Vanilla Werewolf gameplay thread

[jackvance]

general consensus ... we're better to lynch inactives rather than have them modkilled.....

That shouldn't be a rule written in stone though. The village mostly fails if the voting goes one of two ways: a really quick wagon erupts and is locked in a manner of hours. Congrats that was a villager. Or we arrive at the deadline with a bunch of wagons with very low votes. This kind of diffusion often means we're sitting on the easiest targets and makes it easiest for the wolves to influence the voting.

However if we can reach a village consensus over a long enough period of time then we have a good chance of finding a wolf. For this reason I wouldn't take inactives as auto-lynches. It's also too easy for the wolves to play if they know we'll be forced to lynch someone in particular.

Also, Daven can you post some reasoning for your votes?

[Keith]

That shouldn't be a rule written in stone though. The village mostly fails if the voting goes one of two ways: a really quick wagon erupts and is locked in a manner of hours. Congrats that was a villager. Or we arrive at the deadline with a bunch of wagons with very low votes. This kind of diffusion often means we're sitting on the easiest targets and makes it easiest for the wolves to influence the voting.

However if we can reach a village consensus over a long enough period of time then we have a good chance of finding a wolf. For this reason I wouldn't take inactives as auto-lynches. It's also too easy for the wolves to play if they know we'll be forced to lynch someone in particular.

Also, Daven can you post some reasoning for your votes?

the point i was making was that the general consensus of posts in this game was to take out the inactives rather than an active ( probable) villager so that SDM then announced that he was going to be inactive for a couple of days and he would just copy someone elses voting. As such his logic is flawed and he is going to be a liability to the village

[Keith]

To be fair, I am getting better at this game and I was dealt the short end of the stick imo on a couple of occasions. Anyways, here's my first contribution:

rilla's quick post leads me to believe he's doing a sacrifice fly. Gator and rilla are both wolves.

Along with ong, I agree with this. I also agree with rilla when he says that good wolves do not necessarily mean they make for good villagers.

good players generally play wolf or villager well , bad players play badly whatever they are.

I'm not as bad as you think I am, I think.

we'll see shall we

Here's my theory on how villagers and wolves will perceive me as a villager this game: Villagers will call me a liability and want me out; wolves will consider me as an asset and will come to my defense. Now I understand that this idea may bring more heat than anything, but I don't care. This makes the most sense. So, ironically, the most suspect players in my eye are those who defend me early on.

best day 1 lynch (unless someone makes a mistake) is always going to be SDM or BID before Gator.

This is the first player to come to gators defense, and to rilla's offense. On one hand he attacks me but on the other I feel like he could just be jousting with fellow wolves on Day 1. This is such a common tactic of Keiths that I'm suspicious of.

So the best example you could come up with to prove your theory that villagers will want to get rid of you is to argue that someone wanting to get rid of you is instead a wolf !!!. You were there in the wolf den last game, you saw Gabe attack me first and my post in the wolf chat that i normally attack anyone attacking me and that there was no plan to initiate a battle with a fellow wolf last game , but here you are talking about it being a common tactic of mine as a wolf and completely ignore the fact that its only the second game that i've done that and that it the last game when it happened i didn't initiate it and it wasn't a wolf plan.
So you completely contradict your theory for some extremely dodgy reasoning and you wonder why the village always consider you to be a liability

rong is coming after me - villager


gabe comes to my defense - wolf






I love getting into arguments with jyms but I agree with him here. I've actually never enjoyed bigreds participation in any of the games we've played. I find his posts to be mainly pointless and boring.

I'd also be fine with a BID lynch -- I haven't played with him in a while, but he has played super-wolfy as a villager before because his goal is to stay alive rather than find wolves.

That's not true at all. I have always had winning on the mind as a villager and when I was a wolf I was often the first player to suggest throwing myself under the bus.

but what happened to you calling him a villager under your theory for attacking you

Luco - wolf




Ong decides to give me a bold because of my apparent lack of quality content that may help the village. This screams villagery - getting rid of dead weight.


TLR came to my defense though and made an excellent point about not killing inactives for being inactive, because that would be a wasted lynch when inactives may be modkilled anyways. Villager.


Early wolf reads: Three of, Keith, Gator, Rilla, Ong.

So ong screams villager so you have him on your suspcious list. You've already said early in the post that gabe and luco are wolves according to your theory so when you give your final opinion , me gator and rilla and ong are wolves and gabe and Luco are forgotten and then you withdraw ong in your next post when you realize that you screwed up having said that he was screaming villager but you don't say anything further about gabe and Luco.


This just about sums up why you are a liability and likely to get solid villagers mislynched and why you should be lynched before you can screw the village .

[Luco]

So the best example you could come up with to prove your theory that villagers will want to get rid of you is to argue that someone wanting to get rid of you is instead a wolf !!!. You were there in the wolf den last game, you saw Gabe attack me first and my post in the wolf chat that i normally attack anyone attacking me and that there was no plan to initiate a battle with a fellow wolf last game , but here you are talking about it being a common tactic of mine as a wolf and completely ignore the fact that its only the second game that i've done that and that it the last game when it happened i didn't initiate it and it wasn't a wolf plan.

on my phone so I haven't included the BID quote you were referring to, but this is a good point. Last game was your first wolf game in almost three years iirc and your d1 quarrel with gabe was unplanned. To say its a common tactic of yours is misleading.

[NightGizmo]

However if we can reach a village consensus over a long enough period of time then we have a good chance of finding a wolf. For this reason I wouldn't take inactives as auto-lynches. It's also too easy for the wolves to play if they know we'll be forced to lynch someone in particular.

I don't think anyone is advocating auto-lynching inactives throughout the game. That's not a winning strategy. But on day 1, we have very little information to work with. Day-1 soulreads are rarely correct, and you end up just throwing a hail mary hoping for a lucky break. Given that BR is always inactive throughout the game, silently sliding into endgame, he's a good choice -- especially for this game, where he hasn't even bothered to show up yet.

Anyway, I find it strange that you picked that one fragment out of Keith's response to SDM. Keith was attacking SDM for suddenly announcing that he's disappearing but will be around enough to follow another player's vote -- in other words, he's going to be doing the bare minimum to stay alive. Why the deflection to a discussion around lynching inactives?

[jackvance]

I don't think anyone is advocating auto-lynching inactives throughout the game. That's not a winning strategy. But on day 1, we have very little information to work with. Day-1 soulreads are rarely correct, and you end up just throwing a hail mary hoping for a lucky break. Given that BR is always inactive throughout the game, silently sliding into endgame, he's a good choice -- especially for this game, where he hasn't even bothered to show up yet.

Anyway, I find it strange that you picked that one fragment out of Keith's response to SDM. Keith was attacking SDM for suddenly announcing that he's disappearing but will be around enough to follow another player's vote -- in other words, he's going to be doing the bare minimum to stay alive. Why the deflection to a discussion around lynching inactives?

My point wasn't related to Keith's position on SDM, I just quoted that part because it related to what I wanted to say.