View Single Post
Old 10-29-2016, 07:28 AM   #92
Nerwen
Wisest of the Noldor
 
Nerwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ˙˙˙ssɐןƃ ƃuıʞooן ǝɥʇ ɥƃnoɹɥʇ
Posts: 6,701
Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.
Send a message via Skype™ to Nerwen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc View Post
Well this is certainly a much more positive Day start than one would think. In this light, the possibilities to "wait it out" seem just that much better.

Which brings me back to the question we had on the Day before. On personal level, I would prefer an "active" game, but I am still wondering whether, under the circumstances (we just got a Day extra, basically) "waiting it out" isn't a better strategy. Of course, the problem with the WWs being able to kill the Gifteds and winning that way still stands. On the other hand, if they are reduced to one kill per Night, and higher number of people to choose from, their chances are thinning considerably. I am not the one for statistics, in fact I plainly dislike such "probability" calculations because real world doesn't operate that way, but still it is clear to me that less dead people = more chances for the WWs to pick a wrong kill. Also, less chance to accidentally lynch a Gifted.
They already only have one kill per Night. The other kill is ours, i.e. the lynch (unless, of course, a wolf became representative- and a wolf could subvert any general strategy). Your way, the wolves can kill us freely, while we have *no* chance to kill *any* wolves.

Quote:
And that also, incidentally, makes me think that the "waiting out" approach would force the WWs to fight on the defensive, so to say. They would be (well, I think they already are) forced to be pro-active, which means that they would have to e.g. exactly try to be impostors, try to push people towards something, simply, put themselves in danger.
Why? We're not even really looking for them, in this scenario. All they have to do is keep killing us and hope to hit the gifteds- and gifteds are rather prone to inadvertent "tells".

Quote:
It would be a "strategic" game for the village, rather than "tactical", so to say. Like I am not saying we should not lynch anyone, even toDay. Like I said, from the "playing" perspective, I would prefer that (as in, more interesting), plus there is still the fact that we pick what is our "win condition" the same way as the WWs do. But generally, we don't really learn anything from the deaths (lynches), and so on... so... well, what do you people think?
What I said yesterDay: we should exercise the no-lynch option if we simply have no idea, but we do our best to hunt wolves.

Note also that in your scenario the number of wolves vs innocents *certainly* increases (rather than possibly, as in a normal game), making it ever easier for them to control the vote- and there may well come a point where a wolf-rep could safely lynch at will.

Thiis a potential problem whatever we do, but it definitely happens if no wolves die.

Quote:
(Of course, nothing prevents us from discussing potential suspects and in the end decide that we don't want to lynch anyone toDay after all, either. Actually that might be preferable. But whatever.)

EDIT: x-ed with Nerwen
As I said, I think this decision of whether or not to lynch should be on a Day by Day basis rather than an over-arching strategy for the whole game.
Edit: x'd with Zil & Boro.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo.
Nerwen is offline   Reply With Quote