Printable View
Well whatever, that's for later. But if everyone is flat out unwilling to vote for their buddy, then a 3 vs 1 endgame is de facto win for the wolves. Which could easily be why you're against the idea of buddies voting for one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
forgive me for making rational arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
consider the previous game, with a final day of me gabe luco jkds. if there was just one wolf and me n gabe were linked. i would need a damn good reason to vote for him because the other option would be to get a freebie in jkds and luco dying at the same time. from my perspective, i either get to kill gabe alone or jkds/luco together
granted it can be possible to have good enough reads where we think that the probability fo gabe being wolf is higher than the probability of it being either luco or jkds, but if this was representative of ww, it would mean that ww is inherently imba against the village. the fact that we believe that having just one kill choice on 3v1 is good enough for the village to win a fair amount of time, it means that two kill options in the same spot is incredibly awesome
it would be a coinflip actually. and i doubt anybody will actually decide to vote for their not-buddy by default even though it is statistically correct most of the timeQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
i agree with rilla that the best strategy is also the worst strategy
I'm coming around to the idea of Wuf being a wolf.
Maybe Monstr too.
@ wuf: who do you read best in this game, and what is your read on them?
This is the best reason to reveal: When we vote, we know who we're voting for.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I too, have seen zero reason to not reveal and wait for a while.
wuf is very villagery imo, ong slipping.
A coinflip? You mean it's 50-50 in terms of pure odds who got to 2 votes first. The village will be left debating if the wolf skillfully ensured he didn't get to 2 votes first, if the wolf even more skillfully ensured he did get to 2 first so he looks the most villagery, or if he superbly ensured the two wagons are both villagers. What actually should happen is every villager assesses his partner, while the wolf pretends to, and hopefully the wolf will fuck up, or the villagers will be too strong.
I feel like we should lynch wuf, simply because he'll be a liability at endgame if he's refusing to even consider voting for hoopy.
Thank fuck for that.Quote:
wuf is very villagery imo, ong slipping.
We are voting pairs of players.
I nominate that we bold the pair and not just 1/2.
This will help bring clarity to the village in that we won't need to try and figure out who else may die.
How are you going to vote for me then drew? You gonna guess who my partner is?Quote:
I nominate that we bold the pair and not just 1/2.
nobody is going to bold their partners. if they do they're fucking stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
every lynch is two players. every. lynch. is. two. players. if you vote for your partner, you have self-lynched. rilla's post was correct
maybe in a 3v1 scenario the game could be blown so wide open that the wolf is so obvious that it is no longer a mistake to self-lynch
I seriously can't believe you think my strategy is not +EV for the village.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Reveal partners. When voting, we know who is receiving votes.
it always changes and the only sort of reliable d1 reads are really superficial onesQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Why do you suppose self lynching is specifically ok in this game? Because it might be necessary.
I might vote for my partner. If I have enough reason to think he's a wolf, then so be it. I'd happily die if I took down a wolf.
rescind luco
I'm not going to vote for someone when I don't know their lover. Otherwise, ong would get it.
Voting for your lover makes sense sometimes.
It's super rare though... basically only if they make an error on par with my N1 chat with JKDS recently.
You're actively trying to make not claiming pro-wolf. If I'm a wolf, well why the hell would I tell you who my partner is, knowing you'll vote for me if you consider that person disposable? What you're doing here is trying to make my stubborness look wolfy.Quote:
I'm not going to vote for someone when I don't know their lover. Otherwise, ong would get it.
lynch drew
I strongly disagree with this. Revealing partners gives wolves information that they didn't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, with 4 wolves and 14 villas, it is absolutely pro-villa to lynch your partner if you're convinced they're a wolf. The villas can afford to trade 1 for 1 with the wolves, while this would be devastating to the wolves.
Poor mojo.
if that is true then it means that either this game is hyper imba against the village or normal games are hyper in favor towards the villageQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
reasonably we should almost never have enough reason to think this, especially in early and midgameQuote:
I might vote for my partner. If I have enough reason to think he's a wolf, then so be it. I'd happily die if I took down a wolf.
this game is like the monty hall problem. you would need some abnormally good intel to have enough odds on your side to make voting for your own pair to be correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
your stubbornness is wolfy!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Please explain to me the following:
Why is revealing not +EV for the village?
This is 100% true. But here's the thing: Revealing partners provides information to both the wolves and the village. The difference is that the information gained by the village is worth waaaaaaay more.Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
If I think my partner is a wolf, I will vote for them. If you don't do that as a villa, you're not playing for your wincon and not being pro villa.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't think revealing is pro-villa. It's the one piece of information that the wolves don't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
revealing partners gives the village information we dont have. much more value in that than what the wolves get out of knowing. let's say we think gabe is a villager and we lynch bigred because he never does anything, but they're linked. then we say "oh shit how dumb was that, we didnt want gabe to die"Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
this game is different than normal in that the partners make the statistically correct choice far more easy to see. granted i dont think we're going to stick to this 100%, but we've got to be kidding ourselves if we think we're gonna vote for our partners any time soon. nobody is going to opt to kill just one possible wolf instead of two possible wolves
like it or not, the correct way to lynch is to kill the two players we want dead, not just the one player then have the other die as a surprise
Wolves have obv revealed their fuckbuddys in den. But they don't know the rest. Wouldn't it benefit them if they could take out the strongest pair first? In lieu of Special hunting, all they have to strat about is rank order of lynching. Why would we give them that knowledge?
lynch wuf not changing.
Wuf, you're not hunting. Not only that, but you're stubbornly attached to a spurious assumption that multiple people have pointed out that you simply must abandon. Your failure to openly abandon this notion that your partner is unlynchable is the most dangerous thing that has presented itself to the village today.
Keeping information in limbo where no one knows the information, is not +EV for anyone. The question is who is it more valuable to?Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
The answer is the village because:
When wolves vote, they make essentially 2 votes. Wolves know the role of both players (V or W).
When villagers vote, they make essentially 2 votes. Villagers know the role of one of the two players.
Take out how? by their inability to nom them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keybored
They still have to convince the rest of the village.
How is it that so few players are aware of this extremely important part of the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
MMM, I'm disappointed in you.
obviously. the problem is that the margin of error in "what we think" is always so super high. people give me shit for sucking, but the truth is that every good read is wrong most of the time. a significant odds change is almost always more than enough to keep the balls off of any of those "good reads" that are mostly wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
obviously it's possible for a read to be so strong that it makes killing half as many potential wolves the correct move. but it's like shooting yourself so the bullet can pass through you to kill a potential bad guy behind you instead of trying to hit the two potential baddies in front of you hiding in the bushes
am i suggesting nobody bold their buddy? no. i said we need to be real and acknowledge that nobody's gonna vote their buddy except in extreme circumstances. we also need to be logical and realize that we're lynching two players each round, not one
I don't see where it helps the villas. At least not yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Assuming all wolves are partnered with a villa, then with 18 live players we have 4 w/v partners and 5 v/v partners.
I'm trying to work thru the odds here for whether or not it is pro villa to know the partners.
Let's assume all partnerships are known. If I'm a villa, then it's better for me to vote for my partner than a random villager since I'm likely to hit a wolf 4 out of 9 times. But that only works if everyone follows that, which others have already stated that they won't vote for their partner (wuf in particular).
Still need to think on this more to think of the other angles.
That's not the point. The point is that there is ZERO value in revealing our partners (there is YET to be one rational argument for doing so and, again, we're giving the wolves perfect information on a silver platter). So what you, BID and Rilla are doing is most likely -EV for the village. It's definitely not a positive and stop pretending it is. Why are we revealing without having a logical discussion given it? Those who've revealed so far haven't even thought it through.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So what would you have lost from revealing at a point where people suspected wolfiness where you didn't bold hoopy. You created a scenario that didn't exist and that would have been easily solvable: you could have just revealed AT THAT POINT. Hoopy would have corroborated. Nothing would have been lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And here you are again creating a sense of urgency THAT DOESN'T EXIST. Let's just reveal as we lynch. There is NOTHING LOST FROM DOING SO.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Wuf, Rilla and BID need to start thinking through this reveal stuff and stop making it seem that anyone who thinks otherwise is suspect. There's a wolf in there somewhere, especially in those revealing without their partners approval.
Wuf, I'm going to assume for a minute you're a villager. Well, you're in a better position than anyone to for a read on hoopy, especially since you soulread his ass last game. You have an obligation as a villager to be honest about your opinion of hoopy, even if you think he's a wolf. If you're more concerned about self preservation, then that indicates that your obligations lie elsewhere.
read every d1 game ive played in the last 3 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
we've even argued on the very subject, where i defend the belief that the kinds of reads that are important in early game are different than late game
i never said my partner is unlynchable. i said the statistics dictate that every player should be expected to not bold their partners. this is absolutely correct. it is only if a read is so incredibly strong (abnormally strong) that it becomes statistically correct for a player to lynch his partner
obviously we're not going to stick to this 100%. dont get down my throat for pointing out the most obvious thing there is. i was quite surprised to come back from class to see most players hadnt already come to this conclusion.
This is a good point and something I haven't considered. The wolves are obviously not going to try and lynch their partners, and target any of the others and any lynch of a villager driven by the wolves will be a 2 villa lynch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keybored
I think every villa needs to look strongly at their partner to get a read on them. Assuming all of the partnerships are w/v, then every lynch of a wolf takes out a villa.
If you're partner is wolfy, then they need to go. It's the only way for the villas to win.
Having WHOLE perfect information is greater than the sum of its parts (which is what we'd be getting since knowing links tells us nothing as to who can be trusted).Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Without night action, the only thing Wolves can do is push us to lynch the V-V pairs. And they're obv gonna prioritize their targets. We must not let them take out the MVPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
i get that. i havent argued for self-preservation. i have pointed out the statistics. if a villager votes for his partner, he KNOWS he is voting for a villager in himself. he knows that if that lynch happens, 50% of the results are definite villager death. but he doesn't know this if he votes for a non-partner. from the perspective of a villager, the amount of villagers lynched when he votes for his partner is higher than the amount when he doesn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
im not sure why this is so controversial
In the bolded from your post. These so-called statistics are wrong as I pointed out earlier. If you're a villa, you're more likely to vote for a wolf (4 out of 9 times) assuming all partnerships are w/v.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
do we know who we're lynching in normal games? yes. why would we think it's correct to not know who we're lynching in this game?Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
if the idea that we should keep partners hidden is correct, then i think it necessarily means normal games are entirely a crapshoot because it means in those games we would have made just as good of lynch decisions if we didnt know who we were lynching
I currently do not believe this because most of the players who have not revealed are villagers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
It's complicated, and I'm not 100% on my stance, but I'm leaning reveal.
Wolves already have way more information than us.
The question is:
Is it more valuable to the village to prevent the wolves from getting 100% information
Or is it more valuable to the village to prevent itself from having 0% information.
In most games the wolves already start with 100% information, aside from PRs.
In this game, the PR component is essentially removed to a "trust me, I'm his partner and I think he's bad."
It's a thin line, and I don't see it as a huge mistake to give the information to everyone.
(but I'm already outed, so what do I have to lose, right?)
It's controversial because it's really convenient for the wolves if their villager buddies are unwilling to name them as serious wolf suspects.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm trying to think thru the possible partnership combinations and what is most likely with 18 players (4 wolves, 14 villas).
(1) 4 w/v partnerships and 5 v/v partnerships.
(2) 1 w/w partnership, 2 w/v partnerships, 6 v/v partnerships.
(3) 2 w/w partnerships, 7 v/v partnerships.
I don't see (3) as a possibility unless the game is a total troll by the mod, which I don't buy.
I'm leaning more to (1) from a game balance standpoint.
Also, (2) doesn't make as much sense from a game standpoint since the w/w partnership is redundant with wolfchat.
I advise against further partner reveals until a solid case is made that it absolutely benefits the village. Cuz it clearly benefits the W's.
Any other discussion about it is smokescreen.
Please read the thread again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keybored
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
Do you read shit over before you post or do you just click the button? You think that playing with hidden partners is equal to playing in a regular game and lynching with your eyes closed? Stop trying to make it seem that us lynching without a partner reveal means we don't know who we're lynching. We'd know who we'd be lynching, we just don't know the baggage that comes with lynching them (although, revealing prior to getting lynched would alleviate this problem). Also, does knowing the baggage REALLY change the decision on who to lynch? It should really only change a potential wolf bandwagon. If you strongly suspect a player of being a wolf, the baggage is a moot point.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This is why you need to by lynched.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You'd rather say that you don't understand than actually try to understand.
Wolfy.
yeah, i'm pretty happy with my vote on wuf
i reckon he's finally rolled wolf
zero? sounds like wolves have agreed in the den that they'd prefer to have perfect information.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
i call bullshit. Wuf normally claims some savant-like ability to make clutch reads in endgame spots, yet here he's claiming that this type of read is inappropriate in this game? something doesn't gel right here. he's setting up for lynching the other team. What he doesn't seem to consider is that the end-game is always going to be two couples, so by his logic it's simply the first couple to have both log in to cement the lynch.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
come join the lynch partyQuote:
Originally Posted by baudib
^ this re the question on who he reads best. It's unlike wuf to be talking about day 1 reads being superficial rather than simply going nuts and day 1 soul-readingQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
there are times where outing partners might make sense, e.g. in the scenario where a player is close to lynch then outing as +1 could result in an information gold-mine for the village based on reactions etc. We lose this opportunity if we all out our partners early. villa-villa pairings are the only piece of the jigsaw that the wolves are lacking... of course you're keen to get this information out there, cos you're wolf. Probably with 'rilla.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
With regards to the bolded, you have the game to lose as a villa if this isn't a pro-villa strategy. I'm not yet convinced that revealing is pro-villa.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
How will the village use that information in voting? I can see the wolves using it more to protect a wolf by saving a strong villa partner.
This game is not going to be one by a single strong villa if they're partnered with a wolf. This game is going to take the whole village to win.
Yup, Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
I would imagine it was done randomly, so there would be a probability of each setup. That's the assumption I am under.Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
(3) is particularly unlikely, but far from a zero event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keybored
I've read the thread and I haven't seen a good argument that makes it pro villa to reveal.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
If you think it is pro-villa, please tell me how knowing who your partner is will help me as a villa. I don't see it.
that's not the controversy. the controversy is you guys refusing to acknowledge basic statisticsQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keybored
I doubt that it was done randomly. As a mod, you try and achieve balance in a game. Leaving the partnerships to chance doesn't lead toward a balanced game.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Just to be clear:
There are 4 wolves and 12 villagers in this 16 player game.
***
Recent arguments have me firmly in the no reveal unless you're on the block category.
When I said I think it's not a huge mistake, I mean that given how much debate there has been and no consensus conclusion, I think that IF it's -EV for the village it's not vastly -EV.
Nah... we need to think differently about our voting this game. We need to assign values to pairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
For example:
If Lover A is paired with Lover B... You assign A with 70% chance wolf and B with 30% Wolf = 50% Average
If Lover C is paired with Lover D... You assign C with 80% chance wolf and D with 0% Wolf (cleared for whatever reason) = 40% Average
Although C>A, we should be lynching the A+B pair instead because the perceived value is higher.
Check my most recent post in the AB vs CD examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
interesting.... noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
who are the villagers and wolves baudib?
There's different ways of assessing the balance. If all the wolves are partnered, then they must protect each other at all costs, but they can avoid having to play villager in two threads, which I would imagine is a demanding task. If I were a wolf, I think I'd prefer to be buddied to a fellow wolf.Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
Doing it all completely randomly can easily be balanced, over a large sample. As a mod, you're doing well to get a win ratio in the sweet spot of 45:55, that's the aim when balancing a game. I would expect that each of those three possibilities are all individually at least in the 40:60 zone.
ja, i'm pretty sure drew is a villager - no offence drew, but i simply can't imagine you coming out with this post as a wolfQuote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Your statistics assume the final 4 are random variables about which there is no background information.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Your assumptions are flawed, and your results are erroneous.
Now drop this hand-waving charade of distracting from hunting, and start hunting.
All this talk is not helping the village find any wolves or even other villagers.
Stop turning the conversation to mundane topics about which wolves can speak honestly.
I'm not sure why I would be offended. This is off topic though and isn't helping.Quote:
Originally Posted by daven
It's my birthday now. In fact, I was born exactly 36 years ago, to the hour.
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...y_birthday.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's clear that those who favor revealing have revealed and those who do not favor revealing will not reveal. I don't see any value in trying to convince one side or the other any further.
lynch luco
I can't even remember who I'm voting for, maybe drew again.
I'm coming round to the idea of drew being a villager. This is too much spazz for him to be a wolf, he'd have wound his neck in long ago.
lynch wuf
I have serious concerns about his motives. I think the whole "don't vote your buddy" concept is an appeal to fear. I believe his motivation is self preservation.
@BID: what's your case against Luco?
I can't argue with the math, but ww math doesn't work that way imo, at least I don't see it working like that in this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
I think this approach is likely to lead to a wolf win. Following this strategy, the wolves would try and clear a player that one of them is partnered with and ride to victory on the back of a clear villa.
The ONLY way the village can win is to have at least one v/v team as the last team standing.
Happy Birthday!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
He seemed to not want to even discuss the idea of a reveal. Instead, giving responses along the lines of "nah. I'm good." "no thanks."Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I know, it's weak, but it's currently the best I've got.
Yup, this is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
I suppose the best way to clear a pair of villagers is to ensure that they are both on wolf wagons... possibly both on multiple wolf wagons.
This leads me to another question:
Is it in the villages best interest to have pairs double vote for the same player?
Just throwing it out there. I haven't given it any thought.
Let me fix this post:
I assumed the OP had the correct number of living players/roles, which is wrong when you count them instead of read what the mod said.Quote:
Originally Posted by lilrascal
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Relooking at combinations with 16 players (4 wolves, 12 villas).Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
(1) 4 w/v partnerships and 4 v/v partnerships.
(2) 1 w/w partnership, 2 w/v partnerships, 5 v/v partnerships.
(3) 2 w/w partnerships, 4 v/v partnerships.
I still don't see (3) as a possibility unless the game is a total troll by the mod.
(1) seems less likely with 16 players than 18 players from a game balance standpoint.
(2) may actually be more likely from a balance standpoint because with (1) the wolves have some influence with half the teams and just 1 mislynch makes the game very pro wolf.