Messages

Cool game! I wouldn't be too hard on yourself, Mashi. It might have been unbalanced, but the humans still should have won. Nocturne over davy was interesting, to say the least.

Maybe an El Presidente-style game theory pre-game setup would be a fun next step?

Will try to get in a game here soon. My schedule is crazy.

i hate faction games

You hate everything!

This was a lot of fun to follow. Definitely not a structure I ever would have hit on in a million years, and much better than the typical use of alternate accounts: doing detective work and trying to figure out who everyone is is fun! Also Bird was hilarious as TWG Link. I'd like to see this run again with six teams of four and no players with multiple roles on the same team: we'd likely get a more balanced, longer game (half the players guaranteed to win was a little much).

Nice job, davy.

Mashi why did you ruin your game by allowing self-guards???

There's no way the Seer-Guard-Coroner-Brutal Wolf setup is balanced. Really cool idea, though!

I thought that was a neat mechanic, and BDS did a nice job actually screwing around with stuff, when the safe play probably would have been to just disappear and do nothing.

Sucks some people didn't even post, though.

Wait, so why didn't Nocturne snipe someone? Or did he?

EDIT: Nevermind. I'm assuming davy blocked him Night 3.

I really enjoyed reading this game! It looked like everyone played pretty well. Also, it's nice to see a TWG story!

ok see you later

Suggestion: don't sticky the game threads. I think they're actually more visible beneath the stickies than they are among them.

You're in law school, Olimar?

I don't think it's fair to say that the additional wolf victories are due to a rule that changes pretty much nothing. You and FireArrow would definitely have won the previous game regardless of the night-end/day-end rule. Additionally, I think it makes a lot more sense to balance games to the rules rather than change the rules so that games are more balanced. Even if you could demonstrate that night-end victories lead to more wolf wins, I would just argue that players should balance their games with weaker wolves or stronger humans.

Well that's a little rich. You change the rule, then suggest precedent should prevail? Come on, Sauce! I realize I'm now arguing the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, but you must admit that's pretty vexing. You're right, I can't prove causality here, but my assumption passes the smell test, doesn't it? And isn't it easier to change the rule (a unilateral TWC decision) than to try to revamp how we balance games (which would require a better understanding of balance from every prospective host)?

Deliberately missed wolfings are definitely the worst thing about this rule, but it's the price you pay to avoid draws. I know you said you've never seen one in your experience, but it would be an incredible shame to see 2-3 weeks of effort on behalf of the host and the players ruined due to the outcome of the game being luck-based. At three wolves and three humans, the wolves have at least an 87.5% chance of winning. At two and two, they have at least a 75% chance of winning, and at one and one, a 50% chance of winning. So why not just give them the victory?

We've seen more deliberately missed wolfings since the advent of this rule than I've seen draws in my TWG history. You're also ignoring my point about missing a wolfing to deliberately avoid night-phase-end parity. I think "incredible shame" is a bit of a rhetorical flourish, too. Yeah, it would suck, but would it suck more on the aggregate than all of these dull night-end games and missed wolfings? I don't think so. If the wolves are so likely to win at night-end parity, why do we have to hand them the game? Why can't we just let it play out? You've just mathematically demonstrated how unlikely the scenario your rule change was designed to prevent was from happening under the original rule set while acknowledging the unfortunate side effects that change has caused.

You can have your cake and eat it too, you know. Why not just argue for the wolves being unable to skip wolfings? You avoid "was that intentional" day phase talk, get your exciting 1:2 day phase finales, and prevent the wolves from playing number games.

Well, I did bring that up in the previous game. I'm not sure I like taking strategies away from players, though. A reversion to the Chardish system would simply demotivate that kind of play, not restrict it. Do we need to implement another rule to repair a currently broken one?

Regarding host discretion on when the game ends, they can articulate it pretty simply: they just say that the game ends when victory is no longer possible for all but one of the teams. I don't really think this is much of an issue!

We've seen some awfully complex games, and I don't think this is quite as straightforward as you think. Do we assume all wolves will be present to vote for humans on subsequent day phases, and that all wolfing PMs will be submitted? axem's Bomb game ended pretty anticlimactically on a bunch of these types of technicalities. I know I care more about TWG as a spectator sport than anyone alive you, but the point stands.

You're kind of ignoring my overall point, which is that in trying to prevent something that never happens at game-end, you changed the whole complexion of the game prior to it. The issue isn't really the final day phase but the play leading up to it.

Mashi, get in here and help me, please!

I also recognize that a few people have problems with the fact that wolves can win when the numbers are even on a day phase. I'd be open to discussing this, but I still think it's the best policy!

You know how I feel about this! You changed the rule with the best intentions in mind, theorizing that the wolves shouldn't have to run a gantlet (note: that is how that word is spelled in this context!) of KitBs once the game is at parity. But that has never happened in my time as a TWG player. We fixed something that wasn't an issue, and it's led to wolf teams deliberately missing wolfings, etc. in order to position themselves for a night-phase win. We've seen a coincident uptick in wolf victories on at least LLF; I haven't followed NSM closely enough to comment on it.

Night wins are also really dull, and suck the excitement out of that last day-end update. We're never going to see a three-person vote on TWG again with the night-phase-end rule, because no sane wolf would allow that to happen. You've argued that a two-person KitB on the last day phase would be a silly way to end the game, but this should never happen. If a wolf goes into a night phase at 1:2, he simply shouldn't wolf. I don't know why that's an acceptable strategy under the current rule but not something you're willing to accept under a return to the rule Chardish implemented eight years ago or whatever.

You always say that the wolves have "earned it" if they're able to reach night-phase-end parity, but did FA and I really "earn it" last game? We could have had another epic day phase after the Greg wolfing. I don't particularly like the idea of hosts having discretion on when games can end, either. What about complex games with a series of late-game possibilities (Charismatics, Vigilantes, Guardians)? How is a host supposed to articulate all of those possibilities at the beginning of the game?

You won't listen to me, because you're remarkably stubborn about things like this, but I really think you're wrong on this one!

Well, I have a few minutes this morning, so I'll post a few of my comments.

First off, my wolf strategy is not particularly sophisticated: I usually just act the way I think I would as a human. This has a number of obvious benefits, but it also has drawbacks, for example, if my partners look wolfy (I have to target them) or if everyone else looks human (I'm not about to make stuff up). I also don't really plan wolfings in advance or communicate all that much with my partners. I think FA and I did a nice job playing off each other this game despite all of these factors, though (and we actually did PM each other a fair bit).

Re: the missed wolfing. It was accidental, of course. I would never, ever miss a wolfing deliberately, and the fact Bird was reluctant to accept that was great because it meant I could hammer him on trying to invent implausible "wolf-behaviour" for me. It arose because of the weird phase-end: when Waddle put the game up around noon, I assumed, as usual, that the phase would end the next evening, not realizing he was on European time. FA and I exchanged a couple PMs the first day, culminating in a last exchange that night in which I asked him who he wanted to wolf. He sent me some suggestions, but I had a breakfast date the next morning and didn't have time to check NSM, and I didn't have Internet access again until that evening. By that point, of course, the night was over, FA likewise hadn't PMed, and we missed the wolfing.

Re: Nakah's reroll suggestion. I know he hasn't played in a while, but that was a pretty dirty move. It would be pretty unsportsmanlike for a TWC to miss the wolfing and then request a reroll as a wolf, so this gambit effectively confirmed him as a human, and we basically had to wolf him the next night. Future reroll requests by anyone should probably be PMed to the host (and CC'd to non-playing TWC). Additionally, I think replacements should probably be made at phase end. I'm kind of iffy on replacements in general; for one thing, I think they encourage inactivity by non-replacement players (you can sign up for a game you might not have time to play and even afford to be inactive knowing you'll be replaced). But switching them out during phase-end would work to eliminate this sort of game-structure-analysis problem in the future.

Re: Bird's phase extension request. Again, this essentially proved his humanity. Personally, I'm not a fan of pulling this stuff as a wolf. I "analyzed the syntax of Waddle's update" because dammit, if the humans are going to play dirty, so am I. And perhaps this is and should be part of the game. I think it's something that needs to be discussed, though. Again, Bird's request should have gone directly to Waddle, and, more generally, all game mechanic questions should probably be PMed to the host. It takes only marginally more effort to do so, and he can clarify them publicly if necessary.

Re: balance. The game was probably slightly wolf-sided, but certainly playable, and I agree that the mechanics did increase activity. I'd play a game like this again. Thanks for hosting, Waddle!

Re: the night-end rule. It's stupid. Change it.

It's funny: at one point I was going to use Bird's affinity for partner theory against him in accusing him of being a wolf, since I remembered him being critical of that approach in a game back on LLF. Then I remembered that it was verm who had raised the points I was thinking of. (Spoilers: verm's good at TWG.)

A thia lynch would have been game (FA at that point you were a dead man walking) ( not killed in the night...)

Bollocks. You did play an excellent game, though. This game had some of the best human play I've seen in a long time. FA was also excellent. I'll comment further tonight if I have time.

Finally, my chance to host on NSM!!!!

(I wish.)