Pre-XVII Werewolf Metagame Analysis

[Ikrit]

Logistically it's gong to be a nightmare to setup. WW is a lot of work for the mods to begin with. It's one thing for a Global mod to set up 11 temporary accounts, it's a complete new story to make 30+ for the 'gym. Organizing everything would just get to an unnecessary level of complexity.

1. Yes it will be/has been difficult. However setting up an anon game for 40 people was not as much of a nightmare as you seem to think it would be.
2. Actually the complexity is made entirely on the front end. Once you make the accounts you can endlessly reuse them with no further work.
3. At this point we are talking about ideals not implementation...although I can assure you the implementation is not has hard as you think it is.

I think that while in an ideal world all WW games should be played "within the game" so to say, this is very rarely the case not only on 'gym, but other sites as well. Even real life mafia (deck of cards style), other factors such as personal metas and reputations (vets) come into play. I think that this is part of the game and shouldn't be blanketly discouraged.

1. Either playing within this one game is ideal or it is not ideal. You cannot say that it is the best way for things to be while saying that the things that are not the best should not be discouraged.
2. I do get what you are saying, but I think most of us who have looked elsewhere can agree that the gym is terrible about this.
3. Furthermore, I am not advocating that we do not bring things from one game into another...simply that we do not bring awe and reverence for how one player played from game to game.
4. As I said the question is not if these things come into play, but rather if they should come into play.

Obviously the vet's shouldn't be worshipped or anything. But every player should at least take into consideration that player X has Y amount of experience when making decisions based around that player.

1. Why? If anything...the only thing that them having more experience should do is make players more wary of them.
2. More experience does not correlate to more skill. There are players with tons of experience who are not good and there are players with virtually no experience that are very good.
3. When you treat someone differently based on experience or perceived skill, bad things happen. You give their ideas more credence while ignoring others. The ideas and plays are what matters not what someone has been capable of in the past.

If a player's playstyle changes considerably between games it should also be taken into consideration. All these factors can be used in conjunction to form reads on players etc. This has all been said before.
Anon games would take this away.

We have already dealt with that.

One should always evaluate a player based on their play in current games above all else. It has been argued that it is necessary to examine current game playstyle of a player in contrast with previous game playstyle for the purpose of determining OOC play. While this can on occasion lead to good reads on alignment, it seems clear that it causes a more negative effect by which players are tied to their previous play style. This also leads to a meta stagnation, and as such the negative effect is more grievous than the small advantage it affords the town...which has already been demonstrated to be unnecessary.

Would I refuse to play an anon game? Not in the slightest. Heck I wouldn't mind trying just to give it a go. But I wouldn't want to see it become a permanent thing. WW is a game of deduction, and part of it is using these factors to your advantage. It just so happens that in more recent games the town as a whole hasn't done a very good job and has gone instead for Blind Faith in the vets etc.

1. Totally agree not to make anon a permanent thing.
2. Anon is being thrown around as treatment for the issues we have outlined.
3. Possibly a periodic treatment like every 6th game is anon or something along those lines
4. Possibly a one time treatment.

------------------------------------------
Also as to why I played Cantor.

Some of this had been dealt with, but I wanted to see exactly how much vet reverence had been changing the play of the gym. I was convinced before WWXV that it was an issue.

I am now convinced that it is a major issue. Furthermore that vet reverence not only makes vets be listened to and trusted more, but that new players are listened to and trusted less. I thought that I was noticing this just from my change in perspective, but for that the two players, SS7 and AT who knew were valuable.

The agreed that what I was saying was in large part being ignored or dismissed out of hand simply because of who I was playing as.

All this to say that the results were much worse than I expected...that the conditions on the gym for new players are much worse than you would expect them to be.

In many instances players would disagree with what I was saying...almost blatantly because they were calling me a newb, or because I was attacking veteran players.

This is part of the behavior that dealing with people based on their perceived experience leads to.

 

[Sandslash7]

To be fair, it was pretty obvious Steelix picked up a new role, that wasn't hard to believe. It just seemed silly to go out and say "guess what guys, ive got a new role" and not tell us what it is....I'm sure if you would have actually said I'm the new seer, you probably would have lived......saying you had a new role and not telling the town what it was was pretty silly all around imo.


And cabd I wasn't 3/10 I was 3/4 I only put in 4 guesses so that means I win right? =D I didn't guess everybody because I didn't know the 6p players well enough. (I really only played half a game with them)

SS7 assuming you're marshtomp, why'd you come out so hard against me? It pretty much screamed "wolf". (I supposed thats because I had the benefit of knowing I didn't have a role)

All and all this was pretty fun, I knew Sableye was Napoleon right away, it seemed pretty obvious just based on his posts. If only I could read scum that obviously!



I'd just like the point out that I was correct in saying that ninetales fire abilities had to do with the night kill! =D

Assuming you are Carvanha, I came out hard at you because I wanted to be consistent. I made a point of stating who my suspicions were and voting strongly for them. I didn't want to be seen hesitant or timid on D3 when I hadn't been on the other days.

Additionally, I also thought that you were wolfy and could be lynched. I didn't expect Ferroseed to be lying about his role.

 

[Pikamaster]

1. 
   
   I am now convinced that it is a major issue. Furthermore that vet reverence not only makes vets be listened to and trusted more, but that new players are listened to and trusted less. I thought that I was noticing this just from my change in perspective, but for that the two players, SS7 and AT who knew were valuable.
   
   The agreed that what I was saying was in large part being ignored or dismissed out of hand simply because of who I was playing as.
   
   All this to say that the results were much worse than I expected...that the conditions on the gym for new players are much worse than you would expect them to be.
   
   In many instances players would disagree with what I was saying...almost blatantly because they were calling me a newb, or because I was attacking veteran players.
   
   This is part of the behavior that dealing with people based on their perceived experience leads to.

1. 
   
   Ikrit, I agree with you on many points, but not here. Yes, it's an issue, but telling people that it's an issue and to stop isn't going to work, nor is one anonymous game, or even a couple, going to work. We can argue how big of an issue it is all day, but in the end it's the players who need to change how they play.
   
   If people ignore what the new players say, that's their loss. I know that ProHawk grabbed my attention, as did KP, and Cantor. I didn't agree with everything they said, but I didn't agree with everything the vets said. I didn't exactly comment on much of anything until late game. If players are deciding to ignore the new people and brush them off, they're going to need to see why this is bad. The town hasn't been losing because of it (due to other factors, granted, but they haven't), so how are they going to see that they need to change? It hasn't been making the town lose.
   
   Basically, Ikrit, I think you need to actually do something other than just talk. You and everyone else who's saying that this is so important and have something planned for it, do it! A student isn't likely to start studying if he never gets a failing grade and has no incentive, I don't see why most people are going to stop doing what works unless they get that incentive.

 

[Ikrit]

Ikrit, I agree with you on many points, but not here. Yes, it's an issue, but telling people that it's an issue and to stop isn't going to work, nor is one anonymous game, or even a couple, going to work. We can argue how big of an issue it is all day, but in the end it's the players who need to change how they play.

This is why it is under "personal playing issues".

If people ignore what the new players say, that's their loss. I know that ProHawk grabbed my attention, as did KP, and Cantor. I didn't agree with everything they said, but I didn't agree with everything the vets said. I didn't exactly comment on much of anything until late game. If players are deciding to ignore the new people and brush them off, they're going to need to see why this is bad. The town hasn't been losing because of it (due to other factors, granted, but they haven't), so how are they going to see that they need to change? It hasn't been making the town lose.

It is their loss. However Pikamaster, you did treat me differently in a bad way because I was not a "vet". You did ignore many things that I said and demeaned me because I was a "newb". You defended diaz because you viewed him as a vet. The only reason why the town has not been losing because of it IS because of the egregious balance errors present in gym games.

This is the same argument that you and diaz used when I was talking...very minorly...about these issues in game. "If you don't like how the town plays...leave, because the town has never lost"

This talking is us showing these players why doing this is so bad. The results of treating people that way have been very present and also simply ignored. We are documenting the effect of the gym playing this way. However for as long as you defend it as necessary and fine you justify this bad behavior and perpetuate it.

Basically, Ikrit, I think you need to actually do something other than just talk. You and everyone else who's saying that this is so important and have something planned for it, do it! A student isn't likely to start studying if he never gets a failing grade and has no incentive, I don't see why most people are going to stop doing what works unless they get that incentive.

This is why...one...I am modding the next game

But besides this...talking is doing something. We are hoping and expecting that the players who play here will be capable of realizing the problem inherent in this style of play and rectify it. I do not think that mods should become the policemen of poor play. Mods have enough on their plate as is. Something needs to be done and it can only be done by the players themselves.

As you said earlier it is a players issue. Mods should not have to deal with it. The only thing that I as a player can do to rectify this behavior is to:

1. Not do it myself.
2. Show others the problem inherent with this problem and convince them to rectify it.

I have been trying to do number one...and this thread is the culmination of SS7 and I doing number two.

We can show people the problem and what it causes. We cannot force them to admit that it is a problem that they are responsible for and change it.

So.. are you ready to admit that it is a problem that you assist in perpetuating and that you need to fix it?

 

[Pikamaster]

It is their loss. However Pikamaster, you did treat me differently in a bad way because I was not a "vet". You did ignore many things that I said and demeaned me because I was a "newb". You defended diaz because you viewed him as a vet. The only reason why the town has not been losing because of it IS because of the egregious balance errors present in gym games.

This is the same argument that you and diaz used when I was talking...very minorly...about these issues in game. "If you don't like how the town plays...leave, because the town has never lost"

This talking is us showing these players why doing this is so bad. The results of treating people that way have been very present and also simply ignored. We are documenting the effect of the gym playing this way. However for as long as you defend it as necessary and fine you justify this bad behavior and perpetuate it.

I am not endorsing that we continue it, and maybe this was before this came about, but I wanted PMysterious lynched D1. I ignored you because I did not agree with you, not because you were a "new" player. I agree that it needs to change, I don't agree that talking and talking about how bad it is is going to change anything.

I never said that I want it to continue, I said why I think it is going to continue. Now you're the one burning a straw man. :tongue:

But besides this...talking is doing something. We are hoping and expecting that the players who play here will be capable of realizing the problem inherent in this style of play and rectify it. I do not think that mods should become the policemen of poor play. Mods have enough on their plate as is. Something needs to be done and it can only be done by the players themselves.

As you said earlier it is a players issue. Mods should not have to deal with it. The only thing that I as a player can do to rectify this behavior is to:

1. Not do it myself.
2. Show others the problem inherent with this problem and convince them to rectify it.

I have been trying to do number one...and this thread is the culmination of SS7 and I doing number two.

We can show people the problem and what it causes. We cannot force them to admit that it is a problem that they are responsible for and change it.

So.. are you ready to admit that it is a problem that you assist in perpetuating and that you need to fix it?

I think everyone can see that it's a problem, now how about a little action behind those words? :wink:

I've said it is a problem, I never disagreed with you on that point. I have tried to be unbiased (minus not wanting to lynch Diaz D1, although even then there was the "why on earth would a wolf do this?" thought.), and I succeeded last game. I will use the argument that sways more people if that's the best one, even if it shows "vet reverence".

Granted, that can change. And will change.

 

[Sandslash7]

I am not endorsing that we continue it, and maybe this was before this came about, but I wanted PMysterious lynched D1. I ignored you because I did not agree with you, not because you were a "new" player. I agree that it needs to change, I don't agree that talking and talking about how bad it is is going to change anything.

I never said that I want it to continue, I said why I think it is going to continue. Now you're the one burning a straw man. :tongue:


I think everyone can see that it's a problem, now how about a little action behind those words? :wink:

I've said it is a problem, I never disagreed with you on that point. I have tried to be unbiased (minus not wanting to lynch Diaz D1, although even then there was the "why on earth would a wolf do this?" thought.), and I succeeded last game. I will use the argument that sways more people if that's the best one, even if it shows "vet reverence".

Granted, that can change. And will change.

I don't see why talking about it won't change anything. Talking about it and saying that it IS bad and NOT helping the game of WW and our meta is the best thing to DO. If no one ever knew that this was an issue other than figuring it out yourself then no one would ever do anything.

If you feel that there should be some action taken, what would be the best action to take? Having the game mods enforce ~vetrev is not their job. Nor should it be. Having the players within a game trying to stop other players from doing it is not their job either.

This is why we are discussing this. To bring people's attention to this problem. It is clear that the majority of players did not realize this was occurring because it took until XVI for players to do anything about it. Now that this issue has been highlighted we can now discuss it outside the context of the game and bring players to an agreement in a non-biased environment to change their own play. As Ikrit and I mentioned within the OP, this is a Personal Playing Issue. It is up to the individual players to recognize this and not do it.

That is the best action that we can hope for. For each player individually to make the decision to reject vet reverence and play to the utmost of their ability. This is the only way for the meta to change. I cannot force people to make this change, but each person must do this themselves for the betterment of our community,

So you admit to being biased towards Diaz last game. You also admit that you will do anything in order to win, regardless of whether it harms the meta and the community. But at the same time you think that that should change.

Please be more specific, because you seem to be sitting on both sides of the fence.

Do you or do you not want the meta of vet reverence to change? Are you willing to personally change your playstyle to reject this harmful trend? Are you ready to trust the other players to do the same? If so then that is a great action to take.

 

[Benzo]

Would it be possible to do a test game on here that is say, 13 players who have played in one or two games on here and new players as well- and see the interaction for that game?

Keeping the vets out (a small game should not last that long, hopefully) will allow the players to gain more experience and try to play different. No influence, and if there is some influence in the game, it would not be as strong since for example: I myself have been in two games only. Ever. On here. I felt ignored quite a bit in the last game. I did have to try to play different from the previous game since I was 1) a replacement and a noob - 2 ) I was a wolf in the first, a townie in the second. I did have to play different, and develop a style to work with using different methods of play regardless if people knew me or not.

If a Short game could run in between the bigger games, noobs could improve and learn how to play a game differently on their own without just "jumping in" and not have any clue as to what manner to handle themselves in and not to be so easily pursueded/influenced/hindered by other players.

While the "mini" game is being played, the "bigger" game mod(s) could work on ironing out the game.

If not enough noobs or 1 or 2 time players sign up- drop the mini game and put out the bigger game.
Also too, just randomly pass out the roles for the mini games. Even if a noob who becomes a 1 or 2 game player later or even feels like joining the ranks of playing with the big dogs- they will have something to work with and not be empty handed going into the bigger games.

Just some thoughts is all.

 

[Pikamaster]

I don't see why talking about it won't change anything. Talking about it and saying that it IS bad and NOT helping the game of WW and our meta is the best thing to DO. If no one ever knew that this was an issue other than figuring it out yourself then no one would ever do anything.

If you feel that there should be some action taken, what would be the best action to take? Having the game mods enforce ~vetrev is not their job. Nor should it be. Having the players within a game trying to stop other players from doing it is not their job either.

This is why we are discussing this. To bring people's attention to this problem. It is clear that the majority of players did not realize this was occurring because it took until XVI for players to do anything about it. Now that this issue has been highlighted we can now discuss it outside the context of the game and bring players to an agreement in a non-biased environment to change their own play. As Ikrit and I mentioned within the OP, this is a Personal Playing Issue. It is up to the individual players to recognize this and not do it.

That is the best action that we can hope for. For each player individually to make the decision to reject vet reverence and play to the utmost of their ability. This is the only way for the meta to change. I cannot force people to make this change, but each person must do this themselves for the betterment of our community,

So you admit to being biased towards Diaz last game. You also admit that you will do anything in order to win, regardless of whether it harms the meta and the community. But at the same time you think that that should change.

Please be more specific, because you seem to be sitting on both sides of the fence.

Do you or do you not want the meta of vet reverence to change? Are you willing to personally change your playstyle to reject this harmful trend? Are you ready to trust the other players to do the same? If so then that is a great action to take.

If all there is is talking, then it won't help. I want to see what you have planned that will help. What should this action be? I don't know. Personally, I think the wolves winning because of blind leadership would do it, but I don't know what should be done.

What I admit to is wanting to keep a player with experience who did something stupid and then stopped rather than a player who is playing bad and not getting better at all. And I didn't use the right word, it seems. No, I will no do anything to win, I was completely against massclaiming. I said I would use an argument if it was persuasive, not the same thing.

Yes, I want vet reverence to change, but I'm not going to lynch a good player with no reason. Quite frankly, Diaz should've been lynched for play, but I didn't think he was a wolf. Did I use the "vet" argument, yes. Did I say that would change? Yes.

There will still always be some aspect of wanting to keep the better players, it's common sense towant to keep the better people around. But no, if there was another stunt like Diaz's, whether I voted him or not would depend solely if I thought that he was a wolf.

 

[sdrawkcab]

Whats the link to the TDGI on the 6prizes game?

 

[cabd]

It was a conversation. The 6P forum software allows PM messages between multiple parties. Just PM one of the players (like KP) for an invite to it. Same goes for the wolf chat.

 

[King Piplup]

It was a conversation. The 6P forum software allows PM messages between multiple parties. Just PM one of the players (like KP) for an invite to it. Same goes for the wolf chat.

It was boring anyway...

 

[Ikrit]

@Pikamaster. Earlier in the thread it seemed very clear that you were defending vet reverence. I am glad that you have changed this position to realizing that it is wrong and that you will be a good agent of change for the betterment of gym meta.

 

[Pikamaster]

Really? If it came across as that, then I haven't presented myself correctly. I'm not for vet reverence, but I don't deny that the experienced players are generally going to have more powerful positions because they know how the game works and how to present good arguments. And then there are the new players like Prohawk who are just as good as the experienced players.

 

[ProHawk]

So what else are we waiting for before we hit up the next game? Are you trying to push XVII as anon Ikrit?

 

[PMysterious]

I really hope not. Think about how hard it would be to do so.

 

[JewelQuest]

Yeah, I'm not sure I really would like to do a anon game, I prefer to be myself rather then someone unknown...

 

[cabd]

The anon thing was purely an experiment I ran. Its use elsewhere is up to the people in charge of running the games here.

 

[Sandslash7]

I really hope not. Think about how hard it would be to do so.

Why would it be hard?

Yeah, I'm not sure I really would like to do a anon game, I prefer to be myself rather then someone unknown...

But aren't you anon anyway? I don't see your real name listed anywhere...

By the end of the game people wouldn't be "anon" anymore anyway. Everyone would know each other by their new handles, like we did in the 6P game. I was referring to people based on their WW_Pokemon accounts, and it really shouldn't make a difference how one should play the game anyway. You are still you regardless of what your online handle is. I know I go by multiple online personae, but regardless which I choose I am still me (not SS7 but the man behind the screen).

You are still you, regardless of what name is beside the post.

Besides, as we saw with the anon game over on 6P, we revealed the identities of those participating at the end anyway, so one could see who they played against/defeated/lost to, if you really wanted to know.

Of course it is up to you whether you want to participate in an anon game, if that is the format of a future game.

If all there is is talking, then it won't help. I want to see what you have planned that will help. What should this action be? I don't know. Personally, I think the wolves winning because of blind leadership would do it, but I don't know what should be done. Are you sure that talking won't help? I'm pretty sure it already has. I don't know why you think talking about it won't help. Please elaborate. As we've already said it is up to the individual player to:

1. Not commit vet reverence
2. Encourage other players to not revere vets.

This is Ikrit and I's work at the second. As the community continues discussing this issue and its ramifications we heighten their awareness of this issue, hopefully leading to a meta that flourishes rather than stagnates and dies.

As for plans? I do not have any personally. I am not scheduled to be hosting a game as of yet (though I would like to eventually narrate a game, it will be years in the making due to Dental School. Right now it'll be at the minimum XXI, if not later.) Others may have things that they would like to implement into the game proper, (balance, timeline, etc) but the specifics of that have not been told to me. However the anon experiment proposed and executed by Cabd was a great step in analyzing the current meta.

What I admit to is wanting to keep a player with experience who did something stupid and then stopped rather than a player who is playing bad and not getting better at all. And I didn't use the right word, it seems. No, I will no do anything to win, I was completely against massclaiming. I said I would use an argument if it was persuasive, not the same thing. Ah, perhaps you should have clarified. So you will use an argument as long as it is persuasive, regardless of its harm/help to the meta.

Yes, I want vet reverence to change, but I'm not going to lynch a good player with no reason. Quite frankly, Diaz should've been lynched for play, but I didn't think he was a wolf. Did I use the "vet" argument, yes. Did I say that would change? Yes. The problem was that there WAS reason. To again use the Diaz example there was AMPLE reason to lynch him off. Playing completely outside one's personal meta is a scumtell. Additionally he lied AND admitted to it, playing off said lying. This is a clear scumtell and very much reason to lynch someone. PMysterious also was playing poorly. I concur. However PMysterious had no personal meta, and thus could have just been playing poorly because "he always does." Both are valid lynch targets. However when a player who has personal meta plays poorly AND scumtells that tips the balance towards the established player. PM's poor play was just that, there was no reason to think that was a scumtell.


There will still always be some aspect of wanting to keep the better players, it's common sense towant to keep the better people around. But no, if there was another stunt like Diaz's, whether I voted him or not would depend solely if I thought that he was a wolf. Thus we must make sure to not let personal biases or tendencies sway our intellect or our intuition into making arguments or plays that are harmful to the meta.

There have been a few experiments run that researched the state of the meta as it unfolded.

The first was Ikrit deciding to play as Cantor. The second was Cabd's Anon experiment.

1) Showed how the average Gym player responded to a brand new account playing the WW game and their reactions to play that poked for their thoughts in the moment (this was not very favorable for the meta, as there was backlash/denial against said new player proposing the ideas that Cantor espoused).

2) Showed the stagnation and decrepitance of the Meta to the point that the town was unable to find blatant scum-tells, play pro-town, avoid committing scum-tells themselves, and eventually lost a perfect game to the wolves. As Cabd/I mentioned earlier, the game was not the wolves' win, but the town's loss.


If the 6P anon game is diagnostic of our meta here as a whole, then clearly there needs to be something that happens. Players need to relearn what it takes to textually analyze others' play and determine for themselves trends and other information. The first step, however, is to clear any bias that would be in the way, i.e. vet reverence.


I know that Ikrit will be hosting the next game, so if he has prepared the details he may reveal that which has been already determined.

 

[Ikrit]

How many people who want to play in the next game are going to worlds?

I need to know as I am thinking about starting XVII after worlds so that it is not interrupted by worlds.

 

[Diaz]

On the issue of vet reverence:

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.

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.

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 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'm back in the states, so I'll have more regular internet access. I'd like to compile a list of all players who have played any 'gym werewolf game and their record. (wins-loss-ect.) Looking forward to doing that.

EDIT: As far as win-loss record goes, we count wins as games where you/your faction wins AND you are still alive, right? This is how I understand it, but I haven't really seen it in writing. I want to make sure others agree. Napoleon's post in the last ww thread implies a town win even when you die is a win for you. This is the kind of thing that should be clear in the rules.

I will be going to worlds.