TWG Suggestions, Comments, and Discussion

[Mashi]

Have you requested for access?
If not, that's why!

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Have you requested for access?
If not, that's why!

No; I don't even have an account yet.
...

[Bird]

Well we should take all that stuff and put it in the hosting guide anyway.

Also this is totally dumb:

If a Human and Wolf are the only two Players remaining at the beginning of the Day Phase and neither have Phantoms, the winner of the game is decided by the Host, but is generally a tie.  If the Human or Wolf have Phantoms, the team that comprises the Player with fewer Phantoms wins.

Why would it be a tie? The wolves are meeting their win condition.

[Mashi]

Wolves' winning conditions are to have the same number of Humans by the end of the Day Phase, not the beginning.

[Bird]

That's extremely dumb. I can't imagine why the rules would be like that. I think we should change them immediately.

[Mashi]

I disagree with the sentiment of the Wolves winning.  If the Wolves played well and the game was balanced correctly, the given event should never have transpired, I feel.

[Mashi]

The rule you are proposing is not only completely without reason, but it would vastly change the way the game works.

Nice use of hyperbole, Mister!!!

It would make it so the wolves would have to last an extra day phase in any game with an odd number of players.

Hence why most games have even Players in them!  Also, take notice of the balanced correctly part of my post.

Consider a game with 11 players, 3 of them wolves. Suppose the wolves are kicking ass, getting humans lynched on days 1 and 2. On night 3 there will be 7 players left; 4 humans and 3 wolves. Once they make what should be their victorious lynch, they have to last another whole day phase, where the humans will have a 50% chance of lynching them through dumb luck. And then, not only that, the exact same stupid situation will happen on day 2, only with 2 humans and 2 wolves. And the humans could prevail through dumb luck yet again. Which would lead to a tie. Which is stupid.

And if there were 12 Players in the game, the scenario would essentially be the same thing.  Humans generally have 2 Day Phases for mistakes, so I don't really see what you're complaining about.  The percentage difference between having 12 and 11 Players is mostly negligible; if the Wolves are good, they won't be lynched through dumb luck.

Your rule also leads to kill manipulation from the wolves. Suppose it's 3 wolves and 4 humans again. The wolves could forego their night 3 wolfing, increasing their chances of lynching a human the next day phase, then winning with a wolfing on night 4. This would become a standard event, and it would be silly.

I don't think we've ever even had an 11 Player game.  It's hard for something to be standard if it never occurs in the first place!  Besides, not wolfing is a legitimate strategy, there's nothing wrong with using it!

So with your rule, you get lots of dumb day phases, silly missed wolfings and ties for no reason. Without it, order, logic and  .

And with yours, TWG is as uncool and irrational as Joffrey!!!

[Bird]

You still haven't given a single reason why the rule would be that way.

[Mashi]

I disagree with the sentiment of the Wolves winning.  If the Wolves played well and the game was balanced correctly, the given event should never have transpired, I feel.

In a game of 12 Players, if a Player is guarded due to a poor wolfing choice, that's the fault of the Wolves.  So if the event above transpires, it's because the Humans made a good guard (and even if the guard was done through chance, the Wolves shouldn't benefit through easier win conditions).


Also, the equal Wolf:Human ratio win conditions has been bothering me a bit too.  Let's say that it's the end of Day 3, a Human was lynched, and there are now 3 Wolves and 3 Humans (and let's also say one of those Humans is a Guardian).  What if the Guardian blocked a wolfing the next Night Phase, if the game were to continue?  Or what if there were a Charismatic Human?  Shouldn't the game continue in that case?

[Bird]

No. The game should end when the humans and wolves are equal in number. If it's 3 wolves and 4 humans on a night phase, and the humans successfully guard, good for them.

The win conditions should be the simplest part of the game, and you're complicating them for no reason! You still haven't explained why you think the game should be a tie if it's one human and one wolf during a day phase. You just said you didn't think the wolves should deserve to win at that point, which isn't really an argument at all!

also verm and liggy agree with me

[BlackDragonSlayer]

No. The game should end when the humans and wolves are equal in number. If it's 3 wolves and 4 humans on a night phase, and the humans successfully guard, good for them.

The win conditions should be the simplest part of the game, and you're complicating them for no reason! You still haven't explained why you think the game should be a tie if it's one human and one wolf during a day phase. You just said you didn't think the wolves should deserve to win at that point, which isn't really an argument at all!

also verm and liggy and bds agree with me

It makes things a lot more complicated for the host and players, and it seems to factor in a bit too much of "chance," so-to-say.

[vermilionvermin]

Sorry Mashi, I agree with Bird here!

I'll be using this game for a number of reasons.  Under your proposed system, I would have had no chance of winning at all after Day 1 (and that the night 1 guarding was somehow my fault).

And I definitely agree with Bird in that it would drastically change the design of games if that rule were put into place.  The most obvious effect would be nobody hosting two-wolf games anymore.  If one out of the two is lynched or vigi'd, they can't win!

[Bird]

And I definitely agree with Bird in that it would drastically change the design of games if that rule were put into place.  The most obvious effect would be nobody hosting two-wolf games anymore.  If one out of the two is lynched or vigi'd, they can't win!

Well, they'd still be able to win. They might just have to skip a kill so that it ends up being 3 or 5 players left on the last day phase, lynching a human, then finishing with a wolfing.

[Mashi]

Simple =/= Fair and Balanced
And my method focuses less on chance.  Much more often than not, if a literal 1:1 Wolf:Human ratio occurs, it was not by chance, but by a blunder by the Wolves (whether it be a missed wolfing, a guard, a vigi, etc).

verm verm, in that game, the Brutals would have solved the problem of 11 Players remaining.  2 Wolf games would certainly still be possible, if one of the two is lynched, the other can still win if an even amount of Players exist.  And if there's an odd number, add a vigi or a Brutal or something!  Does it make balancing a bit more complicated?  Of course, but balancing is always complicated!  And mechanics are always added to make up for problems caused by certain Roles (eg. a Seer is present in games with Millers and red Wolves).

Ninja'd: Huh, no they wouldn't Bird!  If there were 12 Players, 2 being Wolves, one being lynched:
[Ratios based off the end of the Phase]
N 2:9
D 1:9
N 1:8
D 1:7
N 1:6
D 1:5
N 1:4
D 1:3
N 1:2
D 1:1
N 1:0

[Bird]

Apologies for the long response, but I do feel quite strongly about this.

And my method focuses less on chance.

Your method focuses much more on chance. If there are 3 wolves and 3 humans at the beginning of a day phase, the humans can at best get a KitB under your system. Even if a wolf is successfully lynched, this process will repeat itself when there are 2 wolves and 2 humans remaining. And it would technically repeat until there were 1 of each. Since the wolves have a 50% chance of winning each time, and since that's only if the humans play optimally, and since that's how the wolf win condition works anyway, why not just give them the win?

Much more often than not, if a literal 1:1 Wolf:Human ratio occurs, it was not by chance, but by a blunder by the Wolves (whether it be a missed wolfing, a guard, a vigi, etc).

Says who? Maybe it was the humans' fault for getting there in the first place. Suppose there's one wolf and three humans left during the penultimate day phase. A human gets lynched and another human is wolfed. What did the wolf do wrong in this instance? Nothing. You're making the assumption that the wolves messed up somewhere, or that the game wasn't "balanced properly" (which are such weasel words anyway), but if a game has any complexity in it at all, it's impossible to predict the endgame. What if there were an even number of players, but the vigilante only used his power once? What if the brutal you were accounting for decided not to use his power? What if the reviver is too inactive to make the revive you were expecting?

If there was one wolf left, and he was doing the best job he could, he would still be put in an impossible situation under your new set of rules. The only way he could possibly win in the aforementioned scenario would be for him to try to get a human lynched (now it's 1 wolf, 2 humans), not wolf, then try to get a human lynched again. As if he didn't have a hard enough job already.

Let me fight fire with fire for a second. I think that if it gets down to 1 wolf and 1 human, it was the humans' fault for letting it happen and they should lose.

Ninja'd: Huh, no they wouldn't Bird! If there were 12 Players

Well I think that covers that argument.

Finally, you're right. Simple does not always equal fair and balanced. But in this case it does, and it has the added benefit of making sense in every single game. Under your proposed ideas that games should continue if there's a guardian or something during the night phase, it will become increasingly difficult for hosts to know when games should be finished. What if there are revivers, or players who kill from beyond the grave, wolves who come back to life after two phases, etc.? It's so stupid to bother with it, when you can just have a simple rule that also happens to be extremely fair.

Perhaps you think that this rule (wolves win when wolves=humans no matter what) gives wolves an advantage. The obvious solution is simply to balance around it. In an 11 player game with 3 wolves, under my rule, the humans will have only two human lynches before they lose. Instead of changing the rules to give them another lynch opportunity, why not just add 1-2 humans? Instead of complicating the rules to fit weird games, change your weird games to fit the rules. The rules that make sense.