Werewolf: HBO's Deadwood

Brendan WW

Abigail WW wrote: »

With 1-7 having confirmed they pmd their numbers in I don't really see a point in doing a higher number. Am I wrong? here in case someone realizes they messed up at the last minute and someone else needs to cover a number though

We should either get a prize or gt some more information here at the very least. Most likely a village prize for Des if he's team village

Abigail WW wrote: »

alright going for 10!


Gotta imagine the wolves take 1-4 every time

Back for another 15 mins or so hopefully.

Eh, Abi - Wut??

I'd imagine that's exactly what wolves would like us to think alright.

No guarantees that is the case though - unless you have some sort of insider information?

Steve WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

Back for another 15 mins or so hopefully.

Eh, Abi - Wut??

I'd imagine that's exactly what wolves would like us to think alright.

No guarantees that is the case though - unless you have some sort of insider information?

That’s what we’ve been saying all along Brendan, they need to block the top 4 otherwise the village win by having those numbers in. Even if they didn’t block 1-4 it would still mean there’s a wolf in those numbers as how else would they win?

Brendan WW

Mary WW wrote: »

This is interesting. If I get it fully you’re basically switching things around so that if a wolf doesn’t go with their pairing a villager will win. Otherwise it runs past 5 to the single number votes. Couple of things I might be missing so give me a steer here.

1. I think we need everyone around. Correct?
2. If two wolves are paired we’ll lose I think
3. Why do we stop pairing at 5? Presumably if we had a lock villager we could pair off pretty much everyone bar them?

(Part of my reason for asking is some 3 way groups might be possible to manage people’s availability)

Personally I think we're putting too much focus on trying to win a prize. There are better benefits to the contest whilst Ellsworth is alive if I've read the OP correctly and based off yesterday.

Assumption is that wolves won both prizes yesterday yeah?

So given the difference in the announcements can we assume if someone DOES win a prize they can't be a wolf? Or am I missing something

Abigail WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

Back for another 15 mins or so hopefully.

Eh, Abi - Wut??

I'd imagine that's exactly what wolves would like us to think alright.

No guarantees that is the case though - unless you have some sort of insider information?

Well maybe I suck at this game mechanic but I can't see how a wolf can win if they don't go 1234 unless the village unknowingly placed a wolf in the top few.



If thats the case athough I'd prefer to win the prize this time at least we would narrow the field in terms of who might have cost us it and as a result be a hairy fecker

Brendan WW

Steve WW wrote: »

That’s what we’ve been saying all along Brendan, they need to block the top 4 otherwise the village win by having those numbers in. Even if they didn’t block 1-4 it would still mean there’s a wolf in those numbers as how else would they win?

Well, Vernon showed us a good way to let them win yesterday :pac:

Mary WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

Personally I think we're putting too much focus on trying to win a prize. There are better benefits to the contest whilst Ellsworth is alive if I've read the OP correctly and based off yesterday.

Assumption is that wolves won both prizes yesterday yeah?

So given the difference in the announcements can we assume if someone DOES win a prize they can't be a wolf? Or am I missing something

Depends a little bit on what the prize is I guess. Given we were told there was no prize yesterday in GR2 and we know people entered we kind of have to assume it was a wolf block, question is will we always get that information when wolves win.

What we can’t assume is that a prize being won clears anyone else in the list

Brendan WW

Mary WW wrote: »

Depends a little bit on what the prize is I guess. Given we were told there was no prize yesterday in GR2 and we know people entered we kind of have to assume it was a wolf block, question is will we always get that information when wolves win.

What we can’t assume is that a prize being won clears anyone else in the list

Oh yeah, that's true for sure. Prize winner (if or when) is clear, nobody else.

Desmond WW

Mary WW wrote: »

This is interesting. If I get it fully you’re basically switching things around so that if a wolf doesn’t go with their pairing a villager will win. Otherwise it runs past 5 to the single number votes. Couple of things I might be missing so give me a steer here.

1. I think we need everyone around. Correct?
2. If two wolves are paired we’ll lose I think
3. Why do we stop pairing at 5? Presumably if we had a lock villager we could pair off pretty much everyone bar them?

(Part of my reason for asking is some 3 way groups might be possible to manage people’s availability)

1) This is part of the problem, it does require most people to be available. I am hoping if we have this set in stone for rest of game and peopel are assigned a number they wil be able to find a minute each gold rush to pm their number.

2)The benefit is that, as you said, it forces wolves to vote if they are in the 1-5 because otherwise a villager gets the win. Assuming we get confirming of all votes the only way wolves can win is if two of them are in a group together. Unlikely but it means we catch two wolves in one go potentially.

3) The reason for having 4 unassigned players is basically cause its gonne be hard to get everybody together and they can choose to vote how they wish. If they can confirm 6,7,8 then we know that the others are locked down on some capacity.

My concern with 3 + is that wolves all jump into one group (in event of tie) and there is no unique number. Also, if we have one wolf in that list of three they can choose to vote a higher number (that may end up being unique) cause nobody would know if they voted for their assigned number or not.This might work if we had a few trusted villagers spare. I would say we would want 4-5 players free. We need there to be more villager spares (hard to work out i know)>

Steve WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

Well, Vernon showed us a good way to let them win yesterday :pac:

A mistake which ultimately cost him his life. I don’t think anyone is going to make that mistake again. Everyone has posted to say they have sent their number off so if the wolves win it’s because one is a wolf.

Unless you’re the one with insider information and know something we don’t to do with game mechanics? In which case, do enlighten us

Brendan WW

Steve WW wrote: »

A mistake which ultimately cost him his life. I don’t think anyone is going to make that mistake again. Everyone has posted to say they have sent their number off so if the wolves win it’s because one is a wolf.

Unless you’re the one with insider information and know something we don’t to do with game mechanics? In which case, do enlighten us

I wish

I just think assuming wolves will go 1-4 every time is a bit naive if I'm honest.

Desmond WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

Personally I think we're putting too much focus on trying to win a prize. There are better benefits to the contest whilst Ellsworth is alive if I've read the OP correctly and based off yesterday.

Assumption is that wolves won both prizes yesterday yeah?

So given the difference in the announcements can we assume if someone DOES win a prize they can't be a wolf? Or am I missing something

So what should we focus on ?

There are prizes to be won by the village, obviously one of them is a bullet as somebody was shot yesterday. This post is so off Brendan, why wouldn't the village try and come up with a way of ensuring we win prizes ?

Abigail WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

Oh yeah, that's true for sure. Prize winner (if or when) is clear, nobody else.

Does being the prize winner clear the winner? surely it just means they won and decided to share that with everyone. If they win a bullet and shoot a wolf on the other hand

Brendan WW

Desmond WW wrote: »

So what should we focus on ?

There are prizes to be won by the village, obviously one of them is a bullet as somebody was shot yesterday. This post is so off Brendan, why wouldn't the village try and come up with a way of ensuring we win prizes ?

Read the rest of the post Desmond :rolleyes:

Brendan WW

TLDR:

Prize = good.

Cleared villager = much better.

So the prize itself, whilst beneficial isn't the aim imo.

Cleared villagers mean less place for wolves to hide

Desmond WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

Read the rest of the post Desmond :rolleyes:

Ok , perhaps I misinterpreted what you said. What did you mean when you said we are putting to much focus on trying to win the prize?

I took that to mean that we should either stop coming up with ways or winning or let the cards fall as they may ? What did you mean ?

Steve WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

I wish

I just think assuming wolves will go 1-4 every time is a bit naive if I'm honest.

But can you not see that even if they don’t chose 1-4, then the prize would have to go to a villager unless one of the top 4 is a wolf?

Desmond WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

TLDR:

Prize = good.

Cleared villager = much better.

So the prize itself, whilst beneficial isn't the aim imo.

Cleared villagers mean less place for wolves to hide

Ok, so you weren't suggesting Im wasting time trying to come up with alternative strategies? Just clearing that up....

Wendy WW

I was here as it worked out, but couldn't get my phone to do PMs. Worked yesterday though, so not sure what was going on today or what I was doing wrong

Just as well it didn't work I suppose seeing as I was persona non grata this morning for entering

Brendan WW

Desmond WW wrote: »

Ok, so you weren't suggesting Im wasting time trying to come up with alternative strategies? Just clearing that up....

No not at all. Not sure the doubling up works though unless everyone is online and can commit. But I see where you're coming from at least.

Wendy WW

Steve WW wrote: »

But can you not see that even if they don’t chose 1-4, then the prize would have to go to a villager unless one of the top 4 is a wolf?

That was part of my confusion this morning

Desmond WW

Brendan WW wrote: »

No not at all. Not sure the doubling up works though unless everyone is online and can commit. But I see where you're coming from at least.

That is the problem. Can mostly everybody commit to even one pre ready PM between 4.30 and 5.29?

WerewolfGM

Some gold has been found.

Steve WW

Yessssssssss

Desmond WW

WerewolfGM wrote: »

Some gold has been found.

Excellent news . . Who got it ? It wasnt me.

Steve WW

That means a villager got it yes?

Wendy WW

Desmond WW wrote: »

That is the problem. Can mostly everybody commit to even one pre ready PM between 4.30 and 5.29?

The wife has me earmarked for painting this afternoon but I'll try carve out a minute. You can put me down for a number 6 and above

Desmond WW

Steve WW wrote: »

That means a villager got it yes?

If we are reading the rules of the game right then yes.....

Phil WW

Wasn't me at number 1

Mary WW

Desmond WW wrote: »

1) This is part of the problem, it does require most people to be available. I am hoping if we have this set in stone for rest of game and peopel are assigned a number they wil be able to find a minute each gold rush to pm their number.

2)The benefit is that, as you said, it forces wolves to vote if they are in the 1-5 because otherwise a villager gets the win. Assuming we get confirming of all votes the only way wolves can win is if two of them are in a group together. Unlikely but it means we catch two wolves in one go potentially.

3) The reason for having 4 unassigned players is basically cause its gonne be hard to get everybody together and they can choose to vote how they wish. If they can confirm 6,7,8 then we know that the others are locked down on some capacity.

My concern with 3 + is that wolves all jump into one group (in event of tie) and there is no unique number. Also, if we have one wolf in that list of three they can choose to vote a higher number (that may end up being unique) cause nobody would know if they voted for their assigned number or not.This might work if we had a few trusted villagers spare. I would say we would want 4-5 players free. We need there to be more villager spares (hard to work out i know)>

Complicated- Tricky to implement but if we could it’s a pretty solid way to ensure prizes for the village. Pairing two wolves is possible of course but could probably be managed by rotations across two or more gold rush runs. Basically if the first single number doesn’t win then either:

A lower number wins and someone clearly didn’t follow the strategy and is worth scrutiny
Or a higher number wins and one of the single numbers blocked, indicating a wolf in that set
Or no-one wins and the first single number is a wolf

Anything wrong in my workings?

Desmond WW

Mary WW wrote: »

Complicated- Tricky to implement but if we could it’s a pretty solid way to ensure prizes for the village. Pairing two wolves is possible of course but could probably be managed by rotations across two or more gold rush runs. Basically if the first single number doesn’t win then either:

A lower number wins and someone clearly didn’t follow the strategy and is worth scrutiny
Or a higher number wins and one of the single numbers blocked, indicating a wolf in that set
Or no-one wins and the first single number is a wolf

Anything wrong in my workings?

That sounds about right. It limits what the wolves can do, particularly if 3 of them are in the list of 10.....