Werewolf LXXII: Chess (Checkmate!)

[jeheinz72]

I think we can go for both goals. Winning the chess game and offing the wolves. I don't think we should put all of our eggs in either of those two baskets.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I think at that point you try to lynch the players who aren't on your team.

In fact, I'd say that's a good strategy from the start.

Even though, at this point, we have no idea who is or is not on the black or white team with us?

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I just mean that our win conditions are not at all tied to the wolves, so focusing on them more than the chess game seems backwards to me.

Well what else do you suggest we discuss with a group of people you know are more than 50% enemies? (this really is the perfect set up for my paranoid side). Strategies for winning the game? I think the chess game will have to take place on the board while the business of finding the wolves takes place in the thread. It seems to me all we can do in the thread at the moment is try to find the wolves. Of course it would be nice to pick off the opposition with lynch votes. Just not overly pratical at this stage.

Anyway, I'm off now. Have fun everyone.

[KWhit]

As I think about this more, I wonder if I have been making an invalid assumption.

I was assuming that as we move through the board we'd find out the identity of the players/pieces we can see.

Something like:
You move to square B6. In square C7, you see JoeBob, the White Knight.

But now I wonder if maybe we won't find out the identity of the pieces we can see and it would be something like this:
You move to square B6. In square C7, you see the White Knight.

Pass, can you comment on this?

[mccollins]

KWhit, I think it is the less descriptive second version.

In addition, I think the terms "friendly" and "enemy" are used so as not to give away colors to those that don't know their own color.

[Barkeep49]

I think we're looking at far more than 4 wolves. I would suggest 6 or 8. If they're aren't 6 or 8 we're looking at a situation where it's virtually impossible for them to win. Considering that in Pass's last game it was virtually impossible for the wolves to win, it's quite possibly true in this game as well. So in that case we're playing chess.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

As I think about this more, I wonder if I have been making an invalid assumption.

I was assuming that as we move through the board we'd find out the identity of the players/pieces we can see.

Something like:
You move to square B6. In square C7, you see JoeBob, the White Knight.

But now I wonder if maybe we won't find out the identity of the pieces we can see and it would be something like this:
You move to square B6. In square C7, you see the White Knight.

Pass, can you comment on this?

Your second description is correct. And mccollins is also correct, that I'll be using "Friendly" and "Enemy" for the pieces that don't know what color they are.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Your second description is correct. And mccollins is also correct, that I'll be using "Friendly" and "Enemy" for the pieces that don't know what color they are.

Now I don't know what the hell our strategy needs to be.

[jeheinz72]

Well, I split for the day in a half hour, gotta get a vote in. I'll go for someone who hasn't checked in yet.

Vote Qwikshot

[path12]

Would I be correct to assume that pawns would want to have an early time for their moves while back pieces would want to have a later time for any moves they might make? (knights excepted).

[path12]

And I don't know about voting anything yet while I have little idea of what's going on still. I'd hate to vote off my queen or something.

VOTE NO LYNCH

Very well could change that later, but for now I don't see a huge downside to it.

[jeheinz72]

Oh, can we vote No Lynch pass? I was operating under the assumption we couldn't.

[Lathum]

checking in, no clue whats going on.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by path12

Would I be correct to assume that pawns would want to have an early time for their moves while back pieces would want to have a later time for any moves they might make? (knights excepted).

I think that's correct, although when the board opens up that may change a bit.

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by Lathum

checking in, no clue whats going on.

Heh, forgot you were playing this game. Is this your attempt to lay low after last game?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Heh, forgot you were playing this game. Is this your attempt to lay low after last game?

clearly it's working

[The Jackal]

just checked the rules, voting no lynch is an option in this one

[Abe Sargent]

Quiet here.

[Abe Sargent]

Well , since we are punished for not voting.

Vote No Lynch

I fully expect to move this later, but i wanted to toss it out there, just in case my computer breaks or somesuch.

[KWhit]

This could change later, but for now, I don't see a real benefit to voting someone off. And I'm usually violently opposed to this in a normal ww game.

Vote No Lynch

[oliegirl]

Last check in for the night, I'm going to wait until tomorrow to cast my vote, I'm working at 10:15 so I'll be around in the morning.

Nothing to say right now, been a typical day 1 with no information out there.

[hoopsguy]

OK - is there a compelling reason to go "No Lynch" today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there at least 4 of most of the roles in the game? No offense to anyone, but that has the ring of "disposable" to me. In fact, we don't even have the ability to mistakenly vote off a king.

I understand that people want to avoid the "Day 1 screw vote" and that there is information that can be gathered from multiple roles. Completely understand that. Sometimes I take a position like this to play Devil's Advocate, but I really think the "play nice" trend that we are establishing slows us down from learning. We lose out on a day of voting records, we lose out on one chance to actually take the lead on the wolves, and we lose out on the chance to get players posting while under some stress - a time where I usually form my strongest "trust" vibes short of a seer reveal.

I'll be casting a vote tonight, and it won't be "No Lynch".

[claphamsa]

im here! and confused!

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

OK - is there a compelling reason to go "No Lynch" today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there at least 4 of most of the roles in the game? No offense to anyone, but that has the ring of "disposable" to me. In fact, we don't even have the ability to mistakenly vote off a king.

I understand that people want to avoid the "Day 1 screw vote" and that there is information that can be gathered from multiple roles. Completely understand that. Sometimes I take a position like this to play Devil's Advocate, but I really think the "play nice" trend that we are establishing slows us down from learning. We lose out on a day of voting records, we lose out on one chance to actually take the lead on the wolves, and we lose out on the chance to get players posting while under some stress - a time where I usually form my strongest "trust" vibes short of a seer reveal.

I'll be casting a vote tonight, and it won't be "No Lynch".

I'm casting no vote just to get it out there with the intention of changing later.

[Barkeep49]

Hoops I feel like I damage the good guys twice as much by voting off a member of my side. There's so much information to be gained, with so many potential seers out there.

Vote no lynch

[The Jackal]

With absolutely no information except PM partners I think it's hard to vote for someone in particular on the first day. Why would we want to risk voting off one of our teams' most important roles? I'm leaning towards no lynch at this point.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

OK - is there a compelling reason to go "No Lynch" today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there at least 4 of most of the roles in the game? No offense to anyone, but that has the ring of "disposable" to me. In fact, we don't even have the ability to mistakenly vote off a king.

I understand that people want to avoid the "Day 1 screw vote" and that there is information that can be gathered from multiple roles. Completely understand that. Sometimes I take a position like this to play Devil's Advocate, but I really think the "play nice" trend that we are establishing slows us down from learning. We lose out on a day of voting records, we lose out on one chance to actually take the lead on the wolves, and we lose out on the chance to get players posting while under some stress - a time where I usually form my strongest "trust" vibes short of a seer reveal.

I'll be casting a vote tonight, and it won't be "No Lynch".

Looking to have the villagers eat their own to do your dirty work?

Vote hoopsguy

Like everyone else, I might change the vote tomorrow...

[hoopsguy]

Knight
You have trained all your life to fight the evil monsters known as werewolves, and learned in the code of chivalry enough to recognize a werewolf, should you come across one. You may choose to examine one player each turn, and found out if that player is a werewolf -- however, that player's piece (or one of his pieces) must be within your visible area on the board at some point in the night (if that player was not in that area, you will be told that the player was not near you that night). On the board, you may move two spaces in one horizontal or vertical direction and one space in the other direction, and you may "jump" over any pieces between you and your destination. You can see one space away from you, plus anywhere you would be eligible to move.. You may communicate via PM with the other Knight of your color.

So the "seer" has to call his person, then hope that he is in range for him to use his power. If we are looking to accelerate the seers in this game, then we really ought to go after that whole hog. Start having people identify where they are on the map, start drilling into what faction people are with, etc.

But since we are playing Chess in addition to werewolf, we are making it tougher for those seers to obtain good information. If we want to just play werewolf, we should be able to smoke out the wolves pretty quickly - provided that there is a reasonable number of them. This is where I saw issues with Passacaglia's "Clue" game - people were playing Werewolf instead of playing Clue, and it unbalanced the game. So far this game, people seem to want to play the game that Passacaglia has established - Chess + Werewolf.

Look, I'm OK with "lets enable the seers" - I just think that we should collectively pick a lane.
a.) hunt the werewolves with all options available to us
b.) play werewolf, which includes actually voting for people

I recognize that there is room for a reasonable "c" alternative, but I think that a "no lynch" while waiting for information that is less likely to arrive due to game mechanics that a traditional seer reveal is a specious argument.

[claphamsa]

I hate no lycn and never do it.

vote jackyl

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by mccollins

Looking to have the villagers eat their own to do your dirty work?

Vote hoopsguy

Like everyone else, I might change the vote tomorrow...

I'm willing to break eggs to make omelettes. Starting with Day 1.

A vote for me isn't a good vote, but it is better than "No Vote" - you actually have a chance to learn something from it.

Tell me - what happens when there is no information revealed on Day 2 from our seers? Do we go "No Vote" again, because the seers are bound to turn up information at some point? Because I've seen that scenario play itself out in these games as well - except people flip their logic on Day 2 from Day 1. At that point the masses usually accept that we need voting records and that we shouldn't hand an advantage to the wolves by letting them dictate kills. But then Day 2 plays like Day 1, because the Seers aren't going to come forward with the people they have cleared, so there isn't some kind of established trust list.

I'll vote "No Lynch" if I get the opinion that the knights are going to come forward with cleared players tomorrow. Of course, that would mean they have to reveal themselves, which would be wolfish of me to request, right? Oh, that's right - I'm already a wolf for trying to vote someone off the island on Day 1.

I'm sticking with voting. Mccollins is as good as anyone for me at this point.

VOTE MCCOLLINS

[hoopsguy]

And, unlike most - it will probably take a damn good argument to get me to change a fairly random Day 1 vote.

Reasons for the "fairly random vote":
- he is not the person I can chat with on my team
- he appears to favor "No Lynch", a position that I do not support
- he is strongly suggesting I'm a wolf for looking to get a vote today

Good enough for me - since I don't see any reveals coming forward on Night 0 I don't think I'll be moving.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I recognize that there is room for a reasonable "c" alternative, but I think that a "no lynch" while waiting for information that is less likely to arrive due to game mechanics that a traditional seer reveal is a specious argument.

So it would be advantageous for your game to have the seers reveal themselves to you?

Come on, don't be so obvious I wasn't going to keep my vote on you but you're making it hard.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

- he appears to favor "No Lynch", a position that I do not support

If I wanted to vote No Lynch, I would have.

It doesn't matter to me either way (lynch or no lynch); I haven't played enough to have learned to hate No Lynches like you and claphamsa (Heinz seems to hate them too).

The tone of post #172 just came across wolfishly and #178 didn't help matters.

(This will most likely be my last post of the night - see ya in the morning).

[hoopsguy]

mccollins, I don't think the seers should reveal until they are good and ready to do so. But, given that thought process, I don't think that going "No Lynch" while waiting for them to turn up a wolf is the prudent play.

You do understand we don't have four seers, in the conventional sense, right? That their powers are proximity based, and that the people they are scanning may or may not be in range for them? And that we don't have a way (that I know of, anyway) to match players with roles to help with making good scan decisions based on proximity?

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

I hate no lycn and never do it.

vote jackyl

why do you keep voting me on the first day? i love you too.

vote claphamsa

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

mccollins, I don't think the seers should reveal until they are good and ready to do so. But, given that thought process, I don't think that going "No Lynch" while waiting for them to turn up a wolf is the prudent play.

You do understand we don't have four seers, in the conventional sense, right? That their powers are proximity based, and that the people they are scanning may or may not be in range for them? And that we don't have a way (that I know of, anyway) to match players with roles to help with making good scan decisions based on proximity?

Incidently, I think this might be why Pass changed the seers from the Bishops to the Knights - harder to get good scans.

Alright, I'm really out of here.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

why do you keep voting me on the first day? i love you too.

vote claphamsa

basicaly cuz ur my love sheep, and these day one votes mena nothing!

[The Jackal]

I actually have no problem with day 1 no lynches, especially in games which may especially benefit from them (like a game where it's not just villagers v wolves straight out..)

I'm willing to change my vote for clap.. I have no reason to suspect foulplay from him, he hasn't said anything at all, I just don't like random accusations on day 1, really.

[hoopsguy]

Once in a great while I see a ruleset where I can rationalize "No Lynch" in my mind. But otherwise, I think it is a copout by villagers who want to play nicely with others in a game where that is clearly not the point.

I don't want to antagonize someone unjustly. I don't want to make personal attacks. I don't want to make the game an unenjoyable experience. But I do want to win the game, and along the way try to collect data that helps with that goal. Conversation, followed by votes, are the weapons that each villager have the power to provide. A "no lynch" decision casts those aside.

That is the broader sense of why I "hate" the no lynch vote. If you would like to continue the discussion after the game - or after one of us is dead, I suppose - then I would be interested in doing so in a context where there are not any assumed motives. I think you will find I'm consistent on this point. And I would be interested in anyone who has different thoughts on this - both in the context of this game and in a broader sense.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

basicaly cuz ur my love sheep, and these day one votes mena nothing!

love sheep? you need to move to west virginia.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

love sheep? you need to move to west virginia.

Unvote no Lynch
Vote The Jackal

Don;t make fun of West Virginia in my game!

[Abe Sargent]

Oh, and WV doesn't have much in the way of sheep. We have...um...coal. Chickens. Lumber. Mountain Top Removal. Not many sheep. Pick on another state.

[PurdueBrad]

Placeholder vote for now and to avoid spreading things out:

vote Hoopsguy

Although I realize he can be an incredibly valuable villager as well as a truly dangerous wolf.

[PurdueBrad]

As for no lynch, I'm worried we don't learn anything by it. I go back and forth every game that has this and I am getting to the point where I think you have to lynch because it's a cop out vote and a place for wolves to hide because they basically get a free night kill.

[hoopsguy]

Right logic, wrong guy PB.

At the time I started stomping my foot on the issue the vote was something like 4-1 in favor of the "No Lynch". I would have zero incentive to push for a lynch as a wolf, knowing that I'm likely to get the "fine, we'll vote for you instead" logic thrown at me.

[The Jackal]

Listen anxiety, i was going to say vermont, because sheep screwing is much more popular there, but clap and i have had talks about west virginia, so dont take it personally. My mom has a house there and it's actually very nice.

[RendeR]

VOTE HOOPSGUY


Reasoning? I've never seen him be this animated and almost antagonistic about any game mecahnic in any game I've played with him. he's being way over the top on day 1, seems rather strange to me. Vote open to change before deadline of course.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Oh, and WV doesn't have much in the way of sheep. We have...um...coal. Chickens. Lumber. Mountain Top Removal. Not many sheep. Pick on another state.

don't forget the inbred hillbillies.....oh, wait, you were TRYING to avoid that part.....my bad...carry on.

[The Jackal]

This is a pretty out there game mechanic render. Granted you've played much more with hoopsguy than I have, but it's seemed to me he's just responding to Narc more than anything.

[The Jackal]

Since I'm bored, drunk (on margaritas, go cinco de mayo!), I'll work up a vote count. I should be around until 2ish tomorrow afternoon too, so I'll update it as much as I can.