Werewolf LXXII: Now There's the Truth of It! (Game Thread)

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Firstly, the main difference between this and other games is that instead of voting who we want to go, we're voting who we want to say. This means that instead of having to not seem guilty as in the usual game, you actually have to try to seem useful and get people's confidence.

You're hitting the nail in the head here Eönwë.

I'd like to make just one add-on to that.

I was just a while ago championing this new way of playing as a way to make the submarines post and be active, but with a second thought I can see the downside of this as well.

In order to get people's confidence - or good-will, if you wish - the wolves (and ordos as well) need to be smooth and liked eg. they can't afford suspecting others heavily. And that attitude could kill a game.

We need suspicions to get reactions, we need openly argued suspicions to see where a wolf might try to hide, we need suspicions to get things rolling... even if the official votes will be votes of confidence.

It's Day1 to be sure, but how many suspicions have you registered thus far? How many posts have been posted thus far?

It might be not only because of the timezones or sudden RL-hindrances. The game-mechanics encourage a kind of "be easy", "do not meddle with other people" way of playing so as not to get bad publicity? If it is that, it works into the hands of the wolves.

So let's change that.

[Isabellkya]

I tend to always look at it numerically. On the first Day, the chances of getting a wolf are slim. It does happen, but it is the exception, not the rule.

On another side. This style can heavily "reward" those that are on the louder side. If you get noticed by a lot of banter, and not so much actual posting - then you might get votes to be saved. But should one whom is banterloud be saved above one whom may be quiet, but no banter? How do you figure in the possible lupine genes into that?


X'd with Miss Moddess, Pitchwife, Eonwe, and Mr. CoMod.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by The Moddess

Tell me how I could top my last game and I'll do it. Until then, hush. Nyah.

You're quite right, sorry. Damn consumer mentality getting the better of me...

[the phantom]

Come on, people, show a bit of flare! I can understand discussing mechanics and such, but let's see some fire. Don't just suggest things, or put forth the idea that it may be intelligent to do certain things, but rather put forth a bold plan and state, "We are going to do this!" and state in no uncertain terms that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

You may protest on the grounds that displaying such an attitude will trigger a backlash, but that's not a bad thing. That will give you a legit reason to lynch people on the grounds that they are irrational and wrong for arguing. And it's even better if no one adopts your good idea, for then you can sit back and shout "I told you so!" when things go wrong.

Being a star isn't about winning every little point- it's about character and standing out, and sometimes it's about everyone hating you. If you are universally loathed you are in much higher standing than someone who is generally liked during the rare moments he is actually thought of by someone. For the most part, people love individuals who push their emotional buttons, one way or another. In general it is only slightly less fun to hate a team/person/thing than it is to love.

Trust me- if you tick everyone off early, it will help you in the long run (assuming you know the proper time to turn their attitudes in the later stages).

[Mirandir]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Trust me- if you tick everyone off early, it will help you in the long run (assuming you know the proper time to turn their attitudes in the later stages).

Says the one who went insane Night 0.

Originally Posted by Nienna

Electing a wolf as Simon won't be good but I also don't think it would be tragic... at least not at this stage of the game. We need to use our votes to pick someone who would be reasonable as Simon but we also need to make sure we use our votes to lynch someone. That is how we will get rid of wolves. That is how we will win.

This is a sound point, at least for the first couple Days. After that the ratio of wolves to innocents in the village would make it disastrous and we'd just be handing them the win.

Those last two sentences worry me though. Something just feels off about them. Dunno if it's anything to actually worry about it not, so will leave it alone for now and see if anything more comes of it.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Oh... I mean... uh... if I have to treat of this like a celebrity: "I deny the whole thing, but I'm checking into rehab, anyway. Buy my movies and albums."

Heh.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

So maybe we should actually vote for the crazy and confusing people?

Deal. See ya, Nog.

[Inziladun]

So the debate at this point is whether to indicate who we would be voting to lynch in a normal game, as a marker to those who might be reading up on things just before DL?
I can't see any real reason not to do it, because it could yield something valuable when analyzing the lynch the following Day. It's not only the way people vote that's noteworthy, but what they say about the person under the gun.
Now, trouble finding people who look off on Day 1 is usually a failing of mine; there's just very little to go on.
Here, mostly what we have has to do with the Night 1 false start, which to me stills looks fairly inconclusive about those who posted then. Lottie's quickness to condemn them does make her look somewhat shifty, at least compared to everyone else.
Aside from that, there's the aforementioned debate over airing our suspicions.
As I said earlier, I also didn't like Nienna's 51 where she said this:

That is how we will get rid of wolves. That is how we will win.

That's really more of a feeling, though, as I don't know she's said anything else that makes me suspect her.

If I had to vote for the trusted ones right now, I think Brinn would be there, followed by Nog, and maybe Nerwen. I'm not as clear on who the fourth might be. But those three seem to have made generally good points, with nothing indicating furriness to me.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Isabellkya

But should one whom is banterloud be saved above one whom may be quiet, but no banter? How do you figure in the possible lupine genes into that?

But that's the whole point of this game. It forces people to be louder, whether actually being "useful", or just bantering.

Also, I think my last post had a bit of a "Don't suspect" attitude. By all means, suspect away, just don't overdo it by making a "who-I-want-to-lynch" system.


edit: x-ed with many

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The game-mechanics encourage a kind of "be easy", "do not meddle with other people" way of playing so as not to get bad publicity? If it is that, it works into the hands of the wolves.

Ah, but does it? It forces everyone (including the wolves) to the forefront, and once something happens, people will feel like they have to make a "useful" contribution, and then it will be more easy to find suspicious responses.

Of course, that is not to say we should not talk about our suspicions. Of course that's not the case- suspicions are the most important thing we have. But by focusing on the positive (the people we find innocent), it will force people to talk more and about who they trust (which doesn't happen often, or even ever, in a normal game) and so by a certain point we will have a lot to go on, maybe even more evidence than in a normal game (on the other hand, the spreading out of votes makes it harder to see who they like).

So basically, I think that because the nature of the game is positive, focusing too much on the negative early on will complicate matters further. Later on (Day 3 probably, Day 2 is barely ever productive even normally), we will have a lot more evidence with which to incriminate people, but for now it is probably best to focus on the positive side this early on.

[Nogrod]

It's such a rollercoaster-drive with you Eönwë...

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Of course, that is not to say we should not talk about our suspicions. Of course that's not the case- suspicions are the most important thing we have. But by focusing on the positive (the people we find innocent), it will force people to talk more and about who they trust (which doesn't happen often, or even ever, in a normal game) and so by a certain point we will have a lot to go on, maybe even more evidence than in a normal game (on the other hand, the spreading out of votes makes it harder to see who they like).

This I think I might agree on. I'm not sure focusing solely on the positive side is a good idea, but the "evidence" thus begotten will be different and interesting to read on D2.

I just don't see how can't one perform the two things at the same time: say one trusts X because of this and that, and say that one suspects heavily Y because of this and that?

My problem in the beginning of this conversation was that no one seemed to suspect anyone - and thence getting a wolf would be the most random thing, something we'd wish to avoid.

[Nogrod]

Okay. I had a cigarette and managed to formulate my point hopefully in a better way.

A ww-game is a game where we need to lynch the baddies.

To lynch a baddie we need to have an idea who might be a baddie.

In this game the voting-mechanics work in the way that we vote for those we trust. But that doesn't mean that we are not allowed to think who is furry. Or that trying to figure out who is furry would be against the spirit of the game!

Trying to figure out who is furry is still the aim of the game - and the only way we can win.

With the given game-mechanics (votes of confidence rather than votes for lynching) it just means we need to be even more alert both ways as our votes are not lynch votes, but indirectly. And everyone voting, especially those voting in the last hour, should be really on top of things.

One way of achieving that would be that we would not only make the confident-votes but would also make it clear whom we do suspect.

I can't see anyone but a wolf disagreeing with that point.

Talking only of whom we trust would play to the hands of the wolves - and make this game a boring one.

EDIT: X'd with the phantom... and agreeing...