Dueling Wizards Werewolf Suggestion Thread

[Loki]

#1.
The Good side should be allowed to PM at any point during the game.
The Evil side shold only be allowed to PM at night.

===== This helps the Good side out, and they really ought to be able to PM at any time anyway. Game mechanics balance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2.
When GW and EW scry same person they discover each others' identities.
++Optional: Person may or may not be killed.

BEWARE, this may upset game balance in favor of EW. This is up to mod's discretion, as it is not a major flaw, but it can influence the swing of a close game.

===== This is another game mechanic balance. It gives the Good side a fighting chance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#3.
Hunter is just a normal Hunter. Case closed.

===== Changing this factor destroys the actual role of a Hunter, de-valuing the player's actual gaming and making them naught but a pawn for the GW. Players should be able to influence the game. This detracts from the position, and makes it a strategic move on the GW's part, with nothing to be done from the Hunter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#4.
The Hunter ought to be able to change their decision at any time.

===== This shouldn't be such a problem-- every PM contains a timestamp. The mods can sort time out as they wish. If someone could not handle this simple task, then they ought not to be mods. Plain and simple.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#5.
"And now for a new possibility to increase what I call the "Tolkien Theme" aspect: if the top vote getters are tied, no lynch for the Day. You can see the implications pretty quickly. What do you think?"

No. Bad idea.

===== If you implement this, this reduces the effectiveness of the voters/Ordos, allowing the wolves to make extra kills that night, etc. etc. This only gives the Evil side an extra advantage. Bad idea. If there's a tie, either multiple-lynch or take the first person to reach given #.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




It seems that, largely, the reason that you guys (LMP, Gurthang) do not like some these systems is because they put the Good side at a possible disadvantage. That's the point. The Evil side can fail naturally, through playing badly. The Good side can only fail through playing badly. Both sides depend largely on luck and how the game is played. Honestly, I've been saying that the Evil side has been at a huge advantage since before the game had started. Goodness knows, there's plenty of reasons why.

Bear in mind, however, that the Evil team is ALWAYS going to be at an advantage. Look at a normal WW game. The Good team could win-- with a little luck and skill. However, the Evil side is at the advantage. Let's face it, a rough tally of all of the WW game leaves the Evil side winning about 70% of the time. What makes this REALLY unbalanced is the incorporation of people picking their own wolves. This is pretty unfair, period. Just bear in mind that it's a game. There are going to be different variations, different styles, and different methods. Most of the flaws in design were instituted in trying to change things to make it more fair. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

[Loki]

IMPORTANT:

Just had a good idea. Game Moderator automatically kills off silent people. Wolves or not. If you don't participate, you don't play. Silent players are the worst problem in these sorts of games. A moderator should be able to kill a player because they haven't met an active post count.

Be strict. Be serious. If someone can't make enough posts per day, then they should have sat it out. It may not be their fault, but they ought to behave reasonably and accept that **** happens. This probably won't be implemented (everyone is so nice nowadays... so afraid to step on anyone's toes), but I figured it's worth a shot, and if I run any games, it will be implemented in them.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Loki

Bear in mind, however, that the Evil team is ALWAYS going to be at an advantage. Look at a normal WW game. The Good team could win-- with a little luck and skill. However, the Evil side is at the advantage. Let's face it, a rough tally of all of the WW game leaves the Evil side winning about 70% of the time. What makes this REALLY unbalanced is the incorporation of people picking their own wolves. This is pretty unfair, period. Just bear in mind that it's a game. There are going to be different variations, different styles, and different methods. Most of the flaws in design were instituted in trying to change things to make it more fair. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Loki makes a good point here- the WW games are all slightly unbalanced towards the evil side, and they always have been. It's the nature of the game, and it's what makes it fun to play as an ordo. The wolves know each other and can act as a team, whereas the good side cannot. That advantage has all but been eliminated in this game.

#1. I'm perfectly fine with the good side being able to PM all of the time. I've been in other games where that was the case, and it helped even things out a bit.

#2. I see no reason why this should not be the case. If it's night one, in a village of 30, that could be unfair, and certainly the person should live, though perhaps be uninformed. If we use Loki's earlier idea of the wizards sending a list to the sub mods, and the sub mods picking at random from the list, we can eliminate that problem. I would say that if both sub mods randomly picked the same person from their respective lists, then that player should go to the wizard who sent in the list first, and the other mod would pick someone else, with niether wizard ebing made aware of it. This should be for night one only, though, as the picking of certain players for certain roles is strategy and gives roles of the wizards some actual purpose other than just wolf/gifted making factories.

#3. I'd disagree that the hunter should be completely normal. A super hunter, such as what LMP has, is really unfair, but a slightly stronger hunter is okay. Make it completely normal after the death of the wizards though, since that's only fair.

#4. The only thing I see against this is the time it takes for the mod to write up a narration. If the mod is willing to deal with it, then I see no reason against it.

#5. Really, I fully agree with Loki on that one. There should always be a lynch at the end of the day, otherwise it's just an advantage for the evil team, since, beyond the hunter, there's no other way to kill the wolves, and even Superhunter couldn't handle them all.

I'm all for evening the game out. After all, it's hardly gratifying to win when everyone attribute's your victory to a slant in the rules rather than your own skill.

EDIT: Cross-posted, actually, this is implemented in most werewolf games. Mods set up a limit such as, no vote for two straight days, or no posts for a full day with out prior warning, or whatever else the mod decides to set the limit at. LMP didn't because I think he was trying to keep things from swaying too far into the Evil side's advantage.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Loki

Just had a good idea. Game Moderator automatically kills off silent people. Wolves or not. If you don't participate, you don't play. Silent players are the worst problem in these sorts of games. A moderator should be able to kill a player because they haven't met an active post count.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. People should not sign up for games if they know beforehand that they are going to be unable to post (and vote) at least once per day. Obviously, situations can arise during the game and that cannot be avoided. That's primarily what the admin thread is for. But it is not difficult to anticipate beforehand that certain factors will limit your participation. I have missed a number of games for this reason.

It is all very well to have a rule stipulating that players who do not post at least once per day will be eminated, but that still has the potential to skew the game and can give (or be used to suggest) clues about their roles. Far better that such players simply restrain themselves from playing in that particular game if they know beforehand that they will be away for a day or more. There will always be another game to play in.

That is different from saying that people's whose style is to make only a brief post once each day (or similar) should be prevented from playing. That can either be a habitual approach or a deliberately adopted tactic. Either way, the player who plays in this way takes their chances in doing so, and it is up to the other players to judeg them based on it. More often than not, they end up being lynched fairly early on.

[Loki]

Quite frankly, there are a lot of should's and would's in your words, SPaM. Unfortunately, life is not quite so simple. I agree with you, but from what I've seen, it just doesn't work that way.

I was the 6th lowest poster in the game, and I was lynched on Day 1. I SHOULD have been the person with the least posts. Other people SHOULD have left the game. Eonwe SHOULD not have only had 5 posts within a Week's time, and still lasted until the game's end. Honestly.

Even if it's a game with 30 people, 6 people is one fifth of the population. So one fifth of the population did nothing. That destroys the gameplay. Let's be honest, with numbers like this (Bear in mind that plenty of people did play, but even that FIFTH of people is a serious problem.), there really needs to be some sort of strict adherence to the rules. It's not mean, it's not being a dick, it's necessary.

[Roa_Aoife]

Well, everyone knows where I stand on non-participants....

Perhaps a compromise could be made, such as, lynch non-participants, ie. people who don't post, or don't vote, with in a certain time frame, while the wizards live, but stop after the wizards die. Or vice-versa. No offense to Eonwe, but he didn't vote for 5 days straight, and he didn't even show on the last few days. That shouldn't be allowed, as it's not really fair to either side. Far too many innocents are lynched by villagers for not participating, when the village could be going after truly suspicious people.

However, this something that should be left up to the mod of each game. Which leads me to think- we have created a whole new werewolf game. Now we'll have three games running at a time! WW, WWJ, and DWW (Dueling Wizards Werewolf). We already have a mod list started! LMP, you've created a montster.

[littlemanpoet]

I've finally hit upon the major solutions to the biggest problems with Dueling Wizards. It's really quite simple, really.

So I'm going to mod another one as soon as I can find the time. I'll go step in line on the Admin thread. Valier, are you okay with sub-modding for me?


#1: For the Good team to be able to PM twice as much as the Evil team seems unnecessary to me. Both can PM all Night long, and that will be sufficient.

#2: When EW & GW scry the same person, the EW will get a werewolf and the GW will know the player is a werewolf. 'Nuff said.

#3: I'm going to go with a normal Hunter. Here's why: with Night-time PMs, the GW, Seer, and Hunter together make a virtual "smart-bomb" for catching werewolves. There are 2 chances each Night for the good team to spot a werewolf; all that has to happen is for the GW to tell the Hunter who to pick, and SMACK one werewolf dead. .. on, and the hunter too, but a powerful effective way to go. The GW can make a new hunter the very next Night unless s/he scries a werewolf or the EW, which is even better anyway. 'Nuff said.

#4: The Hunter will be able to change his/her decision right up until 2 hours before the new Day starts. In fact, ALL Night-time decisions need to be made by 2 hours before the new Day starts. After that, it's time for the narration. 'Nuff said.

#5: tie resulting in no lynch: you guys are only seeing this from one angle. The Good team may not lynch a werewolf, but they also don't shoot themselves in the foot by lynching an innocent. The only problem they have is, that without a lynch and the voting record, there's even less to go on for making decisions. But I'm not sold on this one anyway, and won't use it unless there's a hue and cry in favor of it.

Regarding non-participating participants: I allowed for it. I allowed for a big village for non-participants because I wanted the effects of both to be felt in the game. I almost gave in, but didn't in the end. I wanted it to reflect real life such that not everybody is always on task or as committed as others. Let the village deal with it using the methods available to it. On this one I stand with Saucy: I don't want to skew the game. 'Nuff said.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Loki

Quite frankly, there are a lot of should's and would's in your words ...

This applies to all Werewolf games, not just Duelling Wizards, and so the point really belongs in the main admin threads. I have raised it there before but, as you note, it continues to be a problem.

Yes, I am talking in terms of "shoulds" and "woulds", but what would you have me do instead? Stipulate that people shall not sign up for games if they know beforehand that they are going to be unable to post (and vote) at least once per day? Not only does that smack of an inappropriate dictatorialism (people ought to be able to take responsibility themselves for not signing up in those circumstances), but it is also highly impractical. There is nothing to stop anyone signing up for a game without diclosing that they will be away for part of it. And by the time this becomes apparent, it will already be too late. The game has become skewed through the limited participation of one of the players, whether or not they are removed.

My own view is that each mod should make clear when recruiting that they expect each player to commit to at least one post per day (possibly more, if they are so inclined) and that anyone who cannot meet this expectation should not sign up. If someone nevertheless signs up and is then absent (other than as a result of unforeseen circumstances), then they are reomved from the game immediately. Serial offenders could then be treated with caution in future games. It's up to the mod of each game, but that is how I would handle it were I to mod another game.

[Diamond18]

My goodness, LMP, you are tireless. But, I would think that someone else should get the chance to mod a DW before you do it again. Maybe you could co-mod this next time around? However, since I'm not volunteering to take on head role, this is merely a cautious suggestion to hold up a bit. Others are, I'm sure, eager to have their turn at the concept.

As to what to do with non-participants, I think those who read WWJVIII know my stance... Mod Fire from Heaven, charred remains smoking on the ground, and all that. You can hardly prevent non-participants from signing up (unless you do your recruitment by invitation only) so the only way to deal with it in game is to zap them.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

#3: I'm going to go with a normal Hunter. Here's why: with Night-time PMs, the GW, Seer, and Hunter together make a virtual "smart-bomb" for catching werewolves. There are 2 chances each Night for the good team to spot a werewolf; all that has to happen is for the GW to tell the Hunter who to pick, and SMACK one werewolf dead. .. on, and the hunter too, but a powerful effective way to go. The GW can make a new hunter the very next Night unless s/he scries a werewolf or the EW, which is even better anyway. 'Nuff said.
....
#5: tie resulting in no lynch: you guys are only seeing this from one angle. The Good team may not lynch a werewolf, but they also don't shoot themselves in the foot by lynching an innocent. The only problem they have is, that without a lynch and the voting record, there's even less to go on for making decisions. But I'm not sold on this one anyway, and won't use it unless there's a hue and cry in favor of it.

I agree with both points- particularly the second. (The first I agree with more on the basic principle of "random is good" in this game.) Killing innocents (and silent innocents) is what lost the village this game, as much as rule slants. The difference is that the village has to take some of the credit for the killings.