Werewolf 2 Planning Thread

[Sciz]

People can still vote and unvote, it's just that they have to be more observant while doing so. So that people won't just vote after a few hours, and then return like 24 hours later so see what's happened.

[Sareln]

I would like a ridgid schedule, let's me plan time to read/play.

[scooter]

It's not so different from "who has been on that number longest", but it removes the (to me kind of odd) effect of someone who's had an early high, then low, then last-minute-high-again vote.

That's actually not how WW1 was played. See the recent tie situation with Bob and TT. It went like this:

TT gets 3
Bob gets 3
TT drops to 2
TT gets 3

Bob was lynched. Under what you were describing, TT would get lynched.

[Rowain]

Exactly which makes villagers have to think more before just placing votes arbitrarily on people, plus if 4 wolves went in and threw four straight votes on an innocent, they'd all be seen as very suspicious, so I don't think a play like that would be good for wolves.

Really??? Look at the example from day 3 from those 5 votes on Zak 2 were from the masons themself why would the adding of 2 wolves for the insta-kill make them suddenly suspect???

The only one that will profit from an insta-kill rule are the wolves and I fail to see any benefit for the game from your rule. On contrary apart from the problems already shown it makes it also hard to communicate as much as had been done.

And your rule would force people to vote immediatly else they run the risk to count as not-voting as the insta-kill can happen before they have time to lock in again.

[Sciz]

Yeah but in the example you quote we didn't have this particular rule, and it was by established villagers.

If we didn't know that Krill and Novice were masons we obviously would have suspected them.

And no this rule wouldn't make people vote right away, it would do the opposite. You vote if you have a strong suspicion, then if you aren't sure anymore or if you see a worrisome trend in the voting, you retract your vote. The rule about no-voting twice in a row removing you from the game could easily be changed to that you just have to post to not be removed.

Anyways this argument is pointless as I don't even care if this is implemented or not, i'm just continuing to argue because it's fun

[Cyneheard]

I second Irgy's comments: the simpler the system the better. We're looking at a start/role PMs within a day or so of WW1 ending, right?

[fire&ice]

I hope to start same day that WW1 ends

[Irgy]

That's actually not how WW1 was played. See the recent tie situation with Bob and TT. It went like this:

TT gets 3
Bob gets 3
TT drops to 2
TT gets 3

Bob was lynched. Under what you were describing, TT would get lynched.

Ok, it sounds like WW1 was using nearly the same process. If it's not identical the difference is subtle and ambiguous. I'll change what I said as the advantage then to "makes it clearer what the procedure is", because a lot of people (including me apparently) weren't clear on what "reached that number first" means, where as what I posted is quite unambiguous - though admittedly it takes a little more effort to get an intuitive grasp of.

You vote if you have a strong suspicion, then if you aren't sure anymore or if you see a worrisome trend in the voting, you retract your vote.

For most of the game, no-one has a strong suspicion. People sometimes think they do, but they rarely have strong evidence (until the later stages of the game anyway). Voting without strong suspicion is a necessary part of the game.

Also, you can't "see a worrisome trend" in the voting in time if you're at work or some such. With a fixed deadline at least people know where they'll be at the crucial time (even if it turns out to be 3am for people in odd timezones like me).

PS I don't really care that much either but enjoy arguing too. Mafia/Werewolf attracts people who enjoy arguing

[uberfish]

I don't care whether we have an auto-lynch on someone achieving a majority or not. But if we don't the tie break rules need to be ironclad.

I'm against discussion of the game in PMs for non-masons/wolves.

[Selrahc]

I don't care whether we have an auto-lynch on someone achieving a majority or not. But if we don't the tie break rules need to be ironclad.

One thing that can be used is a "Leader" role. Mayor is the general name. Whoever is the leader breaks ties. If they die, they choose who to pass their title on to. The title is voted on by the village in day 1, and is in addition to the regular role.