Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Pre-XVII Werewolf Metagame Analysis

If victory is contingent on survival, than it encourages (as Diaz said) bad play so that you survive. This is not conducive to building skilled players and encouraging good meta.

How is it bad play if it was intentional? It seems his (Diaz's) play accomplished all that he wanted it to accomplish. If you want to punish "bad play" we should establish a policy lynch to lynch players who act that way. I guarantee if we were to lynch any player exhibiting said qualities, they will stop.

If victory is contingent on survival, then it also introduces a level of "indie-ness" among the townies, not caring about who is lynched (town OR wolf) as long as THEY are not lynched. This is NOT helpful for the town as the townies must be focused on lynching wolves.
If victory is not contingent on survival, then the players who died contributing and helping the town get rewarded for their efforts.

If a townie wants to act indy, who is to say that they can't? Honestly, if they aren't playing like town they will be lynched, so I don't really see this situation playing out to fruition. I don't favor making any rules pertaining to individual victory, but at least to me, I feel like its a more accomplished win if you can survive until the end and win. For some reason this discussion is making me feel like we are trying to control how people play the game, I am not sure why, but I don't agree with it to a degree.

I don't see how a townie arguing to lynch another town when he knows who a wolf is would help him survive? So I disagree that the thought of needing to survive being a victory requirement would make a town not care about who is lynched. Survival will depend on how well you play the game, which has two components, a town side and a wolf side. You have to work well as a townie contributor while avoiding becoming a danger for the wolves. Anyone with any degree of self-worth would argue that they are the better person to save, regardless of choice B (town or wolf).

Now does this stop players from writing their W/L ratios with:

Won + Survived: 1
Won + Dead: 4
Lost: 6

No, of course not. and you are free to keep a tally of "WS vs WD" victories. But a victory should be a victory regardless of one's life or death in the game, unless their WC states otherwise. (Boba Fett and other indies are the traditional example of said WC)

Isn't this essentially the way it is now?
 
How is it bad play if it was intentional? It seems his (Diaz's) play accomplished all that he wanted it to accomplish. If you want to punish "bad play" we should establish a policy lynch to lynch players who act that way. I guarantee if we were to lynch any player exhibiting said qualities, they will stop. It is bad play because it is intentionally not being the best one can be, as well as intentionally making scumtells while NOT scumteam. Effectively you act as if you are playing a different WC (or throw doubt on your WC) than you are. However, we cannot determine without much evidence whether said player is playing poorly because they ARE a poor player or because it is intentional. Basically it would boil down to uncovering the intentions behind the play, and effectively there would be no way to know whether it was due to intentionality OR unintentionality. Enforcement would be very difficult.



If a townie wants to act indy, who is to say that they can't? Honestly, if they aren't playing like town they will be lynched, so I don't really see this situation playing out to fruition. I don't favor making any rules pertaining to individual victory, but at least to me, I feel like its a more accomplished win if you can survive until the end and win. For some reason this discussion is making me feel like we are trying to control how people play the game, I am not sure why, but I don't agree with it to a degree. They can. It just doesn't help the town if they aren't caring who is lynched. If you aren't playing for your WC it is poor play. I would agree that it "feels like a more accomplished win."

I don't see how a townie arguing to lynch another town when he knows who a wolf is would help him survive? Don't understand the question.So I disagree that the thought of needing to survive being a victory requirement would make a town not care about who is lynched. Survival will depend on how well you play the game, which has two components, a Day side and a Night side. You have to work well as a townie contributor while avoiding becoming a danger for the wolves. Anyone with any degree of self-worth would argue that they are the better person to save, regardless of choice B (town or wolf).

Isn't this essentially the way it is now? At the moment I actually think that its not set in stone, and that some mods have only listed the survivors as victors. It could use official standardization.

Replies/fixes in bolded quote.
 
Replies/fixes in bolded quote.

You make it much harder to respond this way :tongue:

My point is... enforcement = lynch. Make it so that no one survives playing poorly and play will change. If you can't convince the majority to lynch, I don't buy that its poor play.

I honestly think that is why LAL exists.
 
I feel as if I'm almost obliged to post in this and having the perspective of someone who comes from a very different Mafia/WW foundation would probably be helpful.

Before I go any further there really needs to be a clearer distinction between 'veteranism' and reputation. Veteranism is where one considers everything that a "vet" says to be correct because they are a vet. Reputation is a completely different matter and the line between the two seems to be blurred right now. Someone might have a reputation for being a good player - that should inspire respect and/or fear depending on your faction but should not mean that you are obliged to agree with everything that they say.

Talking about not agreeing with everything that someone says:

cabd said:
Sableye also made a major slip up by saying the town should no lynch if they were in MYLO, while also having it be public knowledge that all town investigative roles were dead. Very obvious scum tell.

I felt that was a beautiful segway from me :cool:

While I disagree entirely with this theory, cabd, there's another point to be made first and that's LYLO v MYLO. Some others seem to be confused about MYLO and LYLO:

3 Wolves
5 Town

This is MYLO i.e. Mislynch and Lose. There is only one condition to this, being that if you lynch a townie, the wolves will lose.

3 Wolves
4 Town

This is LYLO i.e. Lynch or Lose. Here, a wolf must be lynched or the town loses.

Back to Day 3 in Beta Anon, we were in LYLO as there were 3 Wolves and 4 Town remaining. Not MYLO. Theory for MYLO does not work in LYLO, but theory for LYLO does work in MYLO. Only goes one way. In this particular situation I commented briefly that we would No Lynch without question if we were in MYLO. The only situation in which you would lynch in MYLO is if there was a 100% wolf kill to be made i.e. Priest protection flips or Seer dead after revealing investigations. Otherwise, you No Lynch, regardless of whether every role is revealed dead or if every role is hidden or if chickens start rampaging over Brazil. This No Lynch forces the wolves to make a kill (or there will be a No Lynch-No Kill loop which defaults to Town Win), bringing numbers down to 3-4. This theoretically means that the town has a higher chance of blind lynching a wolf. In practice odds are better for the town to an extent since there is the influence of scum hunting which can give the town a better read and thus better vote.

tl;dr If you're in MYLO, you No Lynch unless you have a 100% wolf kill. Full stop. But I'm not here to prove game theory and nobody really wants me to do that.

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

So what do I have to say about Beta Anon? First of all, props to cabd for putting the effort into hosting it. Props to all of the players who put their necks on the line in a very new way.

I'm biased, but it doesn't seem like our Wolf Team is getting as much credit as it should be. No, Anon games do not make it easier for the wolves in any way. What did we have in our favour?

> Closed Setup. While always an advantage, it is only small.
> No Background Reads. People couldn't do background searches on playstyles because of anonymity. As we saw, I made no effort to hide that I was Sableye, which shows how much I care about using past plays as hard evidence for a player having a certain role.
> Day Talk. This is potentially a great advantage but is useless in the hands of bad players.

What did the Town have in their favour?

> No Wolf Roleblocker. Plus plus everywhere.
> Seer + Priest + Backups. Follow the Cop everywhere to win.
> No Background Reads. We Wolves couldn't (if we wanted to) do background reads on how particular people played certain roles.
> Night Updates. As far as I could tell, there were no negatives for the Town in the Night Updates. The only minuses were for the Wolves. I had my name revealed both times I took a kill.
> Closed Setup. This is also a small advantage for Town as Wolves did not know if we were dealing with Seer+Priest only or with other PRs.

Overall, Town really did have an advantage over the Wolves. If we look at the Setup:

Priest
Seer
6 Vanilla Town
3 Vanilla Wolves

This puts the ratios in at 8:3. That's fine. The PR Ratios are (2 or 3):1 in that Town has potential for extra roles in comparison to our single kill per night. This would also be fine if those roles weren't Seer and Priest together without a Roleblocker which leads to Follow The Cop aka Town Win.

For a moment I'm going to take the perspective of someone who knows the setup and watches the game from outside. The Wolves are at a clear disadvantage. If the Town plays a purely theoretical game, Wolves lose.

Back to the game, the Wolves have two main advantages on Day 1 and Night 1. The Closed Setup (an advantage which will eventually become a Town Advantage on Day 2) and the fact that we can talk during the Day.

I'll break off from my analysis at this point to say that I could not possibly have asked for a better Wolf Team. I am not a person who is a particularly avid Wolf player and I thoroughly dislike having to rely on teammates who could potentially kill me off even if I played perfectly, often through no fault of their own. These teammates, though, renewed my faith in team play in an otherwise solo game. Ninetales-Vysekun has a play style which (although I despise it to no end!:lol:) complements well with mine. Marshtomp-SS7 also has a play style which I absolutely hate but it works!:lol: And if it works, I can't really criticise it. Vysekun has the great ability to completely change the topic without really trying, and that helped us a lot. SS7 flies under the radar pretty easily and is always a secure and reliable team player. And then there's me. I kinda just rage at people a bit and tell them not to role reveal when they have no votes on them.
From the word go we were talking all the time. At times we submitted our kill after everyone else had submitted roles. During the Day someone always had something new and interesting to say. This sort of synergy wins games and we proved that it does.

Wolves did not necessarily win this game alone. Town did most of our work, particularly on Day 1. Jigglypuff-Akane didn't make it easy for herself. Crobat-darkwing was simply begging to be lynched Day 1 and Steelix-KP made Day 2 autopilot by accidentally hammering Crobat, riding on the back of all the pressure I had put onto Crobat.

And after that almost certainly incriminating Day 1, who was Priested? Me.

Nidorina dies at Night, leaving everyone slightly confused. However, Night 1 is about getting that secure kill on the board. I show up in the Night update. Okay.

Day 2, Steelix-KP's lynch is almost inevitable and the Wolves pretty much disappear from the scene, letting the town kill themselves off. But we're still talking in Wolf Chat. I throw a few taunts out into the town to see if anyone bites and focuses on me, particularly targeting Grovyle, the major town player at this point. Grovyle-I_S is pretty much nonexistent but surprisingly nobody at all bites. Not even Steelix-KP, who probably had the best chance of survival by saying that I had pushed for a lynch on Crobat-darkwing. Not a strong case, but still better than the "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" that he was posting. Nobody attacks me and this says a couple of things:

1. People know who I am. I intended this to an extent - more correctly, I had no intention to hide my identity. It's not surprising that people don't want to attack me if they know who am, considering that I don't sit around and let myself die. They would rather take a free kill on Steelix-KP.
2. People are scared of what will happen. In an Anon game you don't have your reputation aiding you as much (even for me, who didn't hide). People may have felt like a select group of faceless individuals who had lost an element of their previous play styles - that is, validity from name. They didn't know which players they had lost so far and they didn't know who was left.

Psychologically we had already won.

We take out Grovyle-I_S on Night 2 (inactive, needs to be killed before reacting) and who gets Priested? Ninetales-Vysekun, a wolf. Once again I show up in the Night update. Righty-oh.

Day 3 LYLO and Jigglypuff-Akane returns to the scene after a Day 2 inactivity with all guns blazing - or not. Evidence? I was in the Night update. All we needed was for one person to vote incorrectly (in this case, Carvanha) and we Wolves would all jump on simultaneously for a quick end to the game. Time zones made this difficult so I stalled Jigglypuff's case with a case against her which was far more substantial. Even without the quick hammer tactic I don't doubt that we could have had Jiggly lynched manually simply because we had played the game better. Jiggly had nothing to work with. What Day 1 material was there that incriminated me? I lynched a Seer? No, I lynched an anti-town player. Day 2? Nothing. I active lurked. Day 3? Well, obviously nothing or we'd be discussing how I had died.

This brings to light 3 points which determine whether a game is won or lost:

1. Player Skill
2. Momentum
3. Game Theory

Player Skill is a biggie, of course. The wolves played a more skilled game in terms of tactics than the town and thusly we whitewashed the Town. But what really determines player skill? In my opinion, the ability to control momentum and knowledge of Game Theory.

We wolves won this game because of our huge momentum advantage over the town. Losing the Seer was bad luck for the town, but we turned it into momentum by pushing through the town's confusion. Ninetales-Vysekun was particularly important here, since changing the topic of discussion shifts momentum into our favour. We only lost a little momentum on Day 3 when Jiggly threw a case against me. After I replied and Jiggly apparently disappeared, that momentum was passively recovered.

Game Theory. Oooooh wow. I notice that on the 'Gym and on 6P this is almost completely absent and not without reason - there are always crazy new roles and factions which throw any type of orthodox theory out the window. However, this also removes much of the strategic element of the game and replaces it with "who gets the best role wins". In Beta Anon Day 1 I took the effort to discredit any possible role claims from Crobat so that if they did come, they would not be believed. This paid off. If Crobat had a better grasp of earlygame theory he may have claimed earlier and requested "Follow the Cop", potentially leading to our certain loss if he pulled it off. Lategame LYLO theory also played a significant part in our win. The Town didn't know the number of wolves and so should not have been putting votes on players with such a low lynch count. We merely quick hammered.

So no, I don't agree that Anon makes the game easier for wolves. I also don't agree that Anon itself removes reputation advantages although for this player pool it appeared that it did so. Every game, no matter what style, will eventually boil down to how the players play the game. When it comes down to it, gaming is all about the game. We played a far superior game - even cabd, the host, could only find a moot theory point and active lurking as the only scum tells for the entire wolf crew.

Once again, credit must go to my team who eliminated all speed bumps in that game.

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

Back to the 'Gym, I have three main criticisms:

> Game Size
> Roles
> Flavour Text

I have never, ever, ever played in games as large as these ones except for fun alongside a smaller (or several smaller games). Right now I'm in multiple games of WW/Mafia, the greatest number of players in a single game being 16. The 'Gym should stronger consider running two or three smaller games simultaneously with a more orthodox setup rather than one massive game with a setup which can't possibly be balanced. Maybe try it out and see what the community thinks. This gives more players more chances to play more roles (smaller games mean smaller game times) and subsequently allows players to develop their own play styles. This is also by far the most effective way to deal with Veteranism as experience will come quickly and the playing field will be levelled out.

The 'Gym gives new meaning to Roles (while we're at it, some of them are broken and some combinations of roles (WWXV Wolf Role Setup OH GOD WHY) are just plain insane) and I have never seen so many in a single game. Credit of course goes to the mods who somehow have the imaginations to think this stuff up! I think their imaginations get the better of them, though. Sure, everyone wants to play a role which means you do stuff at night - it's great fun! But the game has a Day as well. It's not about lynching the first person to RVS or the first person to say that one of the pros is a bad player and repeating this every day, then abusing the Night phase. Sure, it's great to be able to kill 5 people at once and be unable to be killed at Night but it's just not the game. This makes players less able to play the Day phase than others. It's the reason why I showed up in XIV? and wreaked absolute havoc with my Cynthia role because I could play the Day phase and Night phase equally well. I know people who have played this game with me and a dozen other people for a couple of months and are significantly better than many of the people who have played here for longer than that. I'm not saying that's because my circles are "pro" per se but we play the game as it's intended to be - informed minority versus uninformed majority, a game of wit, skill and above all logic, a game where the best man will win more than the worst, not a game where the best role wins.

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

TL;DR?: Gaming. It's all about the game.
 
Historically I believe that the mods have said that you must survive to be victorious. However this I feel is incorrect for numerous reasons. Using XV as an example, the town was victorious, but only the town players who survived until the end were given "winner" tags in the OP.

I think that this should change.

I'm not sure if it should change or not, but as a community we should decide one way or the other. KP thinks it is common knowledge that the winner of each game is different than what the mods have been deciding.

@Napoleon, and others with knowledge of games outside the pokemon community: How do other websites rule on this? Do you need to survive to the end, or is being on the winning faction enough?
 
Napoleon.

Thanks for your response. I'll be writing more details about your post later, but I felt that I should say this quickly before misunderstandings occur.

I was not a vanilla Wolf. I was actually a "mafia godfather" and would seer town upon investigation. However I didn't mention this to you or Vysekun, and it didn't help either because we lynched both seers D1 and D2.
 
@Diaz, you win if your faction wins on every other site where I've played. Although unofficially people might say "XYZ won this for town" or some such. Usually it has nothing to do with whether you are alive or not. 9 times out of 10 the most important plays are made by people who are then killed; it would be unfair if they were not winners.
@SS7, I suspected that since usually Alphas are Seer immune but it's not a PR in any way.
 
@SS7, I suspected that since usually Alphas are Seer immune but it's not a PR in any way.

How is it not? Maybe less so in smaller games. But if the town is playing "Follow the cop" and the Seer reads town on a scum, that scum will survive long enough to probably take the game in the confusion.
 
How is it not? Maybe less so in smaller games. But if the town is playing "Follow the cop" and the Seer reads town on a scum, that scum will survive long enough to probably take the game in the confusion.

When two wolves flip as non-Alphas the town will (in a perfect world where everyone knows their theory) start looking for links between the dead wolves and the Alpha. It's not hard to determine the third player when their partners are dead. This is particularly true in a smaller game where the pool of players to Seer is much smaller.
 
When two wolves flip as non-Alphas the town will (in a perfect world where everyone knows their theory) start looking for links between the dead wolves and the Alpha. It's not hard to determine the third player when their partners are dead. This is particularly true in a smaller game where the pool of players to Seer is much smaller.


I'll give you that. But often in smaller games by the time we get to the "find the links" stage of desperation the town is in a precarious situation, potentially at a MYLO/LYLO. You cannot deny that the immunity works to the scum's advantage and IMO is a PR.

However this isn't really relevant to the overall discussion.

You win based on faction. I thought this was clear. In XV I CHOSE the on death detonator over some other slightly less OP choices, with the full intention of dying to use it. It gave the remaining wolf a chance at winning the game, for my faction, not just themselves.
I like the idea of the whole WS/WD/L thing (or whatever the acronym was)

I find it mildly amusing that the two biggest arguers against the VR issue are considered "vets" themselves. ..
 
Before I go any further there really needs to be a clearer distinction between 'veteranism' and reputation. Veteranism is where one considers everything that a "vet" says to be correct because they are a vet. Reputation is a completely different matter and the line between the two seems to be blurred right now. Someone might have a reputation for being a good player - that should inspire respect and/or fear depending on your faction but should not mean that you are obliged to agree with everything that they say.

QFT. Thank you, Napoleon.
 
Alright....I'm going to step on some toes in this post, but I hope none of you take it personally.

You'll notice that the majority of people defending vet reverence are in fact "vets" themselves. As someone who has played 1 1/2 games here, as my first game(s), Vet Reverence is a dead negative on our meta. It makes the game uninviting to newer players, because they are more likely to be lynched for errors then "vets" are, as well as a host of other effects.

Disclaimer:DarthPika, I in no way intend to offend you, but your posts are the most memorable to me for some reason, hence why they are my examples.

There is nothing to support Diaz being a wolf, or a townie. I've seen him play like this before though, so I really don't think we should make a big deal out of it for now. He could be a wolf, I don't know. He could also be an indi or a townie. The bottom line is, he knows what he's doing, and I think our efforts are better spent on removing those who don't know what they're doing first.

Still not to much to go on yet. Interesting little bits of information here and there though. The n00bs that need to either very quickly improve their play, or get lynched are also starting to show them selves.

Both of these posts are great examples of vet reverence. (I could find more from other players if I wanted, but this is sufficient)

The first post is saying that because someone has played badly before means they get off easy when they do it now? The last sentence says we should focus on killing off those who don't know what their doing, which basically translates to "Kill the newbies before the vets!" which is a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE mentality. The second post echoes the last line of the first post.

Those are examples of vet reverence. Now, from the point of view of a newer player, the game is unappealing, because instead of having a chance grow in skill, they get killed off by this mentality. Do you not see why this is bad?

Now, vet reverence vs personal meta (and reputation) is a fine line, one that we must maintain. The uneeded saving of Diaz on Day 1 is vet reverence. A town observing and relying upon a player that is playing exceptionally well is not vet reverence.

For those "vets" whose egos apparently have outgrown themselves, here's a reality check-

Diaz, I don't care how much you claim to "play badly" to avoid the wolves wanting to kill you. IMHO, you are playing the game wrong if you are so centered on "Winning as an individual" by living until the end of the game. The faction win is what matters, (and for goodness' sake, who cares whose name has winner next to their name in the thread as long as we know who won?) which is why I have huge issues with your supposed "intentional bad play".

To those of you (You know who you are) who have boasted your playing abilities on this thread as well as the XVI thread, if you lived through the game, (With the exception of AT, because I never felt safe killing him with even the slight chance he had protection) I'm sorry, but in almost all cases, your name was never considered for the kill. Really, take a reality check and ISO yourself for a few minutes. Are you actually contributing? Are you guilty of vet reverence? Are you guilty of not playing to your full ability? (Which, if there were a WW Olympic event, you'd apparently be DQ'd, Diaz) If not, FIX THAT before the next game. The main way to get out of the hole our meta is in is to realize we all aren't the big shots we think we are, and correct our play accordingly.

Sandslash7 and Irkit have provided a baseline for how we can improve....It's up to the individual players to make changes in their play.

To add onto this further-Here's a little trivia. Night 1, who do you think the wolves Top 2 choices for the kill was? (Each of us submitted a Top 3 and then a final decision was made) Clearly you know who #1 was, but
think about #2.

Think about that, have an answer in your head, then highlight the text in the quote below this.

orcmonkey2000


Expect that? The #3 was Akane.

Yes, not a single one of the local "vets" were Top 3. (And it didn't take much to get Top 3, 3 people voting you IIRC)

Night 2? sdrawkcab hadn't played in a few years, and he still was our #1 choice over the "vets"

Night 3 I was forced to kill Waynegg simply because he HAS played with a high level of logic in the two games he has been in, and him having a 3 day pass with a semi decent role? No thanks. I felt so strongly about Napoleon (not someone who I consider a "Gym Vet" with just XV played) needing to die, I took the 40% we'd lose a wolf. None of the 4+ game "vets" were even considered.

Night 4 Nobody particularly stood out during the day so we took out someone we know had potential to be playing very well, but was only playing at a slightly above average level. (this was during exams IIRC)

Night 6 We killed a power role and a player who had been #1 Vet Rev supporter and was not contributing actively. By the way, I find that a broken role.

The next nights? Power roles were more the play then power players. Akane was a wonderful 2 for 1 deal (Power role and someone that was playing quite well) Dragonclyne725 wasn't playing badly, and that Woobat was a horror to my existence. Ulti needed to die because of his role, and was playing alright.

tl;dr? Only 1/2 "Gym Vets" were EVER considered for death from the wolves for their play. (Roles; different story) Does that not hint to you what you have done to your play with this "vet" stuff?

I hope I've offered my perspective on this clearly enough, and presented a unique angle from the wolves this past game.


Not to get off topic, but, another hidden benefit to this thread is the break we have between games right now...I'm sorry, but XV was too close to XVI. I felt like I was in XV's late game, and that was a very, very unique situation that hasn't not been replicated anywhere else in the Gym's games. It was an issue that players were playing like it was XV.

Again, I apologize to anybody who was offended by the content of my post, and hope you will forgive me for my harshness.

Anyway, see you all in the next game after World's!
 
I'm afraid KP is right. The Veterans were playing more like Noobs than anything else. The only exception to that was AbsolTrainer who played really well for a tough role to win with like that.
 
PMysterious, I ask you how myself, Ikrit, Jellyfisher, SS7, DarthPika, and Pokechamp were playing like noobs. If I do say so myself, we all have a reputation for being good players (even Ikrit was playing well as Cantor). Granted SS7 died D2 and DP didn't post as much (which is kind of expected, considering the role he had, wanting to lie lower).

From what I saw, the only town players who were playing bad later game were Diaz and maybe Benzo (I still don't understand what you were doing there). For the most part, everyone was playing pretty well.
 
PMysterious, I ask you how myself, Ikrit, Jellyfisher, SS7, DarthPika, and Pokechamp were playing like noobs. If I do say so myself, we all have a reputation for being good players (even Ikrit was playing well as Cantor). Granted SS7 died D2 and DP didn't post as much (which is kind of expected, considering the role he had, wanting to lie lower).

From what I saw, the only town players who were playing bad later game were Diaz and maybe Benzo (I still don't understand what you were doing there). For the most part, everyone was playing pretty well.

And I wouldn't go this far either. Even then, such a reputation is FINE, as long as that rep is garnered in that game, not past games, to an extent.
 
And I wouldn't go this far either. Even then, such a reputation is FINE, as long as that rep is garnered in that game, not past games, to an extent.

That's the thing, KP. It's impossible for a reputation to not carry over. Michael Phelps is a good swimmer, and he was expected to do well at this Olympics. The other swimmers couldn't possibly treat him like an unknown, or expect him to earn his reputation again that Olympics. That's how a reputation works. :wink:
 
That's the thing, KP. It's impossible for a reputation to not carry over. Michael Phelps is a good swimmer, and he was expected to do well at this Olympics. The other swimmers couldn't possibly treat him like an unknown, or expect him to earn his reputation again that Olympics. That's how a reputation works. :wink:

But if Phelps starting swimming horribly, I wouldn't still give him the same wide berth.
 
But if Phelps starting swimming horribly, I wouldn't still give him the same wide berth.

Exactly. If someone does something to lose their reputation, they need to earn it back. However, I don't think this is the place to discuss who played bad in the last few games. Point is, a reputation does carry over to future games, as long as the caliber of play continues through these games.
 
PMysterious, I ask you how myself, Ikrit, Jellyfisher, SS7, DarthPika, and Pokechamp were playing like noobs. If I do say so myself, we all have a reputation for being good players (even Ikrit was playing well as Cantor). Granted SS7 died D2 and DP didn't post as much (which is kind of expected, considering the role he had, wanting to lie lower).

From what I saw, the only town players who were playing bad later game were Diaz and maybe Benzo (I still don't understand what you were doing there). For the most part, everyone was playing pretty well.

Well, I wasn't meaning all of that exactly. Pikamaster is not one of those 5+ game veterans, Ikrit was playing on a new player account so he doesn't count, jellyfisher hasn't played 5+ games either, SS7 was on the Wolf side, DarthPika was defending the Veterans, and PokeChampofPokeBeach was doing good for this game EXCLUDING that Name claim which gave me Reshiram by Night 2. So, you guys don't really count.
 
Back
Top