Congratulations to the Ultimate Villagers

Originally Posted by GatorJH

Not if I don't do that anymore. I have been a wolf so much it is amazing all of you can't spot me immediately these days.

You know what I think it is, you're such an asset to the village when you're villager, that people are wary of lynching you unless they have good reason. Personally, if you're not doing much, which is what you did this game, I'm gonna have to sit on things for a while to develop a read. But I know from experience that I work really well with you when we're both villagers, so I'm not going try to gat you unless I feel it's the right thing to do

Also I would analogize WW to getting mugged by a whole gang of thugs. Assuming you're a hyper-badass and a whole team of cunts have decided to drop fisticuffs, you gotta fight off the closest assailant first. If you were to attempt to duck him and chase down the muggers standing back and waiting their turn, you set yourself open to attacks. Likewise, in WW, some players jump to the forefront and can be read early, but others are more secretive or complex and require more time to develop reads on

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Massive upgrade from Id10t

Thanks! Huge compliment coming from you.

inb4 bid absolutely pwns the next game, becoming pure mvp

part of me still believes he's not even real, just a part of the ether. he occupies space of the undefinable. confirm something to be something, and you'll have found something that isn't bid

This image is easy. I like easy.

That's my way of pretending that I'm on a differently lvl irl

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

Thanks! Huge compliment coming from you.

You're winning me over.

I mean, you did protect Gator and Luco, so all the kinks aren't worked out yet.

Let's just assume you totes read Luco as CV, and were pwning the game that night, OK?

Deal

Oh yeah... the reference I dropped that was not mentioned in game was:

You guys are so unhip it's amazing your bums don't fall off.

Which is a quote by Zaphod Beeblebrox to the waiter in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

`Hand me the rap-rod, Plate Captain.'
The little waiter's eyebrows wandered about his forehead in confusion.
`I beg your pardon, sir?' he said.
`The phone, waiter,' said Zaphod, grabbing it off him.
`Shee, you guys are so unhip it's a wonder your bums don't fall off.'

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Please give some examples and explain why

I think there were more than a dozen, just a few I remembered

- exhorting villager Ong, who wanted to coast, to go hard in the paint if he was a villager. This isn't an immediate +EV move as a wolf because Ong is a good player who should be able to read me well. But yes, Ong putting on his thinking cap and figuring out the wagonomics is definitely +EV for the village.

- telling village captain Dhuber that lynching Gabe on D2 is not a good idea, that's the wolves' job. As a wolf, why do I care which villager he wants to lynch? Not getting Vil Gabe lynched is definitely +EV for the village.

There were a lot of things like this that I did that don't help the immediate win expectancy for the wolves but it helps establish villager cred and it frankly is what fits my villager meta.

My village game has almost entirely been developed off-site and frankly I'm not a good instinctive wolfhunter the way Gabe, Gator and Dhuber are. I've found wolves a few times with people I'm familiar with if I can find things that are inconsistent with their villager game, or people I've seen in both roles enough (2-3 times each) to know how they differ.

Other than that there's vote analysis after a couple of flips and constant rereading to see if I can find a clear progression from them that makes sense or otherwise constant pinging on the wolfdar.

What I'm better at is finding villagers and forming a core of trust and solving the game through process of elimination.

I find villagers first and wolves by process of elimination

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Thanks so much for modding Hoops! You did a great job, and I hoped you got a kick out of those PMs. Some of the reads were great, some were not. Par for the course

I enjoyed reading your PM's, even if some of them were kinda nuts.

Originally Posted by rong

Random role I've thought of:

Villager gets to see 3 (or w/e) randomly selected posts from the wolf den, names removed.

Could be a good alternative to the seer role.

Hmmm interesting. There was also a Private Eye role that lets you pick 4 players and be told if there's a wolf in them. Might act as a seer replacement.

Originally Posted by Luco

I missed this. Daven posted in the wolf den?

I deleted it.

Originally Posted by dhubermex

I agree with this. My Day 3 actions were dead giveaway that I was Seer (mainly I wanted to take heat off of baudib who I thought was Seer, but I also did NOT want to get into a long-winded argument with Keith... which I felt I would lose). It just so happened that I wasn't, but was confident enough in a Keith lynch to let it play out. 80%+ of the time I'm the Seer given my Day #3 actions.

I had wuf SO pegged as Priest/Angel... was equally as confident with that read as I was in Keybored & Keith's alignments. Luco was going to be my Day #4 lynch using same strategy as with Keith lynch.

baudib's fake-Seer post was the one that threw me the most. It got me off of suspecting him at that time and putting him clearly as the Seer so I'm fortunate it didn't get to end-game with him & me both remaining because I was definitely wanting to work with him at the time I was nommed. Second post that threw me for a loop was wuf saying "I'm so special..."

GG all and of course excellent moderation job Hoopy.

MVP, MVP, MVP!

Originally Posted by Luco

GIVE EVERYONE A GUN 24/7

I've always wanted to go to MERICA!

Originally Posted by Luco

He's back onto my d1 policy lynch list now. I would have argued against his nom based on the 8 day absence if I were in the den n4

I will join the bigred policy lynch wagon as well.

Originally Posted by baudib

btw i have like 2,000 posts as a wolf since the WSOP.

i can't play the "this is out of my wolf range" card anymore but i actually feel i've become a very obvious villager in my village games.

in b4 i get snaplynched D1

Do you even sleep?

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Oh yeah... the reference I dropped that was not mentioned in game was:

You guys are so unhip it's amazing your bums don't fall off.

Which is a quote by Zaphod Beeblebrox to the waiter in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

`Hand me the rap-rod, Plate Captain.'
The little waiter's eyebrows wandered about his forehead in confusion.
`I beg your pardon, sir?' he said.
`The phone, waiter,' said Zaphod, grabbing it off him.
`Shee, you guys are so unhip it's a wonder your bums don't fall off.'

Look at this hipster!

Originally Posted by Luco

I find villagers first and wolves by process of elimination

Honestly it's the best way.

Originally Posted by baudib

I think there were more than a dozen, just a few I remembered

- exhorting villager Ong, who wanted to coast, to go hard in the paint if he was a villager. This isn't an immediate +EV move as a wolf because Ong is a good player who should be able to read me well. But yes, Ong putting on his thinking cap and figuring out the wagonomics is definitely +EV for the village.

- telling village captain Dhuber that lynching Gabe on D2 is not a good idea, that's the wolves' job. As a wolf, why do I care which villager he wants to lynch? Not getting Vil Gabe lynched is definitely +EV for the village.

There were a lot of things like this that I did that don't help the immediate win expectancy for the wolves but it helps establish villager cred and it frankly is what fits my villager meta.

My village game has almost entirely been developed off-site and frankly I'm not a good instinctive wolfhunter the way Gabe, Gator and Dhuber are. I've found wolves a few times with people I'm familiar with if I can find things that are inconsistent with their villager game, or people I've seen in both roles enough (2-3 times each) to know how they differ.

Other than that there's vote analysis after a couple of flips and constant rereading to see if I can find a clear progression from them that makes sense or otherwise constant pinging on the wolfdar.

What I'm better at is finding villagers and forming a core of trust and solving the game through process of elimination.

I don't see how these are examples of pro-v but not anti-w. It's more like whether they are pro-v/anti-w or pro-w/anti-v is a matter of theory. It's important for wolves to do things to establish villager credibility. If you do something that makes Ong play a better village game, which say raises v-equity by 2 points, if doing so gives you villager credibility by 3 points, then the net is anti-v/pro-w +1. That measurement is bleh, but that's how I believe it functions

which say raises v-equity by 2 points, if doing so gives you villager credibility by 3 points, then the net is anti-v/pro-w +1. That measurement is bleh, but that's how I believe it functions

I knew you understood what I was saying. This sentence shows that you agree that anti-V is not synonymous with pro-W.

You assigned both cases a number and the number is not necessarily the same for both cases all the time. QED

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I knew you understood what I was saying. This sentence shows that you agree that anti-V is not synonymous with pro-W.

You assigned both cases a number and the number is not necessarily the same for both cases all the time. QED

I didn't assign different numbers to the net. One input can have a dozen outputs, and the net is still just one solution.

If Baud does something that makes Ong play better, that doesn't make Baud's action pro-v/anti-w unless that's the net effect. If that behavior also gives Baud more win equity to a greater degree than the equity that Ong got, then that one input provides a net output anti-v/pro-w. I think the way you're looking at it is isolating those two, and saying that Baud's one input was pro-v in that helped Ong but also pro-w in that it helped himself. That is technically correct as one term in an equation, but it is not an entire equation. What we're looking for is one answer, so if an input has a dozen outputs, we still want to combine them to get one solution. That's how we can say one input has an output of either pro-v/anti-w or pro-w/anti-v


Maybe the confusion is that I have skipped a step in the algebra. I've always been talking about the combination of the partials, not any single partials. It makes sense to me to do that since when one input has multiple outputs, we should immediately determine the net to know what effect in the overall equity that input has

You agree that the 2 inputs are not 1 input. That's enough.

I never said 2 inputs. 1 input with multiple outputs still has a net of 1 output, at least within the v-equity to w-equity spectrum

*sigh*
Perhaps I misread you.

I should have stopped ages ago, but somehow, you ride this line that keeps me .

My assumption was that we were in this to learn from each other, but the conversation hit a wall after the 2nd post. That's fine.

If you think I'm an idiot, you may be right. I'm the noob, here.

***
What are the criteria which dictate when a villager should vote to lynch someone who they think is a villager?

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

*sigh*
Perhaps I misread you.

I should have stopped ages ago, but somehow, you ride this line that keeps me .

My assumption was that we were in this to learn from each other, but the conversation hit a wall after the 2nd post. That's fine.

If you think I'm an idiot, you may be right. I'm the noob, here.

***
What are the criteria which dictate when a villager should vote to lynch someone who they think is a villager?

Why would I think you're an idiot? Discussion is good.

If a villager thinks a player is a villager, he should not lynch him

Originally Posted by wufwugy

If a villager thinks a player is a villager, he should not lynch him

Oh really?

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Other than that, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what a good lynch is. I think lynching villagers is good policy. But they have to be the right villagers. The village does not win the game by killing a wolf or two, they win the game by boxing the wolves into corners and killing them all.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Lynching villagers is not bad. If it was, there would be no good play since all good play involves lynching villagers

Winning is a process. I feel like I have credibility on this since I've been on the winning side with villagers so many times

Originally Posted by wufwugy

That's a narrow and insufficient way to view it. We're not playing dice. We're not randomizing. Variability is a factor, but the core of the game is the process that sets up the best lynch choices in the endgame. It should be assumed that a village that is playing incredibly well will still lynch a handful of villagers. The goal, that which makes those villager lynches pro-village, is the information they provide. Not information about that players specifically, but about what that means for others. Daven's lynch basically cleared BID and made Gator look very wolf. This is exactly what we want out of early/mid game lynches. We don't necessarily want to lynch wolves then, we want to box the wolves in and lynch them later. Granted, too much in one direction is problematic

I seriously got bored after that much.

Why I say you think I'm an idiot. You treat me like one.

Do you really think that's what I meant? You would have to think I'm the biggest moron on the face of the planet to think I've made that contradiction

I already explained what I meant in a previous post. I'll nutshell it even further: optimal village play includes lynching villagers. This does not mean you should lynch somebody you think is a villager. It means that if you are playing the best you can, some of those you lynch should be expected to flip as villagers. This means that when people call lynches bad just because the result was of a villager, they're not necessarily right since optimal play results in a percentage of lynches being villagers

I make this point whenever I see somebody do what I think is results orientation. It's really easy to look back at a lynched villager and say it was a bad move, but results are not what determines the value in the move

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It is unrealistic to think of optimal play that doesn't also include lynching villagers, because that would mean that it is theoretically possible to be so good that you never lynch a villager. This means that optimal play does include lynching villagers, which means that when discussing what is good for the village, we should consider the factor that village deaths play.

The goal isn't to lynch villagers, but the reality is that it happens; therefore an optimal village strategy includes optimizing how it lynches villagers. It isn't that the goal is to lynch the optimal villager, but to lynch the optimal target even though that target may be a villager

I'm trying to find the consistency in your remarks. My questions to this point are not indicative of whether or not I think what you're saying is smart. If I seem to think you're incoherent - well... I'm still trying to figure out what you're actually saying.

You frequently place votes that I don't understand. I want to understand why you place them.

***
Even given how you characterize your reasoning for voting for daven in the moment, I think you overstate your read. You say he did that one thing that he only does as a wolf. He did it. He wasn't a wolf. You persist in your read. That's what got my attention.

I tried to argue that what he did was not necessarily pro-W, even if it may have been anti-V. You aren't hearing it. I believe you understand my point and still disagree with me. Cool. My only moves are to either just end it, or to admit that maybe I'm misunderstanding you and verify.

(After all, when I feel like someone is being stubborn, it's usually me.)

I didn't say he only does that as a wolf (I probably said that in-game though, but that's different), I said that he *should* only do that as a wolf. This is almost entirely what wolf-hunting is about, you find things that players are doing that they would be unlikely to do as villagers, things about which you expect they know better.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I tried to argue that what he did was not necessarily pro-W, even if it may have been anti-V. You aren't hearing it. I believe you understand my point and still disagree with me. Cool. My only moves are to either just end it, or to admit that maybe I'm misunderstanding you and verify.

You're right that I'm not hearing it. Well, I'm hearing it, but I disagree.

WW is a zero sum game with two parties where only one can win. This means that factors can be placed on a spectrum between v-win equity and w-win equity. If something is pro-v, it must necessarily be anti-w. That does not mean that each action only has one reaction, but that it has one net reaction. So if you're a wolf and you help a villager do better villaging (which can be considered pro-v), all other factors are necessarily a part of the equation, and it is their sum that determines whether your initial action ticked towards v-win or w-win

If somebody does something pro-v yet it was also more pro-w at the same time, then how can that action be considered anything other than pro-w/anti-v?

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I didn't say he only does that as a wolf (I probably said that in-game though, but that's different), I said that he *should* only do that as a wolf. This is almost entirely what wolf-hunting is about, you find things that players are doing that they would be unlikely to do as villagers, things about which you expect they know better.



You're right that I'm not hearing it. Well, I'm hearing it, but I disagree.

WW is a zero sum game with two parties where only one can win. This means that factors can be placed on a spectrum between v-win equity and w-win equity. If something is pro-v, it must necessarily be anti-w. That does not mean that each action only has one reaction, but that it has one net reaction. So if you're a wolf and you help a villager do better villaging (which can be considered pro-v), all other factors are necessarily a part of the equation, and it is their sum that determines whether your initial action ticked towards v-win or w-win

If somebody does something pro-v yet it was also more pro-w at the same time, then how can that action be considered anything other than pro-w/anti-v?

Why are you still talking about pro-w/anti-v? We've already agreed to disagree.

As for the rest, I think that your analysis is based on concrete actions, which the physicist in me adores. However, this isn't a game of physics, it's a game of psychology. My approach is that the concrete actions are made by humans who do not follow strict laws. As such an analysis that stops at the concrete is insufficient.

I disagree that it's a zero sum game, too. I think that your argument that lynching villagers is unavoidable and we should examine strategies to maximize the EV in those cases is brilliant and indicates that it's NOT a 0 sum game. I think that amazing play by someone in one game is going to inspire more amazing play in later games. I think we all gain as individuals by encouraging greatness in each other.

Anyway. If you can clearly state what your method of maximizing EV when lynching villagers is, I'm keen to understand. If I've missed it in above posts, feel free to point me to them.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Anyway. If you can clearly state what your method of maximizing EV when lynching villagers is, I'm keen to understand. If I've missed it in above posts, feel free to point me to them.

Most of that is unknown and unknowable. That which is optimal is theory, and part of what keeps the game interesting.

I just wanna make sure you're getting my point. I do not think it is right to lynch somebody you believe to be a villager, but I do think it is right to understand that the most optimized possible strategy will still result in villagers being lynched. Therefore it is wrong to assess the quality of a lynch based on the result of the flip, as well as it should be assumed if optimal strategy is performed, when a villager is lynched, it was the optimal lynch. Of course we should strive to lynch as few of villagers as possible. Just that when we do lynch a villager, we should be sure it was the right lynch

About the zero sum game, I don't see how it can be anything but. One of two teams is winning, and every action bakes itself into that eventual result. Across multiple games, we could say it isn't zero sum. But as far as utility is concerned, a tick in the direction of equity for one team necessarily means an equal tick away from the other team. I'm not sure if I can see some way where Team 1 could increase equity by 3% while Team 2 increases equity by 2%, because that would just be an increase of equity by 1% for Team 1 and a decrease of equity by 1% for Team 2

Or maybe that specific scenario would be .5%, -.5%. Whatever it is, my point is the correlation is 1:1

Sorry for disappearing guys. Work has been insane and has taken over my life for the last 3 months. Probably the worst 3 months of my life (teenage angsty bigred may disagree). Maybe one day I'll have the time to play in one of these games and give the thread not the cat pictures it needs, but the cat pictures it deserves.

Ong claims hes trying to be you. But we all know you arent that easily replaced. God speed bigred, god speed.

BR, you made a huge contribution by somehow providing seer cover for the largely AFK seer. So fuck you FFS.

you also binked miller, which was salt in the wound.

FFS

gg

Originally Posted by bigred

Sorry for disappearing guys. Work has been insane and has taken over my life for the last 3 months. Probably the worst 3 months of my life (teenage angsty bigred may disagree). Maybe one day I'll have the time to play in one of these games and give the thread not the cat pictures it needs, but the cat pictures it deserves.

I hope things get better for you Ben.

Originally Posted by baudib

BR, you made a huge contribution by somehow providing seer cover for the largely AFK seer. So fuck you FFS.

you also binked miller, which was salt in the wound.

FFS

gg

Yep, Bigred's MVP game was the game he wasn't here for. That sounds about right.

Originally Posted by bigred

Sorry for disappearing guys. Work has been insane and has taken over my life for the last 3 months. Probably the worst 3 months of my life (teenage angsty bigred may disagree). Maybe one day I'll have the time to play in one of these games and give the thread not the cat pictures it needs, but the cat pictures it deserves.

If it's any consolation you died doing what you love most.

Reading Twilight books!