WW United -- GAME OVER

[LoneStarGirl]

Wow no help for me tonight... I guess I am going to wake up extra early tomorrow morning to see if we reached a verdict on the No lynch vs lynch situation. I hate first day randomness, but if we skip the first day and no lynch, then our second day will be plagued with first day randomness, so its a lose lose situation!

[Alan T]

Can someone who is on the side of "No Lynch" help give me a good reason for it in this game?

I'm well known for being a huge supporter of a No lynch in games where it makes the most mathematical sense (ie: games when the villagers have a large number of roles and a large number of information gathering roles). In those cases, keeping the villagers alive longer helps provide information faster to the village than early day lynches do, so it makes sense in those cases.

In this game's case, there really is not a large number of roles, there seems to not be any great number of ways to reach information. In most senses other than the soccer scoring aspect of the game, this is a fairly straight forward game it seems.

So as best I can tell, the only benefit to pushing no lynches early would be to keep more people alive longer for the purpose of scoring, but since there is a large number of us in each game, it is fairly difficult to get any read simply from the games on which ones are the better scorers. It would take many many days to narrow that down, and if we're actually holding off on lynches that long then this becomes some other type of game (not werewolf).

So it doesn't seem that I can find any good reason for a no lynch early in this game from a mathematical standpoint. That approach seems to favor the wolves more than the villagers in this particular setup. (It is not always this cut and dry in other games of course). Can anyone provide me a solid mathematical reason why no lynch makes sense today?

[Lathum]

Vote Clap

Pretty random, but not a fan of his early vote for Mia

[Schmidty]

I better make my vote now, since I'm a west-coaster who doesn't always get up on time when I have a day off. The leading idea is to no-vote to let KWhit make his choice, but I don't understand that since he knows nothing about the players ability scores anyway yet. All it would be is a wasted vote. So I'm going with someone who already has a vote (no offense to him):

Vote MartinD

[lerriuqs]

I won't be voting no lynch but I'm going to save my vote till morning.

Night all.

[LoneStarGirl]

I am afraid that I will not wake up early enough to get online and vote. And I would hate to be the person to skip a vote, they always seem to have a target on their backs, so

vote clap

Just because Martin has a vote already and I figured we could make this a race

[Darth Vilus]

Originally Posted by Mia Ow

vote MartinD

Please don't listen to Lorena anymore

[Darth Vilus]

And I'm not down with "No lynch". If the points work out then great but my main target is the wolves. If we keep our eyes on the points victory we're going to be gettig hit hard along the way. i don't really see the advantage to not lynching.

[Darth Vilus]

Vote Clap

[The Jackal]

Interesting late action there. I'd like someone to respond to Alan because I've been mulling over the pros and cons of a no lynch in this particular game as well. I'll check back in when I wake up.

[Darth Vilus]

If you're reffering to my late action Jack I just got home a little while ago

[Darth Vilus]

And LoneStarGirl, is your name a reference to Spaceballs?

[Schmidty]

Hey Darth, I'm watching Star Wars. It's good. Have you seen it before?

[Darth Vilus]

What's Star Wars?

[Darth Vilus]

Oh, and now that i think about it, well anyone let me know if the Sith stuff starts to get old. I'll tone it down then

[MartinD]

Looks like I'm a candidate on Day 1 - well, it had to happen at some point...

Not really much I can say or do to make a case for myself here, but you won't learn anything from lynching me.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Can someone who is on the side of "No Lynch" help give me a good reason for it in this game?

Originally Posted by JAG

While there are risks with both approaches, right now our ratio is at its worst for picking a wolf out of the pool of players and it buys us more time to figure out player skills. By lynching, we would reduce the size of our squad (whether wolf or player) and make it harder to win games. Winning games puts the most pressure on the wolves because as soon as we get close to 10 points, they are forced to stop killing villagers.

Basically I think it's best to slow the game down so when we decide to lynch, we can make a more informed decision. By doing that, we increase our chances of putting together a winning soccer team and thus prevent the wolves from killing players as they are forced to penalize us points instead of killing villagers. At that later point, we can start lynching, but with superior odds (if there are 4 wolves for example, 4 out of 11 chance instead of 4 out of 14 chance) and more information about player skills. All things being equal, why would we kill our superstar goalie? How do you know today's lynch won't kill that person?

Lastly, we still have a seer who can gather information from us. The fewer villagers we kill off, the harder it is for the wolves to find that person. If we hold off lynching for now, we may have a wolf to lynch when we start or at least a CoT not to lynch.

Originally Posted by Alan T

since there is a large number of us in each game, it is fairly difficult to get any read simply from the games on which ones are the better scorers.

We honestly have no clue how that will shake out until we receive our first match report, but that's another reason to hold off lynching in my opinion. From the rules, it sounds like we'll get a position report so if a position is doing really well, we'll obviously leave those people where they are.

So for turnabout, can someone who is on the side of lynching give me a reason why we want to diminish our base of players, with the highest probability killing a player and not a wolf (and potentially killing a roled villager)? It seems to me you're turning this into a normal game of werewolf instead of one where the villagers have a mechanism to force wolves not to kill villagers and a chance to start lynching when the odds are more in our favor.

[JAG]

By the way, if others do support no lynch but have current votes on players out or haven't yet voted and will be around near the deadline today, the best thing to do would be to vote as if you're going to actually lynch someone and then change to no lynch at the last minute, so that we can potentially learn something from the vote in later days without actually killing a villager.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JAG

Basically I think it's best to slow the game down so when we decide to lynch, we can make a more informed decision. By doing that, we increase our chances of putting together a winning soccer team and thus prevent the wolves from killing players as they are forced to penalize us points instead of killing villagers. At that later point, we can start lynching, but with superior odds (if there are 4 wolves for example, 4 out of 11 chance instead of 4 out of 14 chance) and more information about player skills. All things being equal, why would we kill our superstar goalie? How do you know today's lynch won't kill that person?

Lastly, we still have a seer who can gather information from us. The fewer villagers we kill off, the harder it is for the wolves to find that person. If we hold off lynching for now, we may have a wolf to lynch when we start or at least a CoT not to lynch.



We honestly have no clue how that will shake out until we receive our first match report, but that's another reason to hold off lynching in my opinion. From the rules, it sounds like we'll get a position report so if a position is doing really well, we'll obviously leave those people where they are.

So for turnabout, can someone who is on the side of lynching give me a reason why we want to diminish our base of players, with the highest probability killing a player and not a wolf (and potentially killing a roled villager)? It seems to me you're turning this into a normal game of werewolf instead of one where the villagers have a mechanism to force wolves not to kill villagers and a chance to start lynching when the odds are more in our favor.

I guess it is possible that you either have more knowledge of what is occurring behind the scenes in this game due to your role, or perhaps you have more knowledge of soccer than I do (easily possible). I do not see the odds are in our favor if both sides choose to play this as some game other than WW. They could easily apply -2 each night to us without any stopping if they want to, while we have to find the right combination of players that would result in enough points for a win. (Something that has already been stated will be tough for us to work out individually player by player unless we luck into a good combination some how). Maybe I am reading too much into things, but it seems like a pretty broken WW game if Pass designed it where it would easily be winnable by just that mechanism. (who knows, I've been wrong before though!)

The reality is that we don't have a ton of information roles out there. We have only the Wanderer and that is it. In games where there are 5 or 6 different ways to get information, slowing down the rate of kills to get that information makes complete sense. In this game however, all you are doing by no lynching is handing the tempo of the game over to the wolves. It then becomes their ability to decide to night kill or to incur sanctions.

Basically we've seen this time and time again in a game when only the seer is our information source, and they get killed, we end up with a huge void for the remainder of the game. In the games that happens and there has been a solid voting history, the games often end up well for the village. I've seen very few games where a seer gets killed, the voting has been all over the place that ended well for the village. People rely too much on the crutch of the seer in these games when instead they should encourage discussion/debate and have a trail of conversation and votes to determine where to go.

A voting history is the true weapon for the village in a game where there are very few roles such as this one.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by LoneStarGirl

Wow no help for me tonight... I guess I am going to wake up extra early tomorrow morning to see if we reached a verdict on the No lynch vs lynch situation. I hate first day randomness, but if we skip the first day and no lynch, then our second day will be plagued with first day randomness, so its a lose lose situation!

so vote for someone!

[claphamsa]

wow! i wake up to 3 votes.....

[claphamsa]

Latum votes for me since he doesnt like a random vote, LSG votes for me since.... (maybe i didnt put out enough at the prom). and darth votes for me becasue he couldnt beat out my fake reveal last game!

dont vote for me im good!

[claphamsa]

O crap, also jsut realized I have a staff meeting from 12-430 today

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I guess it is possible that you either have more knowledge of what is occurring behind the scenes in this game due to your role, or perhaps you have more knowledge of soccer than I do (easily possible). I do not see the odds are in our favor if both sides choose to play this as some game other than WW. They could easily apply -2 each night to us without any stopping if they want to, while we have to find the right combination of players that would result in enough points for a win. (Something that has already been stated will be tough for us to work out individually player by player unless we luck into a good combination some how). Maybe I am reading too much into things, but it seems like a pretty broken WW game if Pass designed it where it would easily be winnable by just that mechanism. (who knows, I've been wrong before though!)

The reality is that we don't have a ton of information roles out there. We have only the Wanderer and that is it. In games where there are 5 or 6 different ways to get information, slowing down the rate of kills to get that information makes complete sense. In this game however, all you are doing by no lynching is handing the tempo of the game over to the wolves. It then becomes their ability to decide to night kill or to incur sanctions.

Basically we've seen this time and time again in a game when only the seer is our information source, and they get killed, we end up with a huge void for the remainder of the game. In the games that happens and there has been a solid voting history, the games often end up well for the village. I've seen very few games where a seer gets killed, the voting has been all over the place that ended well for the village. People rely too much on the crutch of the seer in these games when instead they should encourage discussion/debate and have a trail of conversation and votes to determine where to go.

A voting history is the true weapon for the village in a game where there are very few roles such as this one.

I think the game playing mechanic is an advantage to the good guys. Once we find a winning combination of players, we will win every game as long as we keep that combination of players out there (there is no random factor to it). So the wolves will be forced to go after those players in that group, and I think it will become clear who the star players are, which will make them prime targets to go after - letting the bodyguard have a smaller group from which to guard and potentially net us a wolf.

If we start winning games, the wolves will be forced into a specific strategy to keep us from winning. And if they want to give us a -2 point penalty, that's fine. We can just keep right on winning and seer scanning.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I do not see the odds are in our favor if both sides choose to play this as some game other than WW. They could easily apply -2 each night to us without any stopping if they want to, while we have to find the right combination of players that would result in enough points for a win.

They can't do that because while they're applying -2 to us, the seer continues to scan players and gather information. In the long run we'll find a combination of players that gets us 3 points per game and their -2 can't overcome that (net +1 per day for us).

The -2 points is a red herring. The wolves are forced to kill people, preferably the ones that we find the right position for. They have to kill us as fast as possible before we can put together a winning team. Once we get to 7 points, they still have to gamble on killing a star player and hoping we can't replace them because if they dock us -2 points, we field the same team and get up to 8 points and they face the same situation.

Basically we're not refusing to play the WW aspect of the game, we're just delaying it so we can start when it's more in our favor. There are risks for sure, if we can't figure out a combination of players to win, we've wasted some days where we may have gotten lucky and killed wolves with lynches. But there are risks in playing this as a straight up WW game as well. The village sometimes lynches roled players. The village doesn't always win with the regular set of rules.

As I said earlier this morning, the best thing we can do is have people who decide this is optimal strategy vote to lynch someone, then near deadline change their votes to No Lynch so it's not a completely wasted day of voting (I don't see a point in my doing so since I've made my point enough).

Originally Posted by Alan T

Basically we've seen this time and time again in a game when only the seer is our information source, and they get killed, we end up with a huge void for the remainder of the game. In the games that happens and there has been a solid voting history, the games often end up well for the village. I've seen very few games where a seer gets killed, the voting has been all over the place that ended well for the village. People rely too much on the crutch of the seer in these games when instead they should encourage discussion/debate and have a trail of conversation and votes to determine where to go.

Well, I bow to your experience in this regard because I haven't been in or seen many games where no lynch is an option. I have, however, seen games where wolves have been successful in manipulating voting records.

[Alan T]

Well, if winning games is as easy as Kwhit and you suggest.. I guess you are right, we would be foolish to even try it any other way.

I can't help but think that things usually aren't quite that easy though. I don't see why the wolves would allow us to keep rolling a "winning" lineup out day after day without picking off players and forcing us to change things up. I also would guess if we have several roles, the wolves likely have some kind of role that would hamper our ability to score points as well.

I guess I'll consider your point some here, it just doesn't really pass the sniff test for me right now though. I can't see how a WW game would be that easy of a set up. I honestly feel that you all are taking the best case scenerio for winning games and placing too much assumption on that ending up being the norm.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Well, if winning games is as easy as Kwhit and you suggest.. I guess you are right, we would be foolish to even try it any other way.

I can't help but think that things usually aren't quite that easy though. I don't see why the wolves would allow us to keep rolling a "winning" lineup out day after day without picking off players and forcing us to change things up. I also would guess if we have several roles, the wolves likely have some kind of role that would hamper our ability to score points as well.

I guess I'll consider your point some here, it just doesn't really pass the sniff test for me right now though. I can't see how a WW game would be that easy of a set up. I honestly feel that you all are taking the best case scenerio for winning games and placing too much assumption on that ending up being the norm.

I'm certainly not saying it's easy. But while we have the numbers to field a strong team, it benefits us to be conservative with out lynches (in other words, don't just blindly vote for someone on day 1). The wolves will make night kills to get rid of our players for sure (especially once we start winning).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I'm certainly not saying it's easy. But while we have the numbers to field a strong team, it benefits us to be conservative with out lynches (in other words, don't just blindly vote for someone on day 1). The wolves will make night kills to get rid of our players for sure (especially once we start winning).

That should say "be conservative with our lynchings."

[KWhit]

And I don't think it makes sense to vote No Lynch more than once (and maybe twice maximum). But for day 1 it seems to make sense to me.

[Passacaglia]

How about a morning vote count?

Mia Ow 1 -- claphamsa (94)
No Lynch 3 -- Kwhit (103) JAG (131) MartinD (133)
MartinD 2 -- Mia Ow (142) Schmidty (154)
claphamsa 3 -- Lathum (153) LoneStarGirl (156) Darth Vilus (159)

[DaddyTorgo]

what's up?

[DaddyTorgo]

VOTE NO LYNCH

[Telle]

vote MartinD

Just evening up the field, and I am in favor of lynching over not lynching. The vote history is one of the most important tools we have as a village.

[Lathum]

No lynch to me is a terrible idea.

Jag suggested we get down to 15 players, he mentioned an 11-4 ratio. To me that is insanity.

At that point we would have given the wolves 4 free kills, have no voting record, and while we would have a greater chance to hit a wolf when we do vote, we also have a chance to hit on a rolled villager.

We would basically be starting day 1 on day 5 with the hopes the seer may have some information and possibly down 4 villagers since I have a feeling the wolves early on will be more concerned with killing at night to try and hit a rolled villager.

[PurdueBrad]

I'll follow the current line of thought although it isn't one I normally prescribe to. My thoughts are that I would like to see day 1's lineup performance and maybe pick from that list rather than continue to no lynch. If they do really well, probably don't take the risk but if they do poorly, then I would likely pick from someone there.

vote no lynch

[Lathum]

dola- I think this may turn into a run off of lynch vs. no lynch with those of us in favor of a lynch having to consolodate our vote onto one person.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

I'll follow the current line of thought although it isn't one I normally prescribe to. My thoughts are that I would like to see day 1's lineup performance and maybe pick from that list rather than continue to no lynch. If they do really well, probably don't take the risk but if they do poorly, then I would likely pick from someone there.

and if we win the wolves will kill someone from that squad, forcing us to start over with a new lineup anyway on D2.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

I'll follow the current line of thought although it isn't one I normally prescribe to. My thoughts are that I would like to see day 1's lineup performance and maybe pick from that list rather than continue to no lynch. If they do really well, probably don't take the risk but if they do poorly, then I would likely pick from someone there.

vote no lynch

It is pretty easy for Kwhit to pick players not on the block to be lynched for the starting lineup. I don't see any reason for him to put someone in the starting lineup who he thinks has a good chance of being lynched today.

[Lathum]

OK, I am a little confused how the deadline works.

Deadline is a 2 PM CST.

At that deadline KWhit submits the lineup, the game is played, there is a lynch and night actions are processed. IS this a 24 hour clock?

Is this correct? And if so what is the order this all happens?

Id the person who is night killed counted for the game?

Are lineups made public, and if so when?

When can we begin PMing?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Lathum

and if we win the wolves will kill someone from that squad, forcing us to start over with a new lineup anyway on D2.

If we win, we have a smaller group to bodyguard and will be slightly more likely to catch a wolf. And the wolves can only kill one player. We don't need to start with a brand new lineup, just replace one player. And we'll have a match report to go by as well so I can tweak the lineup to be even more effective for game 2 by changing out the worst performers.

[lerriuqs]

Vote Clap

I've never seen No lynch be effective and even with the games I don't see it starting onw...

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- I think this may turn into a run off of lynch vs. no lynch with those of us in favor of a lynch having to consolodate our vote onto one person.

I agre

unvote miaow
vote martin!

sorry dawg.

[KWhit]

I have a lineup ready to submit, with conditionals that should take care of any strangeness that happens between now and 2.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by KWhit

If we win, we have a smaller group to bodyguard and will be slightly more likely to catch a wolf. And the wolves can only kill one player. We don't need to start with a brand new lineup, just replace one player. And we'll have a match report to go by as well so I can tweak the lineup to be even more effective for game 2 by changing out the worst performers.

Replacing one person is starting with a brand new lineup.

And if we lose we give the wolves a free kill, not to mention the wolves may decide to take out a bench player, knowing it is essentialy a free kill. Also the BG cold be on the bench protecting themselves. Then we start over a player down tomorrow.

I think the people who are voting no lynch are assuming it will be to easy to win games.

[Telle]

Votes as of post #194:

5 - no lynch - KWhit (103), JAG (131), MartinD (133), DaddyTorgo (182). PurdueBrad (185)
4 - MartinD - Mia Ow (142), Schmidty (154), Telle (183). claphamsa (192)
4 - claphamsa - Lathum (153), LSG (156), Darth (159), lerriuqs (191)

Yet to vote: J23, The Jackal, Chief Rum, Alan T, GoldenEagle, Danny

Yet to check in: J23

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Replacing one person is starting with a brand new lineup.

Whatever. Semantics.

We have 11 starters and 3 bench players whose skills factor into the game. So we'd be turning over 1/14th of our lineup due to a wolf lynch. That's just a 7% difference. Call it brand new if you want, but the implication you're making is that it will be a crapshoot to see if we win a second game if one player is changed out. That's just not true. The effectiveness of the other players will still be there and I will have further information to use to improve the lineup and can switch out the worst performers - improving the lineup.

And if the wolves want to take out a bench player, that's fine. We will just keep winning games if no change is made.

Now, I don't think it will be easy to get that first win, but once we do, we will be in the driver's seat and making the wolves react to us - not the other way around.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- I think this may turn into a run off of lynch vs. no lynch with those of us in favor of a lynch having to consolodate our vote onto one person.

Here is the problem with this. Even though I am arguing for a lynch here, having enough people argue for no lynch vs everyone wanting a lynch voting for one person, it still does not provide the voting record that we want.

The voting records only really matter when we can pit a wolf vs someone in the vote. Having people commit their votes to either condemn or lynch the wolf will eventually come out at some point in the game, even if 2-3 days later.

When forcing everyone to vote for one person just to get a lynch done, there is no person to run off and you cut in half your chances of having a wolf on the block. Unfortunately with as many people voting no lynch as they have been here, the wolves have an effective place to hide I fear.

[Lathum]

hmm, i can get behind a switch to J23, even though it is almost never a wolf not checking in

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Whatever. Semantics.

We have 11 starters and 3 bench players whose skills factor into the game. So we'd be turning over 1/14th of our lineup due to a wolf lynch. That's just a 7% difference. Call it brand new if you want, but the implication you're making is that it will be a crapshoot to see if we win a second game if one player is changed out. That's just not true. The effectiveness of the other players will still be there and I will have further information to use to improve the lineup and can switch out the worst performers - improving the lineup.

And if the wolves want to take out a bench player, that's fine. We will just keep winning games if no change is made.

Now, I don't think it will be easy to get that first win, but once we do, we will be in the driver's seat and making the wolves react to us - not the other way around.

And the people behind no lynch are saying keep as many people around as possible as long as possible and that is symantics as well. So we don't lynch today. We then have 17 people instead of 18 to make a lineup from, not a huge improvment and we still have no voting info.

And if we lose then the wolves can go for a bench player assuming they have higher skills.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And the people behind no lynch are saying keep as many people around as possible as long as possible and that is symantics as well. So we don't lynch today. We then have 17 people instead of 18 to make a lineup from, not a huge improvment and we still have no voting info.

And if we lose then the wolves can go for a bench player assuming they have higher skills.

I'm mainly worried about 3-4 days from now when we don't have enough players to field a full team (with a full bench). If we get a solid lineup together early in the game, it becomes really hard for the wolves to stop us racking up wins and we can win a race to 10 points.