WEREWOLF XII: Cyrus's Revenge!! ENDGAME Planning for next WW game inside
- Thread starter Absoltrainer
- Start date
Ikrit
New Member
@Arcanine/Arbok Master
I knew Cardz was bad at the point at which he flamed me for saying a no vote day one. It was very clear that his role was based on numbers, but I figured if I rolled over and played dumb he would leave me around. The problem was that the post had to seem submissive, but not completely so. But alas everyone and their mother's dog decided it was a good idea to kill me night 2, while none of the many priests protected me
But ya guys, good game all. I was glad that Cardz starting galvanizing himself towards people, it let me know who to trust and who to be suspicious of. Another thing that made no sense in his play, except as a bad guy, was to ask who the humans were and who the pokemon were. That made it fairly clear to me that he was a bad guy. Beyond that fact, he used my pokemon and intimated that it was his. I decided to let him hang around though in order to see who he supported/was supported by, and who he attacked. When absol said that he was about to win though. It was time. I had been telling AK the entire time to watch him and if a role came up to investigate him, to do so. I also galvanized AK into voting against him on the Cardz final day.
Also, I knew as soon as I found out that AK's win was a last man standing, that we were done for. The first thing that I did after AK rezzed me was ask absol what would happen if I betrayed him to the town. He said I would lose. I then asked him if there was any way to become a townie again, as I knew the town was going to win, and he kept giving me non-committal answers, like "there is a way, it may not be able to happen today" etc.
I figured this meant it was in someone's role, so I made up entirely that I would be a super indy, in hopes of scaring people into using their role. Luckily I was priested, and I was turned back into a townie.
Great game guys. Looking forward to the next.
I knew Cardz was bad at the point at which he flamed me for saying a no vote day one. It was very clear that his role was based on numbers, but I figured if I rolled over and played dumb he would leave me around. The problem was that the post had to seem submissive, but not completely so. But alas everyone and their mother's dog decided it was a good idea to kill me night 2, while none of the many priests protected me
But ya guys, good game all. I was glad that Cardz starting galvanizing himself towards people, it let me know who to trust and who to be suspicious of. Another thing that made no sense in his play, except as a bad guy, was to ask who the humans were and who the pokemon were. That made it fairly clear to me that he was a bad guy. Beyond that fact, he used my pokemon and intimated that it was his. I decided to let him hang around though in order to see who he supported/was supported by, and who he attacked. When absol said that he was about to win though. It was time. I had been telling AK the entire time to watch him and if a role came up to investigate him, to do so. I also galvanized AK into voting against him on the Cardz final day.
Also, I knew as soon as I found out that AK's win was a last man standing, that we were done for. The first thing that I did after AK rezzed me was ask absol what would happen if I betrayed him to the town. He said I would lose. I then asked him if there was any way to become a townie again, as I knew the town was going to win, and he kept giving me non-committal answers, like "there is a way, it may not be able to happen today" etc.
I figured this meant it was in someone's role, so I made up entirely that I would be a super indy, in hopes of scaring people into using their role. Luckily I was priested, and I was turned back into a townie.
Great game guys. Looking forward to the next.
d master342
New Member
Well this was certainly the most interesting WW game I've ever played lol. Probably one of the best too, even though it did turn out so dang long. I agreed it should have been cut off a lot earlier.
I didn't actually think I would turn out to be a good Priest in this game, especially with being able to not read people very well online, but with Diaz and someone else being a Priest, it actually helped a ton. I was able to get some really nice saves and outsmart the Wolves which was nice. Unfortunately at the end I needed to Priest Darth Pika, and for some reason that thought didn't quite get into my mind and I ended up Priesting the baddie instead. _-_ Oh well, I'll learn for next time if I'm ever a Priest again. I can't wait for the next WW game on here.
dmaster out.
I didn't actually think I would turn out to be a good Priest in this game, especially with being able to not read people very well online, but with Diaz and someone else being a Priest, it actually helped a ton. I was able to get some really nice saves and outsmart the Wolves which was nice. Unfortunately at the end I needed to Priest Darth Pika, and for some reason that thought didn't quite get into my mind and I ended up Priesting the baddie instead. _-_ Oh well, I'll learn for next time if I'm ever a Priest again. I can't wait for the next WW game on here.
dmaster out.
Cardzmaster2004
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
@ all: Yeah, this game was awkward.
(NOTE: Comments from here out are in stream-of-consciousness)
While I did find out about the amount of Vets on ym team I was supposed to have, I was a bit bummed at first. But this game honestly went to show me that newer players have a STRONG purpose in this community.
Honestly, without some of the newer standouts, I don't this game would be near as interesting. Would it have been a more thought-provoking game: yes. Newer players, take strong note going into WW XIII (one of my games): you will need a LOT of logic lines to win or confuse. The lack of either from really any side was pretty apparent. However, I feel the next game will be VERY solid, as we've really recharged this community with newer players. And you have NO idea how happy that makes me.
Also, I did have to play Indie once I realized my group more or less abandoned me (a couple dead members stayed around a commented on events while other living players were...less than verbal). I honestly think that had it not been for my experience from WW II that I would have folded much earlier. But note that I did say that dead people were scary and point out who was the other winner indie.
As for the possibility of "winning" on a technicality, I'm honestly glad it didn't happen. Would it have been nice to win a WW going solo: sure. But note when there were other Indies still around. Again, TOO MANY INDIES as AT has already admitted to.
I will say that I was skeptical of a large game early on but, minus the Indie situation at the end, I think it worked well. Will my next game be this large: no. But can something like this be managed: yes. I'm hoping to do something this big for another big anniversary WW, but only time will tell if this will happen.
@ Ikrit: No Vote on Day 1 is the WORST Idea in any game as it ONLY statistically hurts the town. See my posts on DAy 1 that support this, I'm not debating it again. THe number become increasingly bad for the town as far as lynchings go (the town's only REAL power). Did it help me a bit: sure. But had I been a Townie, I would have debated as vehemently the same way I did this game.
@AK: You suck. But in a loving-Jesus-kind-of way. Well played and, once I knew about your role, I honestly hoped you would win as you played it very cool and under-the-0radar as a good indie should. Awesome work.
ON THE TOPIC OF THE NEXT GAME:
Yes, the next game is mine. And I started writing it FAR before this game.
However, this long writing time gave me a chance to create two games.
One game I will use; the other will have its roles taken out and used in another game. But its theme will be MUCH different.
To decide which game we will play, I will ask you this question:
TEAM EDWARD or TEAM JACOB?
Think before you answer, think about any symbolism I could be using here. Because there are MULTIPLE layers in each choice.
AT asked me to wait a few days before I posted this, so I have. I look forward ot your votes, as this will determine the game played for the next WW hosted by me.
As far as when it will be, expect the game to pop up sometime after Worlds. In the lead-up to Nats and post-Nats, this community is abuzz with news and commentary. Your time is better spent on that then in this game, which often gets neglected and runs too long through the summer.
I'll be on and off sporadically to check votes. In a week, I'll take my last tally of the voting and let you guys know the title for the game. Until then, vote away.
(NOTE: ANYONE may vote, even if they weren't in WW XII.)
~Cardz.
(NOTE: Comments from here out are in stream-of-consciousness)
While I did find out about the amount of Vets on ym team I was supposed to have, I was a bit bummed at first. But this game honestly went to show me that newer players have a STRONG purpose in this community.
Honestly, without some of the newer standouts, I don't this game would be near as interesting. Would it have been a more thought-provoking game: yes. Newer players, take strong note going into WW XIII (one of my games): you will need a LOT of logic lines to win or confuse. The lack of either from really any side was pretty apparent. However, I feel the next game will be VERY solid, as we've really recharged this community with newer players. And you have NO idea how happy that makes me.
Also, I did have to play Indie once I realized my group more or less abandoned me (a couple dead members stayed around a commented on events while other living players were...less than verbal). I honestly think that had it not been for my experience from WW II that I would have folded much earlier. But note that I did say that dead people were scary and point out who was the other winner indie.
As for the possibility of "winning" on a technicality, I'm honestly glad it didn't happen. Would it have been nice to win a WW going solo: sure. But note when there were other Indies still around. Again, TOO MANY INDIES as AT has already admitted to.
I will say that I was skeptical of a large game early on but, minus the Indie situation at the end, I think it worked well. Will my next game be this large: no. But can something like this be managed: yes. I'm hoping to do something this big for another big anniversary WW, but only time will tell if this will happen.
@ Ikrit: No Vote on Day 1 is the WORST Idea in any game as it ONLY statistically hurts the town. See my posts on DAy 1 that support this, I'm not debating it again. THe number become increasingly bad for the town as far as lynchings go (the town's only REAL power). Did it help me a bit: sure. But had I been a Townie, I would have debated as vehemently the same way I did this game.
@AK: You suck. But in a loving-Jesus-kind-of way. Well played and, once I knew about your role, I honestly hoped you would win as you played it very cool and under-the-0radar as a good indie should. Awesome work.
ON THE TOPIC OF THE NEXT GAME:
Yes, the next game is mine. And I started writing it FAR before this game.
However, this long writing time gave me a chance to create two games.
One game I will use; the other will have its roles taken out and used in another game. But its theme will be MUCH different.
To decide which game we will play, I will ask you this question:
TEAM EDWARD or TEAM JACOB?
Think before you answer, think about any symbolism I could be using here. Because there are MULTIPLE layers in each choice.
AT asked me to wait a few days before I posted this, so I have. I look forward ot your votes, as this will determine the game played for the next WW hosted by me.
As far as when it will be, expect the game to pop up sometime after Worlds. In the lead-up to Nats and post-Nats, this community is abuzz with news and commentary. Your time is better spent on that then in this game, which often gets neglected and runs too long through the summer.
I'll be on and off sporadically to check votes. In a week, I'll take my last tally of the voting and let you guys know the title for the game. Until then, vote away.
(NOTE: ANYONE may vote, even if they weren't in WW XII.)
~Cardz.
Ikrit
New Member
@ Cardz
I read all of your "logic" the first game day. It is not correct.
The first problem is with your idealized game scenario.
You are arguing from a point of view that seems to have been contrived only to support your point. This is because in the scenario you suggest it is assumed that there are only two methodologies of killing people, the town lynch and the wolf night kill. However, one, I do not know of a game in which this is so, and two, it was a posteriori incorrect given our previous circumstances. This is because it was a game with 37 members, empirically this would make more than one method of killing people highly likely. If there were three kills every day-night cycle, the number of players would vacillate between odd and even every day night cycle, effectively flip-flopping through your "idealized" and "non-idealized" examples.
Next, your idealized game scenario completely ignores the possibility of an integral role. That is, you forget the Priest. Surely you would not say that a priest should not protect someone from death, would you? Yet that is effectively what you say should be done. Your "logic" states that it is more beneficial to gain information, as well as sustain an odd number of players once the day begins than it is to keep a townie alive. Beyond that fact, what if the priests protects someone. Would you then advocate not lynching someone in order to regain an odd number of people at the onset of the next day cycle?
The second is that your logic does not hold up even in your idealized game scenario.
Your numbers are correct. A majority in an odd numbered group is a lower proportion of the total group than a majority in an even numbered group. However what you neglect to mention is that the number of people difference cannot differ by more than one for adjacent numbers of people. Let me explain.
In number theory it is common to represent evens as numbers of the form 2k, and odds as numbers of the form 2k+1, with k being taken out of the set of integers. The fact that your numbers notice is that a strict majority of both groups is k+1, where odds are a larger group in all cases, thus the proportional difference. More specifically in the case that you criticize, evens would be of the form 2(k+1) and odds would be 2k+1 in which case a strict majority for evens would be k+2 and odds would be k+1. However as I just showed, these two value vary by a single vote. A single vote is not generally hard to get from an active player.
However there is another thing that makes your point moot, even in your idealized scenario. That is that whoever has the most votes at the end of the day is lynched. The majority rule is simply necessary for ending the day early. While it does not explicitly say this in the rules, it is the rule that this game was played by.
Lastly, what scenario can you give me in which it is more beneficial for the town to lose one kill earlier?
I ask this because it is what you are advocating in all of the cases where the first person lynched is not a townie, which is what I think statistically the majority of the cases are.
I read all of your "logic" the first game day. It is not correct.
The first problem is with your idealized game scenario.
You are arguing from a point of view that seems to have been contrived only to support your point. This is because in the scenario you suggest it is assumed that there are only two methodologies of killing people, the town lynch and the wolf night kill. However, one, I do not know of a game in which this is so, and two, it was a posteriori incorrect given our previous circumstances. This is because it was a game with 37 members, empirically this would make more than one method of killing people highly likely. If there were three kills every day-night cycle, the number of players would vacillate between odd and even every day night cycle, effectively flip-flopping through your "idealized" and "non-idealized" examples.
Next, your idealized game scenario completely ignores the possibility of an integral role. That is, you forget the Priest. Surely you would not say that a priest should not protect someone from death, would you? Yet that is effectively what you say should be done. Your "logic" states that it is more beneficial to gain information, as well as sustain an odd number of players once the day begins than it is to keep a townie alive. Beyond that fact, what if the priests protects someone. Would you then advocate not lynching someone in order to regain an odd number of people at the onset of the next day cycle?
The second is that your logic does not hold up even in your idealized game scenario.
Your numbers are correct. A majority in an odd numbered group is a lower proportion of the total group than a majority in an even numbered group. However what you neglect to mention is that the number of people difference cannot differ by more than one for adjacent numbers of people. Let me explain.
In number theory it is common to represent evens as numbers of the form 2k, and odds as numbers of the form 2k+1, with k being taken out of the set of integers. The fact that your numbers notice is that a strict majority of both groups is k+1, where odds are a larger group in all cases, thus the proportional difference. More specifically in the case that you criticize, evens would be of the form 2(k+1) and odds would be 2k+1 in which case a strict majority for evens would be k+2 and odds would be k+1. However as I just showed, these two value vary by a single vote. A single vote is not generally hard to get from an active player.
However there is another thing that makes your point moot, even in your idealized scenario. That is that whoever has the most votes at the end of the day is lynched. The majority rule is simply necessary for ending the day early. While it does not explicitly say this in the rules, it is the rule that this game was played by.
Lastly, what scenario can you give me in which it is more beneficial for the town to lose one kill earlier?
I ask this because it is what you are advocating in all of the cases where the first person lynched is not a townie, which is what I think statistically the majority of the cases are.
PokeChampofPokeBeach
New Member
The way I see it, they're both Werewolf games, so it matters little to me which one we play. Personally, I gotta go Team Edward. Jacob isn't a Werewolf, he's a shapeshifter, technically. That and vampires are cool. Cooler than Werewolves, even.
Vote: Team Edward
Vote: Team Edward
Sandslash7
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
Vote: Team Jacob I have no idea how layers of symbolism you are using, but I'm choosing this one.
Absoltrainer
Active Member
I hate twilight, but I'll vote Team Jacob
There's a "J" in the name and "J" is an awsome letter
There's a "J" in the name and "J" is an awsome letter
Azure Kite
New Member
Idk bout y'all but vampires are cool....and the last thing I want is to vote for the pretty one.
Vote: Team Edward
Vote: Team Edward
Pikamaster
Active Member
I'll do Vote: Team Jacob. Now please let this be a game about Lost. I can see it now, the title could be Are you an Other?
Cardzmaster2004
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
*Hijacks vote tallying*
VOTES:
Team Jacob - 5
Team Edward - 2
Team Neither - 1
Since it took a while for voting to start up, I won't tally final results until after Saturday. Get those votes in people!!!
~Cardz.
VOTES:
Team Jacob - 5
Team Edward - 2
Team Neither - 1
Since it took a while for voting to start up, I won't tally final results until after Saturday. Get those votes in people!!!
~Cardz.
Time for Pain
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
VOTE: Team Edward
d master342
New Member
Vote: Team Jacob
Werewolf game=Werewolf person. It just fits, even though I like Edward more.
dmaster out.
Werewolf game=Werewolf person. It just fits, even though I like Edward more.
dmaster out.
Azure Kite
New Member
lol guys I love LOST but where did anyone say for sure that this would be LOST-based? Not that I'm hardenedly against 'Team Jacob' or want to change people's minds, but how do we know we're just voting for Werewolves over Vampires? I'd like to know, because I'll gladly change my vote if we're talking a LOST-themed WW game here....