LOLCAT, then that's the GM's prerogative. If he doesn't, then he doesn't. After all, the GM is ultimately the enforcer of all rules in, and beyond, the game.
For instance, there's a certain player who committed certain rules violations that were largely termed egregious by the community. He signed up for my recently concluded WWL game. I COULD HAVE INCLUDED HIM. I even considered doing so. In the end, I chose not to (and not because of those infamous rules violations). ultimately, that enforcement decision was up to me. The same thing is true of "anti-"zombie"" policies.
So next time some GM wants to run a game where they say that players must post an analysis, PUT IT IN THE RULES. If it works really well, and isn't hard to enforce, other GMs will adopt it and it will become the standard rule, like so many others that have been added since this game began being played on these forums 6 years ago. But I for one, who am up to GM the next Big Game, will do no such thing until some other GMs demonstrate their utility.
GMs who want to implement particular "anti-"Zombie"" policies are ALLOWED TO DO SO. No rules have been put in place (beyond Blade!'s guidelines) for what a GM can and cannot do in a Big Game (and the only restrictions in the Lite games, that I know of are the roles/traits limitations).
So if a GM wants to make a rule that players MUST make an analysis, or MUST not make several throw away votes, or must post a picture of LOLCAT, then that's the GM's prerogative. If he doesn't, then he doesn't. After all, the GM is ultimately the enforcer of all rules in, and beyond, the game.
For instance, there's a certain player who committed certain rules violations that were largely termed egregious by the community. He signed up for my recently concluded WWL game. I COULD HAVE INCLUDED HIM. I even considered doing so. In the end, I chose not to (and not because of those infamous rules violations). ultimately, that enforcement decision was up to me. The same thing is true of "anti-"zombie"" policies.
So next time some GM wants to run a game where they say that players must post an analysis, PUT IT IN THE RULES. If it works really well, and isn't hard to enforce, other GMs will adopt it and it will become the standard rule, like so many others that have been added since this game began being played on these forums 6 years ago. But I for one, who am up to GM the next Big Game, will do no such thing until some other GMs demonstrate their utility.
An analysis of the last big game, which I believe to have been determined primarily by the high number of zombies, and the GMs choice of how to deal with them heavily biassing the game to the baddies.
I think this shows that trying to control zombies within the game is entirely ineffective. The GM handled it in a way that strongly helped the wolfs, but I actually think he could not have dealt with the problem in a balanced way. The zombies put him in an impossible position.
This is why I consider it necessary to punish zombies by systematically warning and then excluding them from future games for repeat offences.
First day and 4 zombies have come out of the woodwork though the GM hasn't noticed it yet. Slinky says too much yet not enough and the wolves are happy to let him be lynched for it. 35 players survive to vote (or zombie) again
The Gms final votecount. 4 zombies and 31 votes. 32 players remain to vote (or zombie) again
Still 4 zombies (not listed by the GM), and a baddie goes down. The baddies are in real trouble at this point and if the village had known there was only one pack, they would have been horribly exposed by analysis of this vote. Unfortunately the zombies are multiplying. 28 players survive.
There are 7 zombies in addition to the 21 votes cast. Here the village has a semblance of control. Yakman is the best lynch at this point, due to his uncooperative play, but the wolves are happy to see him lynched and with the zombies aid it is easy to make sure no baddie gets into the picture. Yakman promptly subs back in as a wolf and gets a thoroughly undeserved victory as a result. He plays in a way that invites lynching, he gets lynched and he ends up with the win. 26 players surviving.
There are several mistakes in this votecount, but for once in the game the GM lists the zombies and does something about it. The zombie population has been diminished by subbing, but on this day, the preferential choice of wolf roles to receive subs, villager roles to be autolynched (including passing the leader to a wolf by autolynching the leader) and a substantial continuing zombie population swings the game decisively to the wolfs.
This is one week in and the last point at which the baddies were in any danger. From here on in they are choosing which villager to lynch as well as which to hunt.
Baddies have slipped up and outed 4 of themselves in the thread during this day. VLN and Yakman are wolves outed by Ciryander's request to sub another player while still alive, and jonti and WD are baddies outed by jonti supporting WD's vote on a dead player. The sniping also shows Euro to be a baddie. The wolves can't stop jonti being run up, but they are not put under any real pressure (several of the votes on jonti are actually baddies buffing their alibis).
The game should not be a cakewalk for the baddies, but the quantity of zombies means they effectively have parity at this point and despite the large number that are outed it is impossible to put any of them under pressure, let alone lynch them.
22 survive.
19 vote. 3 zombies. 20 survive.
15 vote. 5 zombies. 17 survive
No final vote count by the GM. Euro tries to sacrifice jonti to save himself, but the baddies are determined that he shall be lynched and the prospect of seeing Euro lynched by his packmates finally wakes up the zombies. It is highly likely the wolves could have lynched a villager here despite the zombies waking up, but it wasn't worth the risk. They hunt OY. It turns out that he is cursed, and they get parity by it.
I think this shows that trying to control zombies within the game is entirely ineffective. The GM handled it in a way that strongly helped the wolfs, but I actually think he could not have dealt with the problem in a balanced way. The zombies put him in an impossible position.
This is why I consider it necessary to punish zombies by systematically warning and then excluding them from future games for repeat offences.
gm said:
First day and 4 zombies have come out of the woodwork though the GM hasn't noticed it yet. Slinky says too much yet not enough and the wolves are happy to let him be lynched for it. 35 players survive to vote (or zombie) again
gm said:
The Gms final votecount. 4 zombies and 31 votes. 32 players remain to vote (or zombie) again
Although prior to the deadline this is the GMs final votecount. 1 player voted after this and before the deadline meaning that the zombie population is now 4 of 32. 30 survive to zombie or vote again.gm said:
gm said:
Still 4 zombies (not listed by the GM), and a baddie goes down. The baddies are in real trouble at this point and if the village had known there was only one pack, they would have been horribly exposed by analysis of this vote. Unfortunately the zombies are multiplying. 28 players survive.
gm said:
There are 7 zombies in addition to the 21 votes cast. Here the village has a semblance of control. Yakman is the best lynch at this point, due to his uncooperative play, but the wolves are happy to see him lynched and with the zombies aid it is easy to make sure no baddie gets into the picture. Yakman promptly subs back in as a wolf and gets a thoroughly undeserved victory as a result. He plays in a way that invites lynching, he gets lynched and he ends up with the win. 26 players surviving.
gm said:
There are several mistakes in this votecount, but for once in the game the GM lists the zombies and does something about it. The zombie population has been diminished by subbing, but on this day, the preferential choice of wolf roles to receive subs, villager roles to be autolynched (including passing the leader to a wolf by autolynching the leader) and a substantial continuing zombie population swings the game decisively to the wolfs.
This is one week in and the last point at which the baddies were in any danger. From here on in they are choosing which villager to lynch as well as which to hunt.
Baddies have slipped up and outed 4 of themselves in the thread during this day. VLN and Yakman are wolves outed by Ciryander's request to sub another player while still alive, and jonti and WD are baddies outed by jonti supporting WD's vote on a dead player. The sniping also shows Euro to be a baddie. The wolves can't stop jonti being run up, but they are not put under any real pressure (several of the votes on jonti are actually baddies buffing their alibis).
The game should not be a cakewalk for the baddies, but the quantity of zombies means they effectively have parity at this point and despite the large number that are outed it is impossible to put any of them under pressure, let alone lynch them.
22 survive.
gm said:
19 vote. 3 zombies. 20 survive.
gm said:
15 vote. 5 zombies. 17 survive
euro said:
No final vote count by the GM. Euro tries to sacrifice jonti to save himself, but the baddies are determined that he shall be lynched and the prospect of seeing Euro lynched by his packmates finally wakes up the zombies. It is highly likely the wolves could have lynched a villager here despite the zombies waking up, but it wasn't worth the risk. They hunt OY. It turns out that he is cursed, and they get parity by it.
Last edited:
When I had one sub but two people up for auto-lynching, I just roll a die to see who gets the sub and who dies. That may have been was Racz did as well, it wasn't necessarily preferential treatment.
Last edited:
The point about OY isn't really relevant to the argument about zombies. I should have left it out to start with. I have editted it out and taken the discussion about it to PMs with him.
The Arch Mede raises good points about zombies' effect in the game result. I know the CAWZ response would be to lynch/hunt them, but the problem is that that is just shooting your own side into the foot. I think it's a statistical fact (even though I do not have real statistics to back it up) that more often than not, zombies do not have an important role. Keep lynching them, and village is unlikely to find any wolves. Hunt them, and you'll never hit the important goodies. Besides, if a seer isn't scanning he isn't very dangerous, is he? So it's pretty clear that there is no incentive on the players' side to deal with the zombies.
I've never GMed a game so I don't know, but when you GM, do you send PMs to people if they forget to vote? Like "You haven't voted in the last two days, are you willing/able to continue or do you need a sub?" It's hard to come up with a solution to the zombie problem because in big games we don't usually have many subs, especially subs who have not died already at least once. Autolynching can have a major impact on the game balance. I think we should try to badger the people to vote or at least inform the GM if they decide to abandon the game.
Finally, a word on the so called imitation zombies. The rules decide you vote every day, but not that you reveal the reasons for your vote. If I'm the seer, I don't want to appear dangerous or clever. If I'm a baddie, and the village doesn't do analysis that's their problem, and I'm not going to help them. Okay, if someone just votes a random person every day, it's kinda lame, but that's more their problem than mine. I mean if I was that disinterested in the game, I wouldn't bother to read several pages every day.
Jopi is right, there is no incentive for the baddies to hunt, nor for the village to lynch zombies, as they are likely to be simple villagers. In my games, I only give important roles to players I know to be reliable, which may be one of the reasons zombies keep appearing. They keep signing up for games, hoping to get an important role, but when they are given a villager role, they decide the game is not worth their time, and they just abandon it.
I think TAM's suggestion for keeping zombies out is a good one. If we can't deal with zombies in-game, we need to deal with them before the game begins, and we can only do that by keeping them out.
I think TAM's suggestion for keeping zombies out is a good one. If we can't deal with zombies in-game, we need to deal with them before the game begins, and we can only do that by keeping them out.
I never understood something like this. The role doesn't decide if it will be a fun game, the player does. Sometimes I want to take a little more risk in a game, but then I am bummed because I am an important role and I feel I owe it to the other players not to blow myself up the first few days. While an important role is fun of itself it can also be a bit restricting. With the not important roles a player can go as crazy as he likes.
This is how I feel too. Made a "Noooooooooooooooo" PM back to the GM last game when I got the seer role because I felt like RPing a lot again.
I've heard people arguing like EURO before about zombies but I don't think that is the zombies' problem because I've had important roles assigned to some of the usual zombies in the game I have hosted and it makes no difference, they don't send any - or at least very few - nightly orders either. I just fail to understand why they sign up for a game.
In the big game I am usually more quiet in the beginning than during the end. Also what AOK says, in the big game lots is happening in PM-land.
You can't solely judge on the activity in the thread on big games. Certainly it is not the GM's place to punish them. If the village is looking for lynchees when they don't know what's happening, they usually will go for the ones that do not post much anyway.
People not voting should ofcourse be subbed out.
You can't solely judge on the activity in the thread on big games. Certainly it is not the GM's place to punish them. If the village is looking for lynchees when they don't know what's happening, they usually will go for the ones that do not post much anyway.
People not voting should ofcourse be subbed out.
We're talking about the people that don't vote, not the people that vote.
And most of the time there are no available subs, so the person not voting is killing his own side.
So who are these zombies we are talking about?
I scanned the summaries of the big games since we got our own subforum and here are the people that were subbed out and their roles:
(note that I haven't check how they were subbed out or why - in some cases they might well have voted every day up till a point when they needed a sub)
LXXX:
Lord Strange (wolf)
Teep (villager)
Ciryandor (wolf)
hebelcan (villager)
Capibara (villager)
LXXIX:
snoopdogg (super role)
Capibara (witness)
Quift (bodyguard)
LXXVIII:
Jensthemens (blessed villager)
Lemeard (brutal villager)
Polar Mongoose (SA villager)
rexodia48 (leader villager)
LXXVII:
-
LXXV:
okyriosy (villager with priestly powers)
Fijj (cursed villager)
Kriszo (SA MoD cursed villager)
hebelcan (SA MoD cursed villager)
von Loch Ness (villager)
LXXIV:
canadiancreed (cultist)
antracer (summary doesn't say)
Nautilu (summary doesn't say)
LXXIII:
Steed (villager)
Cuthuthulu (villager)
Polar Mongoose (wolf)
theFreeman (wolf)
Hellvink (seer)
Ahura Mazda (villager)
OrangeYoshi (villager)
Jensthemens (villager)
LXXII:
Sommel (summary doesn't say)
LXXI:
Jensthemens (SW villager)
summary incomplete so there could be more
LXX:
summary incomplete so there could be more
LXIX:
Exadus (villager)
hebelcan (villager)
summary incomplete so there could be more
LXVIII:
-
LXVII:
Teep subbed in, doesn't say for whom in the summary
LXVI:
tweek (wolf)
Eu_proof (priest's apprentice)
k-59 (priest's apprentice)
Capibara (villager)
punkbob (cursed villager)
LXV:
Flooper X (summary doesn't say)
Eu_proof (summary doesn't say)
Avernite (summary doesn't say)
Capibara (summary doesn't say)
summary incomplete so there could be more
LXIV:
Xeno subbed for Jensthemens or the other way around - summary not clear
LXIII:
Xennik (summary doesn't say)
LXII:
Capibara (villager)
Teep (villager)
tweek (priest's apprentice)
punkbob (priest's apprentice)
Lemeard (sorcerer)
Bazti (wolf)
I scanned the summaries of the big games since we got our own subforum and here are the people that were subbed out and their roles:
(note that I haven't check how they were subbed out or why - in some cases they might well have voted every day up till a point when they needed a sub)
LXXX:
Lord Strange (wolf)
Teep (villager)
Ciryandor (wolf)
hebelcan (villager)
Capibara (villager)
LXXIX:
snoopdogg (super role)
Capibara (witness)
Quift (bodyguard)
LXXVIII:
Jensthemens (blessed villager)
Lemeard (brutal villager)
Polar Mongoose (SA villager)
rexodia48 (leader villager)
LXXVII:
-
LXXV:
okyriosy (villager with priestly powers)
Fijj (cursed villager)
Kriszo (SA MoD cursed villager)
hebelcan (SA MoD cursed villager)
von Loch Ness (villager)
LXXIV:
canadiancreed (cultist)
antracer (summary doesn't say)
Nautilu (summary doesn't say)
LXXIII:
Steed (villager)
Cuthuthulu (villager)
Polar Mongoose (wolf)
theFreeman (wolf)
Hellvink (seer)
Ahura Mazda (villager)
OrangeYoshi (villager)
Jensthemens (villager)
LXXII:
Sommel (summary doesn't say)
LXXI:
Jensthemens (SW villager)
summary incomplete so there could be more
LXX:
summary incomplete so there could be more
LXIX:
Exadus (villager)
hebelcan (villager)
summary incomplete so there could be more
LXVIII:
-
LXVII:
Teep subbed in, doesn't say for whom in the summary
LXVI:
tweek (wolf)
Eu_proof (priest's apprentice)
k-59 (priest's apprentice)
Capibara (villager)
punkbob (cursed villager)
LXV:
Flooper X (summary doesn't say)
Eu_proof (summary doesn't say)
Avernite (summary doesn't say)
Capibara (summary doesn't say)
summary incomplete so there could be more
LXIV:
Xeno subbed for Jensthemens or the other way around - summary not clear
LXIII:
Xennik (summary doesn't say)
LXII:
Capibara (villager)
Teep (villager)
tweek (priest's apprentice)
punkbob (priest's apprentice)
Lemeard (sorcerer)
Bazti (wolf)
Last edited:
This is not something that can be solved overnight. There is no real short term solution. The only long term one that does not screw games even worse is to use the opening early deaths of games, the hunts and lynches based on nothing, to kill as many known zombies as possible.
When a village, or a wolfpack, is faced with a choice of a lynch or hunt target based on nothing, a decision on which no evidence is available, then kill off a zombie. There is no other way to do it. Banning people is not a good move in my opinion.