Pre-XVII Werewolf Metagame Analysis

[Sandslash7]

Subjectivity

Exactly my point. It takes a great deal of work for the moderator to analyze what a player is trying to do/doing and make the call if we set some kind of system like that.

 

[toxictaipan]

Exactly my point. It takes a great deal of work for the moderator to analyze what a player is trying to do/doing and make the call if we set some kind of system like that.

You probably didn't catch my edit before replying, though maybe you did. I'm not really worried about catering to a specific few players trying to fly under the radar or "do something." If you can't fly under the radar or "do something" and you get called out for trying, you get back in the game instead of continuing to lurk. You got busted.

There is an obvious problem. Lurkers make the game less enjoyable. We shouldn't have to put up with a less enjoyable game just because a certain group of players want to play a certain way, or be forced to play sub-optimally to eliminate them each and every time.

I see two options: Weed out the trouble makers one by one, or make a hard and fast rule that can objectively be enforced without question. If you can't be bothered to post enough, or are unable to lie well enough to keep up with the hard and fast rule, that's your problem. No one should have to suffer because a player can't (or won't) play well.

It doesn't have to be that harsh, though. Warnings could be issued once or twice before a replacement is finally made.

EDIT: No system we implement is going to get rid of lurking. That's not the point. Rather, it gives us a way to eliminate players that make the game less enjoyable without forcing the town to play sub-optimally. If you want to try to fly under the radar or "do something," go ahead and try. See if you can get away with it. Maybe you can. But when it starts becoming a serious problem and you're replaced because of it, that's your fault.

 

[Pikamaster]

You probably didn't catch my edit before replying, though maybe you did. I'm not really worried about catering to a specific few players trying to fly under the radar or "do something." If you can't fly under the radar or "do something" and you get called out for trying, you get back in the game instead of continuing to lurk. You got busted.

There is an obvious problem. Lurkers make the game less enjoyable. We shouldn't have to put up with a less enjoyable game just because a certain group of players want to play a certain way, or be forced to play sub-optimally to eliminate them each and every time.

The way I play is lurking, a lot. Yet nobody ever yells at me for it. Note, I'm not saying people should do it like me, or at all, I'm just saying it's possible to lurk and still be a decent player and not ruin the game for other people. So lurking in itself is not bad, as long as it's done correctly. Namely, you still play the game without detracting the experience for others.

 

[PMysterious]

Jason is a BAD example of the above post. He lurks and only posts 1 post a day. It bothers me that he actually HAMMERED me without warning in WWXVI. That's all he wrote D4. At least a warning would be nice.

That's a complaint I have. No one EVER let's people know when they are going to hammer at all. I do because it gives them time to defend themselves. I don't just hammer cuz I want to. I let people know when the hammer happens. That's all about the subject.

Anyway, lurking is NOT a strategy OR a playstyle. Its something people do to TRY and get away from discussion. Don't do it unless you are on V/LA or something like that.

 

[Benzo]

Lurking will happen. It is sort of strategic in many ways, yet has it's downfalls. Lurking is a risk for sure. But, Lenghty silence and lurking is the issue by the way I see it. It raises to many questions and leaves open ended possibilities as to what the player is doing.

I think a minimum 2 post per game day should be required. That should cut down some of the "speculation" and whether a person has become inactive and needs to be replaced, or just that RL has eaten their time to play for the few days.

Some sort of posting requirments should suffice. Lurking for too long, and it hurts the game. How I see it it is all.

 

[Pikamaster]

PMysterious, lurking is a way of flying under the radar. If you've noticed, I've only twice been the target of the wolf kill and never once been a lynch target. It is a strategy. The bad thing is, most people lurk in such a way that it hurts the game. Even then, it's still a strategy. A bad strategy, since the lurking is only drawing more attention to the lurker, but it is a strategy.

Also, just a sidenote, nobody ever has to warn someone else if they're going to hammer. You personally may think you have to, and that's fine. But people will hammer without warning. I'm personally not going to get permission from the entire town if I want to hammer. I won't do it stupidly, but if someone is at L-1, I want that person to be lynched, not someone else, and there's nothing else to be gotten from the day, I'm not going to warn about hammering.

Benzo, when it gets to the point that other players are asking the mod give prods, that's when it's a problem. Any sort of lurking that doesn't require a prod is fine. The problem as I see it is players who try to lurk, but then they aren't active at all. Or never come out of lurking when it's required.

I agree, a minimum post count per day should be required. After two days of not making that post count, they should be replaced, simple as that. Warn them the first day, replace them the second.

 

[toxictaipan]

Benzo, when it gets to the point that other players are asking the mod give prods, that's when it's a problem. Any sort of lurking that doesn't require a prod is fine.

I wouldn't go as far as to say, "Any sort of lurking that doesn't require a prod is fine." All I'm asking for is a system where the town has a way to eliminate problem players from the game without being forced to play sub-optimally. As long as you meet whatever guideline is in place and aren't lessening the enjoyment of the game for anyone, no corrective measures need to be taken. However, that certainly doesn't mean lurking to the fullest extent possible should be encouraged. Lurking shouldn't be spoken of in a positive way like that.

Active lurking isn't any less harmful to the game, because in order to active lurk, you're probably doing an absurd amount of fluff posting. If you're meeting the required guidelines AND providing more content than useless fluff posts, you're not "lurking," you're just posting less than the average player. Some players post a lot, some only a little. Most are probably somewhere in between. "Lurking" is intentionally not providing content while posting at a minimum. [edit]Putting a guideline in place is basically saying, "This is the minimum number of posts with content that are acceptable." The problem is that you can only enforce the minimum number of posts objectively, not the content. Lurking can't be completely prevented, but this will definitely make it less prevalent.[/edit]

Lurking can sometimes be a valid tactic. Even so, while no one can force someone to play the game a certain way, active participation should be encouraged above all else without question.

 

[Pikamaster]

Admittedly, I made an error. See, the kind of lurking I'm thinking of and talking about is not what most people do. I'm talking about posting a couple big, high quality posts a day, not a lot of fluff.

 

[pokemonfreak5]

Jason is a BAD example of the above post. He lurks and only posts 1 post a day. It bothers me that he actually HAMMERED me without warning in WWXVI. That's all he wrote D4. At least a warning would be nice.

That's a complaint I have. No one EVER let's people know when they are going to hammer at all. I do because it gives them time to defend themselves. I don't just hammer cuz I want to. I let people know when the hammer happens. That's all about the subject.

Anyway, lurking is NOT a strategy OR a playstyle. Its something people do to TRY and get away from discussion. Don't do it unless you are on V/LA or something like that.

Sour Grapes again PM?

That game has long gone. Jason isn't a violation of any rules. He wanted you gone, every player has a vote, you'd already been brought to L-1. Sure it wasnt a smart move, and I wouldn't have done it ,but he was town and you were a wolf and he did what he thought was best.

Lurking is tricky. Some people just prefer to not post as much. I know I find it difficult to find things to post on, combination of busy life and I always feel like if I'm going to post there should be some valid reason and solid points in it.

Have I been borderline inactive in the past? Yes. Do I consider myself to have been lurking at times? Yeah probably a bit. Have I still been 100% playing the game., Sure have.

I think taking it on a case by case basis is good, but having some rough guidelines that both players and mod are aware of could help.

 

[Benzo]

Whether a post is fluff or informative- at least the person is making some sort of appearance regardless of alignment/role.

Lurking is stratigic like I said- but not posting for days? (real days, not game days)-- A simple required amount of posting per game day should suffice.

If it gets to the point to where no one is sure that the person is even playing the game anymore- thats when the game is hurting. But that is how I see it.

 

[PMysterious]

Time to bring this back from the dead (since everyone else forgot about it.). Now that the Wolves FINALLY got a victory, I think I might go into why.

1. Activity- Activity is a MUST in all games. This game had a good amount but a certain confirmed Town left at the end of a vital Game Day. :wink:

2. Updates- The updates made 0 relations to the wolves and it actually led to the hiding of the Wolves themselves.

3. Town VS Town- There was SO much of this. It stopped people from actually looking for Wolves.

4. Loss of Seer- The Seer loss actually left the Town in the mist of who the Wolves are.

5. The Wolves themselves- The Wolves were REALLY good in this game. They knew how to fall everyone into their hands to make the flawless Wolf victory.

Well, if anyone disagrees with any of these points. Feel free to talk. All I'm doing is giving out some points. Plus, we might need some communication before the next game. :thumb:

 

[King Piplup]

3. Not that we could help it. For goodness' sake, it's not like we all have cheat sheets and were voluntarily fighting each other.

All each of us can do is vote who for we find scummiest. So we guessed wrong this time, ok, no big deal.

4, If townie day play wasn't so bad (almost all of this games town included) then this would be a non issue

 

[Pikamaster]

2. Actually, there were clues to the wolves in the updates. Just not major ones.

5. No, they weren't THAT good. PF5 and Cabd were really obvious, IMO. Town just never caught on/bought Cabd's flimsy claim.

 

[PMysterious]

3. Not that we could help it. For goodness' sake, it's not like we all have cheat sheets and were voluntarily fighting each other.

All each of us can do is vote who for we find scummiest. So we guessed wrong this time, ok, no big deal.

4, If townie day play wasn't so bad (almost all of this games town included) then this would be a non issue

Not too big of a deal at all. It was just a few mistakes. That's all.

 

[Sandslash7]

Time to bring this back from the dead (since everyone else forgot about it.). Now that the Wolves FINALLY got a victory, I think I might go into why.

1. Activity- Activity is a MUST in all games. This game had a good amount but a certain confirmed Town left at the end of a vital Game Day. :wink:

2. Updates- The updates made 0 relations to the wolves and it actually led to the hiding of the Wolves themselves.

3. Town VS Town- There was SO much of this. It stopped people from actually looking for Wolves.

4. Loss of Seer- The Seer loss actually left the Town in the mist of who the Wolves are.

5. The Wolves themselves- The Wolves were REALLY good in this game. They knew how to fall everyone into their hands to make the flawless Wolf victory.

Well, if anyone disagrees with any of these points. Feel free to talk. All I'm doing is giving out some points. Plus, we might need some communication before the next game. :thumb:

1) Yes, but can harm both town and wolves, so it is effectively null.

2) As I stated in the XVII thread, there actually were hints to the wolves identities (Weather, attacks, descriptions), and they also would have been named as well had the game continued. That Castform and his weather. No one suspects Castform. NO ONE.

3) That is the whole point.

4) Again, that is the whole point . Glaceon crumbed his role to his death, and the wolves saw his crumbs and killed him AS he was finding on of them. (JP)

5) Meh. They played well and had some good reads (Seer and Priest reads, very nice). But there were some places where they way overextended (DP's lynch etc.) Over all they played well, but the town made up for the rest.

 

[Benzo]

I suspected Castform. THIS VG dude knows his stuff

 

[cabd]

I suspected Castform. THIS VG dude knows his stuff

We knew castform was gonna have to fake a pokemon claim when he made that little "true weather master" quip in the night update.

 

[Sandslash7]

We knew castform was gonna have to fake a pokemon claim when he made that little "true weather master" quip in the night update.

I'm surprised no one saw/realized this...


DATA UPDATE should be up tomorrow.