I'm sure most of you have noticed that these past few sign-ups haven't filled. I think this is probably due to the time of year than a lack of interest in TWG; lots of people are either on vacation or are studying for finals. They still like TWG, but don't have time to join games right now. Because of this, we're going to have a short break in the TWG schedule, with regular games returning on December 27th.
None of the hosts whose games didn't fill will be penalized. In fact, every qualified player will be eligible to put a game forward when the new host sign-ups appear, even if you've hosted or attempted to host recently. Until then, feel free to post game ideas, talk about the rules, or complain about the new authoritarian TWC regime!
Happy Holidays!
I wish the TWC a big, jolly Merry Christmas and a big hug for all the work they have put in for us!
I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE NEW AUTHORITARIAN TWC REGIME.
nah jk this break's definitely needed
twgs quiet now
lets bring mercs in
Im glad we are having the break (I needed it :/ (contrary to popular belief :P)
(and to add to some discussion)
Does parity (even numbers) have to happen, even in situations where the town holds the power to change the situation around? (i.e. vote mechanics/ vigs etc.)
The current default right now is "wolves when whenever their numbers are equal to the humans," with hosts being able to change this policy at their discretion. For instance, if a game went down to 3 wolves and 3 humans, but 2 of those humans were vigilantes, it might be best to keep the game going. Hosts should make that clear from the outset though.
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!
is twg dead
You know what this means? Time to change my avatar for Christmas!
JUST BECAUSE IM GOING TO SIGN UP FOR THAT GAME ONCE SCHOOL IS OUT.
I'm kind of excited to get back into this when the break is over
Quote from: Bird on December 10, 2013, 02:51:22 PMI 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!
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.
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?
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.
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!
I think, a reason why lylo, must lynches (whichever tickles your fancy) is due to the knife in the box rule.
In my biased opinion, an even kitb is more wolf friendly than a f3
Quote from: fank009 on December 11, 2013, 12:37:34 PMI think, a reason why lylo, must lynches (whichever tickles your fancy) is due to the knife in the box rule.
In my biased opinion, an even kitb is more wolf friendly than a f3
More thoughts going into my head to eliminate this problem,
-randomize irrelevant votes
-make no lynching an option to vote on.
(Followed on the nl, make a rule to stop any non flow in the game, i.e. 10 phases without a kill
Quote from: Bird on December 11, 2013, 12:05:03 PMI 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)?
Quote from: Bird on December 11, 2013, 12:05:03 PMDeliberately 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.
Quote from: Bird on December 11, 2013, 12:05:03 PMYou 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?
Quote from: Bird on December 11, 2013, 12:05:03 PMRegarding 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!
Thiannon used Call For Family!
But it failed!
That would have been funnier if you had used a real attack..
Man, well this is disappointing, I just finished my last jury and am now done with the semester=have time to play twgs :c
You're in law school, Olimar?
Click. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_jury)
no it didnt fail!!!
I feel that if Wolves make it to a situation where their numbers are equal during a Day Phase, the game should continue. It's being implied that a series of KitBs would occur, but why would the Wolves be dumb enough to make their identities apparent? I don't think using simple probability would cut it either; by that late in the game, Players are biased enough to make educated lynches (hopefully, haha) and decrease the chances of lynching a Wolf. If the Wolves want to take a chance, they can go ahead though. Perhaps more than we care to admit, part of TWG is the luck aspect and I feel that the given scenario of KitBs would be part of that luck aspect, not of skill.
The only time I would see equal numbers being a problem would be if it were one Wolf against one Human. And to be honest, I'm not too sure how to resolve that properly. I don't necessarily agree with the current rule; if during the previous Night Phase, there were two Wolves and two Humans remaining, and the Wolves wolfed a Human and the Humans vigi'd a Wolf, how would things be done? Should the game have ended the last Day Phase, despite the Human's capabilities to make the numbers equal?
And what if there's one Wolf and three Humans in the Night Phase, the Wolf wolfs and the Humans vigi another Human?
I think that these types of situations are probably the only time the current rule would be useful; whether it's objective is beyond me to say, however. If I were Host, I would probably end the game in a tie, however unpopular that opinion and anticlimactic that event may be!
But as Fiver's been reiterating, these situations are not common and induce certain behaviours (in this case, more missed wolfings). I agree that games should be balanced with the rules in mind, but that's exactly why I feel this rule in particular should be removed. I think it complicates what would otherwise not be too problematic. The presence of something does affect behaviours; Wolves won't wolf a Seer if a Guardian is in the game and Wolves will more likely aim for a Night Phase ending with the current rule in place.
fank009, in regard to your suggestions, I don't think irrelevant votes could fairly be considered to be removed, as part of TWG is for Players to vote based on their own opinions, whether they're rational, irrelevant, frivolous, or whatever!
Allowing for no lynches could potentially work (though, other complications may arise with both Humans and Wolves having major control over numbers during Day and Night Phases), but I would be hesitant to implement such a rule because I feel that it isn't necessarily an idea that's fitting for TWG. It works for Mafia fine, but I feel that TWG and Mafia are rather distinct. It's like comparing Final Fantasy to Pokemon; both of them are turn based RPGs with similar stats and levels and other RPG Mechanics, but they're still very different games. If someone wants to add a no lynch Mechanic for a game of his/hers, I wouldn't mind, but I would be a bit iffy on making it a permanent thing, if you understand what I mean.
It was super effective?
Olimar Call for Family IS a real move...
In the TCG.
Oh wow it is. Well played, Nocturne. Well played.
I clicked the link and now I feel indebted to wikipedia :'(
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on December 12, 2013, 10:36:06 AMIt was super effective?
Olimar Call for Family IS a real move...
In the TCG.
I've always hoped that they'd make it a real move in the game (with the effect being something akin to Beat Up)...
Quote from: Thiannon on December 12, 2013, 05:55:04 AMYou'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)?
You could always look at some of the games where the wolves have won and analyze whether they still would have with this new rule change. I feel like you'll have a difficult time finding any games where the outcome would be different, though. My "hosts should balance better" suggestion was more a rhetorical strategy than an actual statement; I think we've had pretty well-balanced games in the past despite the inequality in wolf/human wins.
Quote from: Mashi on December 12, 2013, 09:57:01 AMI think it complicates what would otherwise not be too problematic.
This is a point I didn't have a chance to bring up in my previous post. The system we're currently using is much simpler and more intuitive. It's easier for a new player to wrap his head around "wolves win when their numbers are greater than or equal to the humans," than "wolves win when their numbers are greater than or equal to the humans at the beginning of a night phase." It's a trivial difference, but it could cause a problem if it's not widely recognized; a wolf could reveal himself in the thread, thinking the game is over when it's actually not. I actually think this has happened in the past on LLF, although I can't recall the game.
QuoteWe've seen more deliberately missed wolfings since the advent of this rule than I've seen draws in my TWG history.
I also think we're exaggerating these missed wolfings. Let's not forget that the missed wolfing in the most recent game was completely accidental. The
only time I can think of people missing a wolfing to manipulate the numbers in an NSM game was this one (http://www.ninsheetm.us/smf/index.php?topic=5921.0). Correct me if I'm wrong on this, I don't have a good memory for TWGs.
That said, I really don't care that much! It's an extremely minor rule that will pretty much never alter the outcome of a game. If eliminating an extremely rare strategically missed wolfing is thought to be more valuable than a system that prevents even rarer draws and makes slightly more sense intuitively, I don't have much of a problem changing the rules. Especially since we'll still let the ultimate win conditions be determined by the host. I'm interested in seeing what verm has to say on the issue.
QuoteWe'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.
It's an issue worth talking about, but I don't know what can be done about it from a TWC perspective. Hopefully issues like these are brought up in the hosting sign-up/game sign-up threads, or at least early in the actual game. But I don't think we're going to start looking over every game's win conditions once it's submitted in a host sign-up thread.
I'm siding with Bird on this one. Other than the existence of a vigi or charismatic human late in the game, both of which are pretty rare, I can't think of a situation in which the wolves could get their numbers equal to the number of humans in the game and for me to think that the humans deserved to win the game. They certainly don't if it requires a KitB, let alone several.
If I'm understanding the point Thiannon and Mashi are trying to make about the missed wolfings, it's a problem that's not unique to the current system!
Suppose we adopt the new system and you're going into a night phase with three humans and two wolves. Assuming the wolves don't want to win by going for two consecutive KitBs (which seems to be the crux of a different argument that they make) then it makes way more sense for the wolves to skip a wolfing. There's just a different set of circumstances in which it makes sense to miss wolfings.
i have an idea
lets introduce mercs
Another argument against the proposed win condition changes is that manhunts become unfeasible. In any game with greater than 5 players, the humans have a better than 50% chance of winning with random lynches.
Tomorrow!
Today! :)