News:

New to the site? Introduce yourself here!

Main Menu

TWG Announcement: Short Holiday Break

Started by Bird, December 10, 2013, 02:10:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bird

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!
(2:19:33 AM) Tutan: i don't know how to twg anymore
(2:19:46 AM) bird: its easy you just yell at someone til they die

Waddle Bro

I wish the TWC a big, jolly Merry Christmas and a big hug for all the work they have put in for us!

Greg

I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE NEW AUTHORITARIAN TWC REGIME.

nah jk this break's definitely needed

Yugi


fank009

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.)
I come for the sheet music but stay for the ...

Bird

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!
(2:19:33 AM) Tutan: i don't know how to twg anymore
(2:19:46 AM) bird: its easy you just yell at someone til they die

BlackDragonSlayer

is twg dead

You know what this means? Time to change my avatar for Christmas!
And the moral of the story: Quit while you're a head.

Fakemon Dex
NSM Sprite Thread
Compositions
Story Thread
The Dread Somber

Kman96

JUST BECAUSE IM GOING TO SIGN UP FOR THAT GAME ONCE SCHOOL IS OUT.
Party Hard!
[close]

spitllama

I'm kind of excited to get back into this when the break is over
Submissions Page
Currently using Finale 2012

Thiannon

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!
We can't let morality stop progress! - mnrogar

Bird

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!
(2:19:33 AM) Tutan: i don't know how to twg anymore
(2:19:46 AM) bird: its easy you just yell at someone til they die

fank009

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
I come for the sheet music but stay for the ...

fank009

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
I come for the sheet music but stay for the ...

Thiannon

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!
We can't let morality stop progress! - mnrogar

mikey

Thiannon used Call For Family!

But it failed!
unmotivated