Pre-XVII Werewolf Metagame Analysis
- Thread starter Sandslash7
- Start date
Sandslash7
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
If I wasn't out of Thanks you would be getting one.
Sandslash7
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
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?
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
Active Member
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
Active Member
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
Active Member
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.
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
New Member
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?
Thoughts?
Pikamaster
Active Member
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
New Member
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.
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
Active Member
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.
Sandslash7
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
Speech Impediments
Part of the reason that people want players to break their impeds is because of a few reasons.
I spoke about this in the OP, but part of it comes back to reliance on the mod for information. Players are waiting for the mod to confirm X about a role, which will then validate the players role reveal (like Ultimatedra in XVI). If that is validated by the mod then they are "cleared" in some sense. This is just part of relying on the mod for information, and is a segment of a whole.
The other part is because Speech Impeds are:
Speech Impediments are a detriment to the game in my opinion. Speech impediments (ESPECIALLY those faked by the players in XVI) cause many issues in day play. They lead to a plethora of meaningless posts and unnecessary bloating of the thread. They also can cripple a player's ability to participate in ONE HALF of the game. WW is not a game of Nights. It is a game of DAYS and Nights. If a speech impediment interferes with one's Day posting (Akane/Chewbacca in XV and Steelix in I) it supports Night-Only play, which hampers the growth of the players skill.
It is my opinion that Speech impediments need to be reworked at the minimum.
I do not like the forcing of a player to break the impediment to prove it is true, but I also do not like the fact that people fake the impediment to get credit one way or the other.
This bears discussion as well.
Suicide
I think that suicide is poor sportsmanship. I don't like a player giving up on the game. However, I can also see the validity as a Wolf tactic.
One thing we must differentiate is voting for oneself versus posting a Role PM. I still think posting of a Role PM should result in an immediate Modkill.
However I think that it can be valid in certain situations.
My conclusion on suicide:
Self-voting or self-hammer is perfectly legitimate and legal.
What the two players did in XVI should not garner punishments retrospectively.
Players who post a Role PM should be modkilled.
Players who post a Role PM should also be banned from the next game unless they can convince the mod or WW_Leader they were furthering their WC.
Part of the reason that people want players to break their impeds is because of a few reasons.
I spoke about this in the OP, but part of it comes back to reliance on the mod for information. Players are waiting for the mod to confirm X about a role, which will then validate the players role reveal (like Ultimatedra in XVI). If that is validated by the mod then they are "cleared" in some sense. This is just part of relying on the mod for information, and is a segment of a whole.
The other part is because Speech Impeds are:
- So easy to fake
- So common to fake
- Still used in games
- Usually denote a town role.
Speech Impediments are a detriment to the game in my opinion. Speech impediments (ESPECIALLY those faked by the players in XVI) cause many issues in day play. They lead to a plethora of meaningless posts and unnecessary bloating of the thread. They also can cripple a player's ability to participate in ONE HALF of the game. WW is not a game of Nights. It is a game of DAYS and Nights. If a speech impediment interferes with one's Day posting (Akane/Chewbacca in XV and Steelix in I) it supports Night-Only play, which hampers the growth of the players skill.
It is my opinion that Speech impediments need to be reworked at the minimum.
I do not like the forcing of a player to break the impediment to prove it is true, but I also do not like the fact that people fake the impediment to get credit one way or the other.
This bears discussion as well.
Suicide
I think that suicide is poor sportsmanship. I don't like a player giving up on the game. However, I can also see the validity as a Wolf tactic.
One thing we must differentiate is voting for oneself versus posting a Role PM. I still think posting of a Role PM should result in an immediate Modkill.
However I think that it can be valid in certain situations.
My conclusion on suicide:
Self-voting or self-hammer is perfectly legitimate and legal.
What the two players did in XVI should not garner punishments retrospectively.
Players who post a Role PM should be modkilled.
Players who post a Role PM should also be banned from the next game unless they can convince the mod or WW_Leader they were furthering their WC.
Self-voting wouldn't accomplish the same thing unless they were at L-1... why couldn't they just vote suicide and save the headache of having to break a rule to die?
Sandslash7
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
Agreed, which is why I'm not recommending punishment for self-voting.
For a strategic play, a wolf would want to silence the town, especially if they felt they had no way to fight off the town. They would want to end the day as soon as possible so as to keep the town from discussing, effectively moving the game into the next Night cycle. This can be very powerful. Which is why it would be a good move to "break the rule" to immediately end the day.
Since we NEED a punishment for posting one's Role PM, we cannot change that punishment based on who does the action. Thus, my recommendation for Modkill and then Ban for the next game unless it can be proven useful otherwise.
Benzo
Front Page News Editor<br>Forum Moderator
If suicide is done in a strategic manner, like to end the day sooner since that player is up for unavoidable lynch- that action is being done for the reason of tactic. It is like a wolf on a hammer-in. End the day to stop the play.
I have no issues with a strategic suicide. And as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the suicide play, and at least a great majority of the current players see that the suicide is a strategic play- no need to punish IMO.
Rage suicide is wrong. Plain wrong IMO. Un-sportsman like manner/conduct. I understand a person can become frustrated/over loaded in the game, but they need to keep in mind it is after all a game. If a person gets in over their head for the game, or can not continue to handle the stress of it, no one else should have to pay the price of that players actions in breaking a rule. The rage suicide player did the action, not the over all group. I think it should be only fare to ban the rage suicider for 1 game, minimum.
Only drawback to a rage suicider that has a game ban on them is that they can create a new account, and sign up again.
I think the mod-kill and a 1 game ban for rage suicides is great, unless proven to be strategic like SS7 said.
I have no issues with a strategic suicide. And as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the suicide play, and at least a great majority of the current players see that the suicide is a strategic play- no need to punish IMO.
Rage suicide is wrong. Plain wrong IMO. Un-sportsman like manner/conduct. I understand a person can become frustrated/over loaded in the game, but they need to keep in mind it is after all a game. If a person gets in over their head for the game, or can not continue to handle the stress of it, no one else should have to pay the price of that players actions in breaking a rule. The rage suicide player did the action, not the over all group. I think it should be only fare to ban the rage suicider for 1 game, minimum.
Only drawback to a rage suicider that has a game ban on them is that they can create a new account, and sign up again.
I think the mod-kill and a 1 game ban for rage suicides is great, unless proven to be strategic like SS7 said.
Ikrit
New Member
There is another possible instance in which a suicide is (possibly)strategically viable.
Say Townie A is convinced of the truth of Townie Bs statements and these statements contain a very strong power role...however, the town is determined to lynch Townie B. I feel that it should be acceptable in that instance for Townie A to suicide to "save" Townie B from lynch.
Also...I think that if people would simply turn whatever rage is pushing them towards a rage-quit suicide, I think they would very quickly find that this may net the town reads that prevents them from lynching the possible suicider.
Say Townie A is convinced of the truth of Townie Bs statements and these statements contain a very strong power role...however, the town is determined to lynch Townie B. I feel that it should be acceptable in that instance for Townie A to suicide to "save" Townie B from lynch.
Also...I think that if people would simply turn whatever rage is pushing them towards a rage-quit suicide, I think they would very quickly find that this may net the town reads that prevents them from lynching the possible suicider.