Pre-XVII Werewolf Metagame Analysis

[Pikamaster]

Originally Posted by Benzo

@Pikamaster: How is it that I "maybe" played horrible? I will admit to not being skilled in a game like this. I personally do like "mental warfare" games, such as chess. I take a game for what it is intended to do, and play with in the rules. I may not play the game like everyone else, nor did I choose to use tactics that go without results. I do not think the same as what is considered normal. I do not take things for face value, and I am a heavy analyzer. I did gain a great amount of information in the game, but died to soon to fully show my intentions of what it was I was aiming to do.

I also feel that no one really considered anything I said. I played 1 game prior to this. I was a wolf in that last game. I also came into that game late as a replacement. I learned a great amount of information to use to inn-act for the next game.

Second game, I was a townie. I did not want to role reveal, nor give out to much info about my own role. I needed a certain item to become a better use for the town. I was not positive as to how I should approach this without getting lynched. And yes, I also felt the "Oh, he is a noob and so just ignore anything since it does not make sense and his play is confusing"- sort of attitude.

If I had lived longer, I already knew way before hand the PMF5 was a wolf, and I was uncertain about as to Ikrit and AT.

One of my problems in the game is getting WIFOM figured out as to how my brain translates my thoughts as supporting evidence vs fallacy. Either way, I played how I played in order to achieve the goal of improving while developing skills to better understand how the game works and create my own style.

2 games I have been in, and I at least have seen two of the major sides of the game and trying to figure out great tactics and keep being supportive to the other players on what side I was on.

I do not mind criticism at all. It is a game. I do not take offence quickly. I do know that the game is designed to be a mental challenge, and that not every game should be a reflection of how the last games went.

So, how is it that I played so horrible? Is it because I played in an unconventional manner?

I said maybe because you died the next night. Also because it's possible that I just don't understand what you were doing. The last day you played, you kind of exploded with, well, a lot of stuff. To me, it looked like you were trying to do too many things at once.

The way you sank your teeth into AT and wouldn't stop, and then backing off, as well as so many other things you said that I couldn't remember. To me, it wasn't the right time for that sort of play. In the end, you were almost lynched because of it, and, maybe I'm wrong, but almost nothing was accomplished other than a lot of confusion. I'm all for new tactics and strategies that'll keep people guessing, but using WIFOM for arguments and getting information that's WIFOM, there's a lot of danger there. In the end, the wrong person might be cleared or lynched, and it quite frankly isn't really worth revealing almost everything to get information that's WIFOM (I've never seen that term more abused than in the last game... )

Second game, I was a townie. I did not want to role reveal, nor give out to much info about my own role. I needed a certain item to become a better use for the town. I was not positive as to how I should approach this without getting lynched. And yes, I also felt the "Oh, he is a noob and so just ignore anything since it does not make sense and his play is confusing"- sort of attitude.

But you were killed that night. You approached the way for getting the item correctly, but it was unwise to try to obtain information the way you did at the time you did. If you had waited longer, you could've been of more use to the town than you were when you died (assuming you hadn't taken the Pokeball).

So I guess part of it is not to execute a strategy that needs your survival unless you're sure that you can get everything done that needs to be done before your death, or other players can carry on your work if you do die.

[Diaz]

@wolves from the last game: I don't understand what point you are trying to make by saying that you ignored vet reverence / reputation. If you guys had won, I'd think you'd have a great point: "We ignored past play and were successful in the game because of it." would be a really compelling argument - one that I'd actually buy. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

^ I think if I left the post with just that, I'd get a lot of "We lost because of power roles, not because of who we killed" - which I think is mostly true. I'm not saying that your play was correct/incorrect. I'm saying that we don't know either way. If the wolves had gone after vets, would they have been more or less successful? We don't know. Maybe I'm just missing the point.

[King Piplup]

Originally Posted by Diaz

@wolves from the last game: I don't understand what point you are trying to make by saying that you ignored vet reverence / reputation. If you guys had won, I'd think you'd have a great point: "We ignored past play and were successful in the game because of it." would be a really compelling argument - one that I'd actually buy. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

^ I think if I left the post with just that, I'd get a lot of "We lost because of power roles, not because of who we killed" - which I think is mostly true. I'm not saying that your play was correct/incorrect. I'm saying that we don't know either way. If the wolves had gone after vets, would they have been more or less successful? We don't know. Maybe I'm just missing the point.

The point is that almost none of the "vets" was playing well enough to warrant us killing them.

[Diaz]

But there's no way of knowing if your choices in the game were good or not. Yeah, you chose not to target vets, but was that the best choice? I don't see a compelling reason to think so. If you guys had won, or had even been close, it would make a good argument, but as is, I don't really see it as convincing.

Maybe (big maybe) targeting vets would have been a better play.

[PMysterious]

Originally Posted by Diaz

But there's no way of knowing if your choices in the game were good or not. Yeah, you chose not to target vets, but was that the best choice? I don't see a compelling reason to think so. If you guys had won, or had even been close, it would make a good argument, but as is, I don't really see it as convincing.

Maybe (big maybe) targeting vets would have been a better play.

You might wanna look back at your play and see how YOU we're able to survive. I died because of
1. How newbish I was.
and 2. How bad I played in general.

Look back into 1. Notice that I say I was newbish. You ARE a vet. Reason 1 is how you survived lynches and Reason 2 was how you we're not targeted by the wolves. You had Vet reference. We only would've targeted you if
1. You we're playing to good for the wolves to manage.
or 2. You had a Power Role that would destroy the wolves.

It was not a mistake at all and it was not the better play. Vets have experience and Newbs do not. Why do newbs get lynched over Vets. I want you to think about it. Then Highlight what's below me.

Vet Reference

Its the only reason why you survived in general. You played worse than me and Dave628 on Day 1. Do you want people to go easy on you? I'm hoping not.

Vet reference is not ever going to happen again. I'm giving this warning to all Vets and not just Diaz. I'm not gonna go easy on anyone, even a Vet. Next time, if you play super bad, you ARE dead.

That's how serious I am about Vet Reference.

[jpulice]

PM, don't mistake "bad" play for strategy.

The same goes for others. Not playing to your full potential at times should not be considered "playing bad" in general. Laying low and not engaging in discussion at times is ideal play. The very same thoughts the wolves used to kill "good" players is the polar opposite to how some people survive the first few das of the game. As a townie, being "part of the hunt" is where the fun is. So, do you go out with a bang and shine to start, and risk an early departure. Not always.

I don't agree with VETs v Newb mentality. But do not mistake me wanting to keep a player around because they may be a strong ally. Just because I don't have a read on someone, doesn't mean I'll push for thier lynch. Theres alway more to consider. I try to lynch based on my opinions if you are a wolf rather than "good or bad" play.

I consider myself new, by many standards. Just because I've played 3 games here doesnt mean anything to the next game. Every game you get your role, devise a strategy to win and play. These games are fluid where everyone is adjusting to play. Fluidity, is your ally, excellent logic and written debate skills your weapons. Finally, no matter the how you play, it's a game, so don't take attacks personally (they will happen), and make sure to have FUN! The OP, is a good start to encouraging us all to think more, optimize play, and hopefully enhance everyone's enjoyment.

[Benzo]

@Pikamaster: I will agree that I more then likely was trying to accomplish to many things at once. That I will Take into thought for future games.

As far as being confusing play style, I will not enclose on the strategy I used. That strategy did pay off, and the info a gathered did end up with the results I had obtained.

The factor of the wolves being able to communicate at any time was a big stick in one of my other strategies though. I could not back track something I started, and I could not recover well due to not knowing if the open communication was going to work like I thought. I did sort of freak out a bit on that, but I did recover a bit later- and for me it came down to Ikrit and AT on who was telling the truth. When I asked Ikrit those few simple questions, I realized the tactic I started could be approached with less sophistication then needed since the wolves open communication would not hinder them but place them in a situation that would have them need to be careful of what they ssay. It is easy to see when a person speaks for themselves then as a group. That is where I was going to "stop looking insane"-

I figured the wolves would let the town lynch me vs taking me out due to my play style. That was in an attempt to buy me time to piece things together to be able to work on putting the info together and start working on getting the wolves exposed.

Thank you for the reply.

I look forward to the next game, I hope to see the return of many of you.

[Ikrit]

Originally Posted by Diaz

But there's no way of knowing if your choices in the game were good or not. Yeah, you chose not to target vets, but was that the best choice? I don't see a compelling reason to think so. If you guys had won, or had even been close, it would make a good argument, but as is, I don't really see it as convincing.

Maybe (big maybe) targeting vets would have been a better play.

I submit that we played that way the two times the wolves have been closest to winning...notable the game were I was the last wolf and there was only one townie left in cardz game....and in the last game.

But beyond that, I believe that KP's point is that none of the "vets" lastgame did anything to warrant lynching other than supposedly being better because they are "vets". Notably this is a counter to Pika's and iirc your point that vets are vets because they are better players. KP iiuc is stating that none of the vets were worth lynching because they were playing terribly and misleading the town.

[Sandslash7]

Originally Posted by Diaz

@wolves from the last game: I don't understand what point you are trying to make by saying that you ignored vet reverence / reputation. If you guys had won, I'd think you'd have a great point: "We ignored past play and were successful in the game because of it." would be a really compelling argument - one that I'd actually buy. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

^ I think if I left the post with just that, I'd get a lot of "We lost because of power roles, not because of who we killed" - which I think is mostly true. I'm not saying that your play was correct/incorrect. I'm saying that we don't know either way. If the wolves had gone after vets, would they have been more or less successful? We don't know. Maybe I'm just missing the point.

Agreed that it would be a stronger argument. But it shows the unbalance of the meta towards the town side even more.

The point I was making was this: Many of the "vets" who were playing in XVI were not playing well, and thus the wolves did not fear them at all. Their day play was weak and nonthreatening. That was the main point of my post. I think KP mirrored this as well. We wanted to give a "wolf-side" view on the play of the town.

The fact that so many of the "vets" of the town elicited no reading on our threat meter is definitely cause for concern.

That was the second point KP was making. We were not threatened by many of the "vets'" Day play. (Those who were threatening were killed within the first 3 days.)


Effectively, the statement boiled down to this: The Wolves felt that many of the "vets" were ineffectual in getting the Day to go against the wolves. We were not threatened by their presence, and so they were left alive to sow dissension within the town, while we killed more important targets.

Ikrit got it on the money in the second paragraph.

Ikrit also mentions a good point about the wolves closest victories. He would know better than I because I was town-sided during X and XV, but if he is correct that they played that way those games, they are great evidence in support of said strategy and its legitimacy. X and XV were the closest to wolf victories since the conception of WW back in 2007. X was terribly townsided with the Voguer, and XV was LyLo even though no one knew it. If they used that strategy and were that close to victory, it supports that strategy greatly.



Jpulice. Indeed, but don't mistake "vet and newb" for "good player and bad." I greatly concur that a town player will want to keep strong, scumhunting players around. That is the best strategy. But strong, scumhunting players may be experienced or new. That is our point. One shouldn't look at the name and say "oh I'll listen to that person." One should look at the argument and say "Oh, that is logical and resonable I'll listen to that person."

---------- Post added 08/05/2012 at 05:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Benzo

@Pikamaster: How is it that I "maybe" played horrible? I will admit to not being skilled in a game like this. I personally do like "mental warfare" games, such as chess. I take a game for what it is intended to do, and play with in the rules. I may not play the game like everyone else, nor did I choose to use tactics that go without results. I do not think the same as what is considered normal. I do not take things for face value, and I am a heavy analyzer. I did gain a great amount of information in the game, but died to soon to fully show my intentions of what it was I was aiming to do.

I also feel that no one really considered anything I said. I played 1 game prior to this. I was a wolf in that last game. I also came into that game late as a replacement. I learned a great amount of information to use to inn-act for the next game.

Second game, I was a townie. I did not want to role reveal, nor give out to much info about my own role. I needed a certain item to become a better use for the town. I was not positive as to how I should approach this without getting lynched. And yes, I also felt the "Oh, he is a noob and so just ignore anything since it does not make sense and his play is confusing"- sort of attitude.

If I had lived longer, I already knew way before hand the PMF5 was a wolf, and I was uncertain about as to Ikrit and AT.

One of my problems in the game is getting WIFOM figured out as to how my brain translates my thoughts as supporting evidence vs fallacy. Either way, I played how I played in order to achieve the goal of improving while developing skills to better understand how the game works and create my own style.

2 games I have been in, and I at least have seen two of the major sides of the game and trying to figure out great tactics and keep being supportive to the other players on what side I was on.

I do not mind criticism at all. It is a game. I do not take offence quickly. I do know that the game is designed to be a mental challenge, and that not every game should be a reflection of how the last games went.

So, how is it that I played so horrible? Is it because I played in an unconventional manner?

Benzo ~ I don't speak for everyone, but I'll give you what I thought of your play in XVI.

Honestly I was completely lost. I tried, I really did. But I did not have any clue what you were talking about. It got to the point where I'd just skip your post and see what people thought of them (now I was dead at the time, so I had that luxury).

Now it wasn't that you didn't have thought or reasoning behind it. I just couldn't follow what you were saying. Your logic was not clearly laid out well enough, and trying to do random things for reads that only you would understand while only explaining half of it was very confusing.

Makig reaction tests is good. Making them so convoluted no one can understand what you are doing or saying is not.


I suppose that the reason you played "horrible" was partially due to your unconventiality and partially due to being unable to make the clear, concise links between your statements. That was my main hold up. I just couldn't understand what you were getting at.

[kirbyking]

I know I am not really in this discussion, but I think people need to remember the saying "It is not winning, it is how you play the game". If you play the game to the best of your extent *cough*cough* Absoltrainer, then you pretty much win, right?

[Absoltrainer]

Originally Posted by kirbyking

I know I am not really in this discussion, but I think people need to remember the saying "It is not winning, it is how you play the game". If you play the game to the best of your extent *cough*cough* Absoltrainer, then you pretty much win, right?

That's getting sigged.

[Sandslash7]

Originally Posted by kirbyking

I know I am not really in this discussion, but I think people need to remember the saying "It is not winning, it is how you play the game". If you play the game to the best of your extent *cough*cough* Absoltrainer, then you pretty much win, right?

If I wasn't out of Thanks you would be getting one.

[kirbyking]

Here I'll just create an account called Sandslash7orbust and thanks myself. That'll register as your thanks. On topic, anon games seem like fun ways to express WW without the vet reverance crap, (no offense to refs this means YOU diaz) but seems impossible on the Gym.

[Sandslash7]

Also, something that we never discussed in the OP but something that I feel SHOULD be discussed here is the topic of suicide.

I'd like to get the thoughts of the community on this.


Some background first: Originally, there was no rule against RR'ing your Role PM. However, during WW III (or V) someone PMed the mod asking: "What if all of the townies flipped their role cards? The Wolves would be unable to and thus lose." So the mod at the time (Shellshock929) implemented the rule that one must not quote your role card verbatim, and would assign a Modkill penalty for anyone trying this tactic.

Effectively, Modkill was instituted as a penalty for anyone trying to "massclaim" by posting their Role PMs.


Now, to bring the topic into the present.

Two players in WW XVI "committed suicide" by posting their role card. Is Modkill a valid and just punishment?

Does there need to be something more severe?

Was what these two players did the same?

Can massclaims be prevented without banning the posting of your role card?


Thoughts?

[King Piplup]

Originally Posted by Sandslash7

Also, something that we never discussed in the OP but something that I feel SHOULD be discussed here is the topic of suicide.

I'd like to get the thoughts of the community on this.


Some background first: Originally, there was no rule against RR'ing your Role PM. However, during WW III (or V) someone PMed the mod asking: "What if all of the townies flipped their role cards? The Wolves would be unable to and thus lose." So the mod at the time (Shellshock929) implemented the rule that one must not quote your role card verbatim, and would assign a Modkill penalty for anyone trying this tactic.

Effectively, Modkill was instituted as a penalty for anyone trying to "massclaim" by posting their Role PMs.


Now, to bring the topic into the present.

Two players in WW XVI "committed suicide" by posting their role card. Is Modkill a valid and just punishment?

Does there need to be something more severe?

Was what these two players did the same?

Can massclaims be prevented without banning the posting of your role card?


Thoughts?

Mod kill is valid and just IMO.

I personally don't find a need for further punishment.

By no means were those suicides the same. One was a rage quit, and one was strategically ending the day to protect their wolf partner, which I respect. The rage quit, I respect much less.

I think VT's and odd characters would be a great way to combat mass claim.

By the way, being vanilla doesn't damper the fun at all. If anything, you're able to play more aggressively/creatively than you would had you had a role integral to the town.

[Pikamaster]

Originally Posted by Sandslash7

Also, something that we never discussed in the OP but something that I feel SHOULD be discussed here is the topic of suicide.

I'd like to get the thoughts of the community on this.


Some background first: Originally, there was no rule against RR'ing your Role PM. However, during WW III (or V) someone PMed the mod asking: "What if all of the townies flipped their role cards? The Wolves would be unable to and thus lose." So the mod at the time (Shellshock929) implemented the rule that one must not quote your role card verbatim, and would assign a Modkill penalty for anyone trying this tactic.

Effectively, Modkill was instituted as a penalty for anyone trying to "massclaim" by posting their Role PMs.


Now, to bring the topic into the present.

Two players in WW XVI "committed suicide" by posting their role card. Is Modkill a valid and just punishment?

Does there need to be something more severe?

Was what these two players did the same?

Can massclaims be prevented without banning the posting of your role card?


Thoughts?

After all the bullying last game to break impediments, and then the double suicide via modkill, I believe that absolutely NO intentional rule breaking should be encouraged or done, with a ban from the next game as a penalty. Disgression of the mod would have to be brought into play here, obviously.

[Absoltrainer]

Originally Posted by Pikamaster

After all the bullying last game to break impediments, and then the double suicide via modkill, I believe that absolutely NO intentional rule breaking should be encouraged or done, with a ban from the next game as a penalty. Disgression of the mod would have to be brought into play here, obviously.

1.) Forcing a player to break their speech imped is a valid tactic. Otherwise it give people freedom to lie without question.
2.) Suicide is a valid tactic, and a smart one for the wolf. Dumb for a townie, but still valid.
3.) No, there should NOT be punishments made for suicide or trying to prove speech impediment. If a mod were to implement those, and I ran the game afterwords, I would not honor those punishment and would let that player play. That kind of stuff encourages previous games to play a part or be used and refereanced in future games. That's one of the problems we have already. Bans are for stuff like sabotage, speaking or helping players outside of the game, stuff like that.

[ProHawk]

Originally Posted by Absoltrainer

1.) Forcing a player to break their speech imped is a valid tactic. Otherwise it give people freedom to lie without question.
2.) Suicide is a valid tactic, and a smart one for the wolf. Dumb for a townie, but still valid.
3.) No, there should NOT be punishments made for suicide or trying to prove speech impediment. If a mod were to implement those, and I ran the game afterwords, I would not honor those punishment and would let that player play. That kind of stuff encourages previous games to play a part or be used and refereanced in future games. That's one of the problems we have already. Bans are for stuff like sabotage, speaking or helping players outside of the game, stuff like that.

Completely agree, but I think there should be a way to suicide without copying and pasting roles/PM's. For example, AAM wanted to have the phasor drop without it being in the role, however Jason showed everyone what it did.

I think a vote:suicide should be good enough to end the day.

[kirbyking]

Originally Posted by Absoltrainer

1.) Forcing a player to break their speech imped is a valid tactic. Otherwise it give people freedom to lie without question.
2.) Suicide is a valid tactic, and a smart one for the wolf. Dumb for a townie, but still valid.
3.) No, there should NOT be punishments made for suicide or trying to prove speech impediment. If a mod were to implement those, and I ran the game afterwords, I would not honor those punishment and would let that player play. That kind of stuff encourages previous games to play a part or be used and refereanced in future games. That's one of the problems we have already. Bans are for stuff like sabotage, speaking or helping players outside of the game, stuff like that.

I also agree. Suicide is strategic, but If it is just a rage quit suicide that is worthy of punishment. The problem is you can't tell if it was strategic or not unless it was super obvious. Why punishments for trying to prove someone lying about a speech impediment? That doesn't even make sense.

[JewelQuest]

Just to say, why does Jason actually play Werewolf? He doesn't do anything, except for doing a simple one day post to stay in. He doesn't seem to care about the town when he's a townie, and he doesn't really care about the wolves when he's a wolf. He always seems to be Indie, no matter his alliance.

Thoughts?

[Pikamaster]

Originally Posted by kirbyking

I also agree. Suicide is strategic, but If it is just a rage quit suicide that is worthy of punishment. The problem is you can't tell if it was strategic or not unless it was super obvious. Why punishments for trying to prove someone lying about a speech impediment? That doesn't even make sense.

But why should any player benefit from breaking the rules? The system is flawed and abused how it is now. The rules shouldn't be meant to be broken to let any player benefit.

Last game, people talked at night, didn't stop talking when the day ended, and encouraged people to break the rules in general. Why should they get away without penalty? I think this should be one of the things to be revamped.

[PMysterious]

Originally Posted by JewelQuest

Just to say, why does Jason actually play Werewolf? He doesn't do anything, except for doing a simple one day post to stay in. He doesn't seem to care about the town when he's a townie, and he doesn't really care about the wolves when he's a wolf. He always seems to be Indie, no matter his alliance.

Thoughts?

I honestly have to agree. If you're going to be Town or Wolf, HELP THEM OUT! Being useless does nothing. Next time Jason, be a help to the town if you're town or help to the wolves if you're a wolf. I really don't like lurkers what so ever even though I do it every once in a while.

Lurking: Lurking is a basic Wolf/Mafia strategy to help them think out certain situations or just get used to the games flow. Town and Third-Party can also do this play but if noticed, that player will probably get lynched unless there is a scummier player.

Also, about the Suicide matter.

Suicide: Modkill is fine for this punishment. However, Rage-Quitting Suicides should probably be Banned from the next game and Strategy-Suicides should get no extra punishment at all.

[kirbyking]

Originally Posted by Pikamaster

But why should any player benefit from breaking the rules? The system is flawed and abused how it is now. The rules shouldn't be meant to be broken to let any player benefit.

Last game, people talked at night, didn't stop talking when the day ended, and encouraged people to break the rules in general. Why should they get away without penalty? I think this should be one of the things to be revamped.

That is the discussion. Should it be against the rules to strategically suicide. I already posted my standpoint on the matter and truthfully, I don't think this topic will EVER go away.

[Pikamaster]

Originally Posted by kirbyking

That is the discussion. Should it be against the rules to strategically suicide. I already posted my standpoint on the matter and truthfully, I don't think this topic will EVER go away.

Go away, no. But I think we can come up with a better system than what we have for warnings for various things that won't allow players to break the system.

[kirbyking]

Originally Posted by Pikamaster

Go away, no. But I think we can come up with a better system than what we have for warnings for various things that won't allow players to break the system.

At first I thought you were telling me to go away XD. A system where players got afflicted by inappropriate uses of suicide might be brought up. Who knows, maybe AAM or Ikrit or maybe even Cantor will come up with a system.