Werewolf 3 Game Thread

[zakalwe]

This night, Zakofonix was banished from the barn. After finding his precious mayor's residence in ruins, the farmhand had blown a fuse and started flinging accusations around as if they were going out of style. The rock thrower had run off in shame, perhaps never to be heard from again. The mayor had proceeded to reclaim the warm and cozy barn, and Zakofonix was left without shelter once more. He dared not return to his own house, so he sought refuge behind the chicken pen. He heard no howls, but the animals were agitated. A persistent chatter of clucks and cackles filled the night.

[Jkaen]

I don't understand why you are pushing the reveal so strong, or rather I think i do.

Since suspicion seems to have lifted off me, it seems there is actually a chance I may get ate tonight. If so I was planning to try to raise up Lewwyn and F&I as the main suspects

[Lewwyn]

Meiz, I never said the fool should reveal. I'm saying only the masons.

Jkaen, I suspect you will be disappointed.

[Meiz]

Meiz, I never said the fool should reveal. I'm saying only the masons.

I'm saying I don't mind if the Fool would reveal himself with the masons, either gaining 3 trusted villagers, or 2 trusted villagers + 50/50 shot at a wolf. But again, not sure if now is the correct time to do this.

[Irgy]

I don't understand this reasoning at all. First you're not adding the benefit of a decreased suspect pool. By saying we gain half a villager this is misleading because it doesn't acknowledge that the suspect pool for each villager is reduced by 2 in the even that the masons reveal but aren't killed in the 2/11ths.

That's because this reduction in the suspect pool is illusory. If the masons are not suspected, there is no gain to removing them from the suspect pool. This is the core of my argument to wait until they are a lynch candidate for the day. It does rely on no late swings to new candidates, but it's safe to say that avoiding such swings is in the village's interests, in which case if they do occur it should only be the wolves revealing themselves by doing it.

So, the suspect pool is reduced by 2 by the ability of the masons to claim when necessary. Whether they claim earlier or not. The only difference claiming earlier makes is that it avoids the risk of one dying and being unable to confirm the other.

What you're completely misunderstanding about my argument then is that I'm referring to differences between an early reveal and a late reveal. As such, the fixed benefits of the ability to reveal are not included, and these are what you are describing. You're essentially making the mistake of including all the benefits of revealing as benefits of specifically revealing early.

Whenever the masons reveal, we get the benefit. Until the masons are a vote candidate, we effectively gain no benefit from them having already revealed. It's not a question of when to "activate" our power, it's a question of not revealing our hand to our opponents before we need to use it.

You're quantifying the higher chances that the baner will be caught faster. I agree thats a possibility, but we're already at the point where we need to either catch wolves or it won't matter at all when the baner was caught.

The increase in risk of the baner getting caught is it's own separate subject. My argument shows that revealing early is actually a net loss on average when it comes to having confirmed villagers in the future and therefore catching the wolves. So the comparison of costs of losing the baner are neither here nor there, as they are costs in addition to what is already a loss.

[Irgy]

The only difference claiming earlier makes is that it avoids the risk of one dying and being unable to confirm the other.

Wish I could edit. This should say "The only benefit claiming earlier gives...". There are other differences, which are the costs.

[Lewwyn]

What you're completely misunderstanding about my argument then is that I'm referring to differences between an early reveal and a late reveal. As such, the fixed benefits of the ability to reveal are not included, and these are what you are describing. You're essentially making the mistake of including all the benefits of revealing as benefits of specifically revealing early.

Whenever the masons reveal, we get the benefit. Until the masons are a vote candidate, we effectively gain no benefit from them having already revealed. It's not a question of when to "activate" our power, it's a question of not revealing our hand to our opponents before we need to use it.

You say whenever the masons reveal we get the benefit. I say this is not true because the benefit might be taken away.

You are assuming that we won't lose the benefit altogether. If a mason is killed then there is no way to prove the other masons innocence it can essentially become a tool by wolves to use against us. If we wait and the wolves get luck with a mason kill then not only do we lose all future benefits but we also are giving the wolves a benefit. Would you rather a benefit now that may be useful or take the chance that the benefit won't be there in the future and turned against us.

So that is what I see as the difference between these arguments. I say use it or lose it. You say lets wait even if there's a chance we will lose it and it will blow up in our faces.

The increase in risk of the baner getting caught is it's own separate subject. My argument shows that revealing early is actually a net loss on average when it comes to having confirmed villagers in the future and therefore catching the wolves. So the comparison of costs of losing the baner are neither here nor there, as they are costs in addition to what is already a loss.

In fact there's no way to show for sure that its a net loss on average for the future. If in fact the baner is never actually hit by luck then the masons will actually be living longer, therefore the case can be made that in fact you are increasing the number of confirmed villagers both in the present and in the future.

[Serdoa]

On why counter-claims are not half as bad as they are made:

Lets imagine the following situation: A player claims he is the Fool. Another player counter claims that he is the Fool (can you imagine any other situation were people would fight with each other claiming that they are the real fool? ). Obviously no one (except for the wolves) would know the answer and so chaos would ensue. At least, that is the situation we are told by our village-leaders to happen.

I don't believe that. Lets face it, we are 14 players. If both Masons reveal themselves, we are down to 12 potential wolves. Now, I guess nobody really wants to make us believe that 2 wolves would role-claim Masons right? Why? Because we kill at most 1 villager and get 2 sure-fire wolf lynches afterwards. That together with all the other arguments why revealed Masons help us more then they hurt us seems for me a solid reason to reveal. Of course not right now, but Lewwyns idea seems not bad. Maybe wait for the day and gamble that they are not targeted.

Anyway, back to revealing: 12 players left, 2 power roles left. If someone claims Fool and another one does the same we have a 50% chance to nail a wolf AND two clear targets to discuss about. Don't forget, we do have several days of past voting to look at, so I would see our chances higher then 50% to choose the wolf. But of course, chances are that we kill a villager. Only that argument is not valid because right now the chance to kill a villager is 70% (4 wolves out of 14 players are ~30% wolves, so 70% villagers) and therefore higher. I really doubt that the wolves would counter-claim under those circumstances.

Going further with that: We know that we have right now 10 villagers left. If all 4 power roles claim we have 6 villagers and 4 wolves left. Thats a 40% chance to hit a wolf. So, no reason to counter-claim (making chances even higher for us) but on the other hand still better chances for us (40% instead of 30%).

So, can someone again explain to me why claiming is such a bad idea? Facts:

1. We lose power roles which don't help us right now.
2. We up our chances to catch a wolf.
3. We make it easier to concentrate on the possible wolves.

That last point I haven't spoken about till now, but think about it. It is certainly easier for us to nail the wolves if we don't have to go through the posts of 14 people, through the voting history of 14 people but instead can concentrate on 10. Less if you are a standard villager.

[Serdoa]

That's because this reduction in the suspect pool is illusory. If the masons are not suspected, there is no gain to removing them from the suspect pool.

Not true. The suspect pool will be reduced. Not having enough votes to be lynched doesn't mean that they are not suspected. Every villager has right now to suspect 13 other players. So it will automatically lower the players we have to suspect. And give us some information to look at which we can trust that it was not meant to distract the villager (of course it still can be a distraction).

This is the core of my argument to wait until they are a lynch candidate for the day. It does rely on no late swings to new candidates, but it's safe to say that avoiding such swings is in the village's interests, in which case if they do occur it should only be the wolves revealing themselves by doing it.

I think we had enough late swings that the wolves are either already doing late swings all the time (and don't get called for it) or at least have cover by those earlier late swings.

So, the suspect pool is reduced by 2 by the ability of the masons to claim when necessary. Whether they claim earlier or not. The only difference claiming earlier makes is that it avoids the risk of one dying and being unable to confirm the other.

Which is basically the whole point because thats a big risk right now.

[Rowain]

I agree with Lewwyn and Serdoa. I can't think for a better time for the masons to reveal than at the closing of this night/begin of the new day.

We have only 2 wrong lynches left, we need to reduce the number of susppects now or it becomes too late. The fool & especially the baner (which can not be proved) should stay quiet.

@Roland: The banning of PM's was meant to disallow secret networks not to disallow the villagers forming trusted networks.

@Serdoa: At whom are you aiming with your discussione-theory? And you can't cdeny that the most heated discussions involved you