Silence of the Wolves - A Game of Werewolf GAME THREAD

Baggly

Well that kinda defeats the point of what im suggesting.

Baggly

That last post was @QB

quickbeam

Barney92 wrote: »

This was my FFA pter.

I reckon I'd like to add the four lowest posters into my village lean too. That would be digi, cross, lough and succubus.

Really?



I see two groups here:

Cross and Digi who haven't posted but voted.
Lough and Succy who haven't posted but didn't vote.


You think in all those cases they're all villagers?

quickbeam

tusk wrote: »

So statistically it's better to mislynch a likely modkill...? That's where my head was thinking, but I couldn't put the thoughts logically.

I'm gonna try round up my thoughts on everyone and post in the next hour or so.

No, I'm saying it's better to mislynch a likely not-modkill, and let the mods take care of the rest.

Barney92

quickbeam wrote: »

Really?



I see two groups here:

Cross and Digi who haven't posted but voted.
Lough and Succy who haven't posted but didn't vote.


You think in all those cases they're all villagers?

I've already briefly discussed this QB. Loughc and succubus I'd be more confident about being village and being disinterested, then Digi because of his vote (and why I think it was made), then cross.

quickbeam

Pter wrote: »

Well that kinda defeats the point of what im suggesting.

Then I don't quite understand your point because it seems if we have to lose four villagers anyway (worst case scenario, you're right, there could be a low lying wolf there), then it's statistically better of mods take care of two and we lynch two.

quickbeam

Barney92 wrote: »

I've already briefly discussed this QB. Loughc and succubus I'd be more confident about being village and being disinterested, then Digi because of his vote (and why I think it was made), then cross.

But you think they're all more likely to be villagers than wolves? You're not even putting them in the null category?

Baggly

quickbeam wrote: »

No, I'm saying it's better to mislynch a likely not-modkill, and let the mods take care of the rest.

What is the benefit of letting the mods kill them?

Is it that its a 'free' bonus kill?

My issue with that is, unless its a wolf modkill, its reducing our NRV numbers more quickly.

Baggly

quickbeam wrote: »

Then I don't quite understand your point because it seems if we have to lose four villagers anyway (worst case scenario, you're right, there could be a low lying wolf there), then it's statistically better of mods take care of two and we lynch two.

Because modkills will happen instantaneously. With mislynches, the thread will go on for longer, people will post, and we will get more info.

With modkills, we get no info. There will just be 2 additional kills that day, and the game will have been shortened to the tune of 2 lynches.

quickbeam

Because what I said above. If we take care of them we're also losing Villagers in the in-between munches. After taking care of four on our own, we're left with 9. If we let mods take care of modkills we're left with 11.

Barney92

quickbeam wrote: »

But you think they're all more likely to be villagers than wolves? You're not even putting them in the null category?

Yep, I do. I could be quite wrong on that, but I think each of them if more likely to be a villager. Well, everyone to me at the start was more likely to be a villager than a wolf given the odds. I think they are still more likely to be villager than wolf based on their play whereas a few have changed in my mind to be more likely to be wolves, or at least less likely to be villagers.

Dublinandy2

I guess think about the pm you would have received. If you got one saying you're a wolf, you'd more than likely play the game than not wouldn't you? Wouldn't the non players, esp the non voters be more likely to play if a wolf than a NRV? As it would be more exciting. If voting for a low poster I'd rather vote for someone who voted than not.

quickbeam

It could well be immaterial anyway, Pter. Mods will modkill if they deem it necessary and we can't stop them.

Necro

tusk

My current thoughts, having not read back.

Next game I will definitely keep notes from the get go.

#FFA2
Placeholder vote for Skunk
Kolido
Ecto



Barney92 - calling out different tactics, posts are helpful. slight village lean.

Bounty Hunter - posts seem helpful to the village, slight village lean.

Clarabel - Slight villager, need to review.

crosstownk - Who?

Digital Solitude - Who?

Dublinandy2 - Smack bam in the middle. Villagery I thought, but his unfounded defence of Skunk, who I have a heavy suspicion of makes me feel wolf vibes.

Duffman13 - no read atm.

Ectoplasm - Dodgy vibes from Ecto at some point which I don't feel have been resolve from their posts. Wolf suspicion. Need to redback to be certain.

fixxxer - Need a read back - Slight village lean.

Green&Red - Lot's to think about - need a readback. slight village lean.

kitten_k - DED

Kolido - had an initial suspicion of kolido, can't remember why, but he has not done anything yet to allay my fears. wolf suspicion.

Loughc - no posts? no read

Pter - Need to go back and read through his posts, but for now, slight village lean.

quickbeam - Voted with me for skunk, also has a suspicion of Kolido like me. Post very reasonable and information shared seems geniune. Strong village lean.

sKeith - Dodgy start, but calling out a lot of people. Starting conversations and keeping the information flowing - village lean

Strawberry Milkshake - Helpful, offered to die early instead of newbs. FFA publishing advocate. Village lean

Succubus_ minimal posts, no real read.

TheSkunk - Dodgy feeling at the start, so put in placeholder vote. called out by trit which I and whippy agreed with. Whippy goes byebye. This hightens my suspicion. Defends self quite well, reduces my suspicion to a point where I'm happy to move my vote, but it's too late so my vote sticks. Trit gets the munch, which reawakens my suspicion. Suspicion is still high. Has me down as villager lean (potential pocket attempt knowing I'm probably their biggest challenger?) Placeholder vote currently on Skunk

Triceratops Ballet - Need a read back, but currently feeling, slight villager lean.

tritium - DED

tusk - Villager

Whiplashy - DED

Mod kills will reduce the number of munches. If we lynched one by one we have to account for 4 munches too (possibility of 8 NRV gone)

If we lynched one of those who voted and the other 2 were modkilled then lynched the other there would be 2 munches to account for (possibility of 6 NRV gone)

If we lynch one of those we hope would be modkilled, mods kill the other, munch, lynch, munch, lynch, munch (7 possible NRV)

Best numbers come from mods taking the 2 out for us.

Think it could be madness spending the entire day on this though. We have the numbers crunched now so know where we would stand.

Think we’d be better concentrating on the active players we have right now and see where the day leads us.

quickbeam

^^ This!!

Baggly

Look i disagree we shouldnt persue this; the munches will still happen either way, and we get 2 extra lynches out of it, which gives us time to gather info and analyse patterns later in the game, as well as analyse the munches themselves. Ive made my case and ill stand by it, but you guys can do whatever you feel is right as well, of course.

tusk

I'm honestly finding it hard to follow this debate. Could somebody bullet point out the pros and cons of each arguement here please?

Pter

Pter wrote: »

Look i disagree we shouldnt persue this; the munches will still happen either way, and we get 2 extra lynches out of it, which gives us time to gather info and analyse patterns later in the game, as well as analyse the munches themselves. Ive made my case and ill stand by it, but you guys can do whatever you feel is right as well, of course.

Put your idea down in a step by step so I can get my head around it.

Baggly

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Put your idea down in a step by step so I can get my head around it.

I will but i cant right now. Duty calls in work.

quickbeam

tusk wrote: »

I'm honestly finding it hard to follow this debate. Could somebody bullet point out the pros and cons of each arguement here please?

• Pter wrong.
• QB & Strawbs right.

tusk

quickbeam wrote: »

• Pter wrong.
• QB & Strawbs right.

lel

Baggly

quickbeam wrote: »

• Pter wrong.
• QB & Strawbs right.

Thats highly leading and a little insulting tbh. I dont mind engaging in debate, but i expect better from you than this when you play village.

Dublinandy2

Just throwing it out there and not saying it's gospel but could this be a wolf tactic to keep us away from voting for a wolf fro Pter?

Baggly

It could be but its not.

Equally not going into the low posters could be a tactic by one of QB or Strawbs to save a wolf buddy.

Barney92

quickbeam wrote: »

• Pter wrong.
• QB & Strawbs right.

Now that is sassy (and dare I say antagonistic )

Dublinandy2

Pter wrote: »

It could be but its not.

Equally not going into the low posters could be a tactic by one of QB or Strawbs to save a wolf buddy.

that is true. Has anyone looked at any link between the two, just to rule it out or in?

quickbeam

Pter wrote: »

Thats highly leading and a little insulting tbh. I dont mind engaging in debate, but i expect better from you than this when you play village.

Sorry Should have put a smilie in to show it was joking. Of course we can debate it.

Pter wrote: »

It could be but its not.

Equally not going into the low posters could be a tactic by one of QB or Strawbs to save a wolf buddy.

I'm all for going for the low posters. Am surprised you got out of my posts that I was against this. I only said let's start with those who cast a vote and leave the ones who didn't to the mods.