TWG Suggestions, Comments, and Discussion

[Mashi]

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

This is under the unreasonable assumption that the Humans will know all 3 Wolves and win both KitBs.  The key words are "if the Humans play optimally," which they won't be able to do if the Wolves are good!

Says who? Maybe it was the humans' fault for getting there in the first place.

Then good job for the Humans!

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?

Instances such as a Reviver not reviving would more likely benefit the Wolves than not.  The skillful or unskillful use of a vigi/brutal is the result of a good or bad Human/Wolf action, not of chance.

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.

The situation would seldom occur.  It would only occur if the Humans or Wolves played in a way to not only dwindle the Wolves down to one, but also have an even number of Players by the Day Phase.  I think you're misinterpreting the probability of that occurring; it would be very low.  A literal 1:1 Wolf:Human isn't premeditated, it occurs when the Wolves or Humans play just barely enough to catch up to the other team ans possibly win.

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.

I feel that the mission of the Wolves is to reach a point when there's a 100% probability of being capable of killing off the rest of the Humans.  If a KitB must occur, I wouldn't consider it a victory. 

Well I think that covers that argument.

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.

Hey, that was my suggestion for my rule too!!!
They're both not much different, really, in that sense.

[MaestroUGC]

Mashi, I can't help but notice you've got a bit of a bias towards humans. This would make sense as you also dislike games where humans can flip to the wolves in-game. Plus you're making assumptions that only one side will be good. What if both side played very well, and it was a close game throughout. Should you punish one team just because they're the bad guys? Besides, your proposal violates the  whole premise of the game! To find the wolves among the sheeps. If the wolves are in a position to face no oposition, then they will strike as soon as possible and win.

In the event of a tie of any number, each wolf capable of killing will do so. The idea that they don't wolf during the day is to keep their cover. Why would the wolves bother with a vote if they can each take out a human for every wolf? I'm a sucker for theming, so I oppose anything that violates the core premise of TWG.

I realize that this doesn't deal with probablity in your arguments, but it's not a question of statistics. It's an issue of quality of play. We have a good number of strong players, to where you can't just assume one team will be weak X amount of times.

[Mashi]

Mashi, I can't help but notice you've got a bit of a bias towards humans.

Because I am!

This would make sense as you also dislike games where humans can flip to the wolves in-game. Plus you're making assumptions that only one side will be good. What if both side played very well, and it was a close game throughout. Should you punish one team just because they're the bad guys?

A tie isn't a punishment for the 'bad guys.'  The Human and Wolf Team both tie.  If the Wolves truly performed better than the Humans, shouldn't the whole scenario of the tie properly been avoided?

Besides, your proposal violates the  whole premise of the game! To find the wolves among the sheeps. If the wolves are in a position to face no oposition, then they will strike as soon as possible and win.

In the event of a tie of any number, each wolf capable of killing will do so. The idea that they don't wolf during the day is to keep their cover. Why would the wolves bother with a vote if they can each take out a human for every wolf? I'm a sucker for theming, so I oppose anything that violates the core premise of TWG.

This presumes that the Wolf is superior to the Human.  Why don't the Wolves just slaughter everyone during the Night then?  Following 'reality logic' doesn't necessarily work here!

I realize that this doesn't deal with probablity in your arguments, but it's not a question of statistics. It's an issue of quality of play. We have a good number of strong players, to where you can't just assume one team will be weak X amount of times.

Yes, it's not a question of statistics, hence why this rule shouldn't be such a big problem, since it would only occur so rarely!

[vermilionvermin]

One wolf remaining is a lot more powerful than one human remaining!  Each wolf is more important to his/her team's success.  If there's a scenario in which there's one wolf and one human, I'd pretty confidently say that the wolves played better than the humans did.  Obviously varies from game to game, but that's usually the case.  If, as a wolf, you've survived to the final two, you deserve to win.

[Yugi]

I know it means nothing but I'm siding with bid and verm here, if people got far enough to be 1-1 having it be a tie would be cheap and piss people off.

[MaestroUGC]

In a one to one tie, the argument could be mae that both teams played equally well/terribly. If such is the case why leave it as a tie when a proper win condition can be met? A win condition that is the point of the whole game?!?!

[Bird]

This is under the unreasonable assumption that the Humans will know all 3 Wolves and win both KitBs.  The key words are "if the Humans play optimally," which they won't be able to do if the Wolves are good!

The point I was making here is that the wolves would probably win anyway. If the game kept being played every time there were equal teams, there would be a 50% chance of the wolves winning. Three times, this becomes 87.5%, and that's if the humans play their very best. The wolves should just be handed the win at this point, since the remainder of the game would be either obvious or tedious.

Then good job for the Humans!

If it was their fault that they didn't win when they had a chance, it should be the humans who lose, rather than the wolves.

Instances such as a Reviver not reviving would more likely benefit the Wolves than not.  The skillful or unskillful use of a vigi/brutal is the result of a good or bad Human/Wolf action, not of chance.

The point is, there are times in perfectly balanced games that a 1 wolf 3 human scenario will arise, and your rule is unfair to the wolf in those scenarios.

The situation would seldom occur.  It would only occur if the Humans or Wolves played in a way to not only dwindle the Wolves down to one

That's not really a viable strategy for the wolves? I mean, they can't just say "okay our plan is not to let the number of wolves go down to 1"

A literal 1:1 Wolf:Human isn't premeditated, it occurs when the Wolves or Humans play just barely enough to catch up to the other team ans possibly win.

One human alive means the humans played poorly. One wolf alive means the wolves didn't do great, but they did better than the humans. Think of it in percentages!

I feel that the mission of the Wolves is to reach a point when there's a 100% probability of being capable of killing off the rest of the Humans.  If a KitB must occur, I wouldn't consider it a victory.

This is probably the best argument in favor of your rule, but I still don't care for it because of the 1v3 situation that could arise, totally screwing over a talented lone wolf.

-------------------------

A tie isn't a punishment for the 'bad guys.'  The Human and Wolf Team both tie.  If the Wolves truly performed better than the Humans, shouldn't the whole scenario of the tie properly been avoided?

Statements like these are making me so mad! I could just as easily say "If the humans truly performed better than wolves, shouldn't the whole scenario of the tie properly been avoided?" And since they didn't play better, we'd hand the win to the wolves.

[Mashi]

I feel that the reasons I've stated make it fair for the Humans.  EDIT: This was a response to MaestroUGC, whoops.

It seems that I'm majorly outnumbered, however, so although I still disagree, I'll concede to Bird's ruling.

But to clarify something quickly, Bird, if there were 3 Wolves and 3 Humans (one being Charismatic) by Day Phase, would the Wolves automatically win or would play go normally?
I would normally permit for play to continue, but it's probably better to seek out your opinion in case we differ!

[Bird]

I would say end it immediately, but I would also let the host make the final decision. The default would be ending it immediately, though.

[Yugi]

What does being charasmatic have to do with human:Wolf count?

[Mashi]

Charismatic Human's vote counts as two.  It doesn't relate to the Wolf:Human Player ratio, but it changes the Wolf:Human vote ratio.

[SlowPokemon]

Mashiiii give me feedback on my game

[Mashi]

The power of badgering!!!

[Waddle Bro]

post game gogogo

[Toby]

Eh shush, yours still hasn't been done and you have to do certain things at the end. (Team analysis, overall, alive players)