@Diaz
Can you really blame the town for doing this? I can't when I consider how effective it has been. Like it or not, the town has won a majority of games, and kept the wolves from winning any. The town has
played using vet reverence and it has won.
Yes. Again...as in the game that you were in you confound success with methods. Simply because you succeed using a certain set of methods does not make those methods good.
It is very clear from the trends that we have found that the reason why the town has been winning has been effectively the mod setup. With how clearly we have shown vet reverence to be terrible claiming that vet reverence is effective is like saying that eating dirt is effective at preventing sickness while on broad-spectrum antibiotics and antivirals. Sure you aren't getting sick...but eating the dirt is not the cause of your health.
I used the town's tendency toward vet reverence to my advantage. I knew I had little chance of getting lynched day 1, and was frankly surprised I came so close to being lynched. Some people claimed "he always plays like this". That just isn't true. I played like that last game, when I had a role requiring that I get voted for. In that game, I was trying to draw votes, and realized how difficult it was. I didn't, however, correct the notion that I always played like that.
I absolutely "should" have been lynched, but I knew I wouldn't be (for a little bit, I second guessed myself lol). I used vet reverence to my advantage and won, in part, because of it.
There are things that are at least as important as winning...if not more so. One is having fun. The other is becoming a better player and encouraging others to do the same.
You did not win because of vet reverence you used vet reverence to get yourself out of a hole that you threw yourself into with intentionally poor play. There are things that should not be done simply for the good of others and the good of the game in general. If winning is all that matters to you then consider the fact that winning is hollow and worthless when it is virtually a foregone conclusion. Also consider that victory is worthless when everyone is playing terribly. I understand the drive to win and it is not a drive that is sated by not being skilled. It is sated by playing your A game against other very good players and winning. For as long as you continue to place the win above skill, your victories are hollow.
SS7 is a vet. He was lynched Day 2. It's not like the town completely refuses to lynch vets, there is just a higher standard of arguement needed to lynch an expectl strong player. In a game where the number of townies is greater than the number of wolves, keeping strong players around will cause a better end-game for the town. I think it is valid for the town to take into account past usefulness of certain players and keep them in the game.
I would expect the wolves to take this into account as well. I know going into werewolf games as a townie, that there is a target on my back at night. Do you think the wolves shouldn't take into account the past strength of players? Ikrit would have had a huge target on his back each night early on if he were playing under his usual account. He used a fake account to gain an advantage last game. Did he violate the rules? (He probably didn't violate WW rules, but one could argue he did violate 'gym rules) I'm not sure. If he didn't, it was a great tactic that I wish I had thought of. If he did, it was cheating.
I don't think you are correct here. You should not place a higher value on previously better players because you do not know their alignment. Furthermore, you are assuming their town-alignedness and the current brokenness of IRs on the gym when you say it is better for the town to keep around a previously good player who is playing poorly.
You might be surprised about the target on your back. KP actually told me that he was keeping you around effectively just because you kept leading the town poorly.
I was not doing this to win. I was doing this to gather data. Indeed if your faction wins you win, so me staying alive was not the important part.
I think an issue with Anon games came to light this past game. Ikrit and another player were about to talk about the game, and Ikrit was forced to stop the other player (I don't remember right now who it was.) by telling the other player that he was in the game. IMO this also walks the line on cheating. The other player knew something that the rest of us didn't, and he got that info from outside conversation. It was better that Ikrit told the truth so as not to let the other player reveal even more info, but it is far from ideal. If we ever have an anon game, we should enforce a rule of not talking about the game to anyone, because no one knows who is playing and who isn't
I agree. However keep in mind this issue came up in a non anon game. This means that AT was safe in the assumption that I was not playing because Ikrit was not in the game. In an anon game it is important to not talk with other WW players about WW even if you don't think they are playing.
Also: My understanding has always been that faction win is your win. Otherwise you have people who are more worried about surviving than making good plays.
@Pika
I don't think it hasn't helped, I think continuing and dragging discussion out isn't helping. The point has been made and beaten to death, so I just fail to see how continuing talking is going to help anything.
And yet others are still disagreeing and claiming that the point has not been made and/or is incorrect.
We can analyze the current meta, but until we get a balanced, non-anonymous game on the 'Gym to start the new meta, again, dragging the discussion out isn't helping, I don't think. But maybe that's just my opinion.
Hence why I am getting ready to start the next game
.
Although I think that an anon game is the first step toward a correct meta.
But it's his poor playing that made me think he wasn't a wolf. COMPLETELY within the game, that game, and no other game. It could've been any player who posted how Diaz did and I wouldn't have pegged them as a wolf. Why? Because quite frankly, I don't think a wolf would be that stupid. Especially day 1. I still would've gone for PM, although I do admit that if Diaz hadn't been a good player in the past, he would've been lynched by other players. Just my personal reason why.
That is not what you said in game. That is not what you claimed in game. That is not what anyone else said in game. You repeatedly said in game that the reason he should be kept around was that there was no evidence against him whatsoever. You also repeatedly defended him because he was a "good" player and because he was a "vet".
Besides that, this does not jibe with what you are still currently saying. If you think that playing badly reads town because wolves would not be that stupid then you have NO reason to claim that you would have voted PMysterious day one, as both he and Diaz were playing very very badly.
As such it is very very clear that the reason why you went after PMysterious and not Diaz is entirely different from them having bad play, etc.
I'm not saying a personal bias. What I'm saying is that the "vets" are called "vets" because they are good players. Usually a new player is going to tend to play worse, or just make more mistakes than a vet, simply because he's a new player. So unless we say "oh, he's new, don't lynch him for that mistake" the same way people have been saying "oh, he's a vet, don't lynch him because of a bad post because he's a vet", they're going to tend to get lynched first.
No. Vets are called vets because of how many games they have played in. It is based on their supposed "experience". We have seen new players come in and play better then vets on multiple occasions.
Besides this, if new players make more mistakes than vets why is it necessary to call them new players or call vets vets. If their play determines how good they are than shouldn't it also be simply their play that either condemns them or exonerates them?
Why should they be given free passes for having played well in the past when they are playing horrible now?
However I think that newness or oldness should not play a factor in getting lynched or not getting lynched. I don't think that we should keep supposed "newbs" around because they are new...just as we should not keep supposed "vets" around because they have played before.
