Werewolf 3 Game Thread

[Roland]

I'm sure at least one of the people disagreeing with me is simply playing for the other team and winding me up anyway.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. At least you know it's not me. I may have some silly reasons for agreeing with your point about not revealing, but at least I agree.

What was it uberfish said? "Humans. Catch a 'Wolf and still argue well into the night?" Something like that. Sums us up nicely, doesn't it? Shame he's not around to participate.

[Irgy]

We do gain the benefoit that there are 2 people less we have to suspect.

Explain to me what you think the benefit of this actually is?

I see two things:
1. Not voting off the masons. You can call it "increasing the odds of finding a wolf by removing two suspects", but it's equivalent.
2. Knowing for sure that a couple of extra people who know nothing aren't lying about the information they don't have.

My strategy does sacrifice or reduce (1), except in the particular case of one being killed and us then not believing the claim of the other, which I have covered already. (2) I believe provides no substantial benefit relative to the cost of giving the wolves additional information.

When do you think is the right time forthem to reveal?

When one of them is at risk of being voted off.

According to you we might happily lynch 3 more villagers and lose the game without ever knowing who the masons are. Do you think that is a usefull strategy?

Well it doesn't sound any worse than lynching 3 villagers and knowing who the masons are, does it? Whether we're more likely to do that is the entire point that I'm debating here.

[Irgy]

This I wholeheartedly agree with. At least you know it's not me. I may have some silly reasons for agreeing with your point about not revealing, but at least I agree.

Thanks Roland Going only by what you just said, you sound like you have not been the one to truely satisfy me by finally reaching my desired state of actually understanding the argument I'm giving. But you've cheered me up a little anyway.

[Meiz]

Well it doesn't sound any worse than lynching 3 villagers and knowing who the masons are, does it? Whether we're more likely to do that is the entire point that I'm debating here.

It seems like your forgetting that it's much easier to hunt down wolves, if you have the sure knowledge of two innocents and can count them and their voting off from your wolf theories. Or do you not see that as significant?

[Lewwyn]

It seems like your forgetting that it's much easier to hunt down wolves, if you have the sure knowledge of two innocents and can count them and their voting off from your wolf theories. Or do you not see that as significant?

He was a wolf in WW2 give him a break

You know how you catch a wolf Irgy? Process of elimination. Last thing I'll say on the subject.

[Roland]

Thanks Roland Going only by what you just said, you sound like you have not been the one to truely satisfy me by finally reaching my desired state of actually understanding the argument I'm giving. But you've cheered me up a little anyway.

Oh no, I pretty much agree with your position. In fact, it's one I held myself beforehand, but I think I forgot to mention that amidst my raving yesterday. Also, I was trying to bite my tongue by the end what with it being night time and all that. Besides, I was tired, I didn't feel I was making much sense with my points anymore, and the best thing I could do would be to simply shut my mouth.

At any rate, my original stance was: a) it's flat out a bad idea, and b) if we MUST do it, wait until someone's on the block. Of course, b) is more of a fallback from a) than a strong conviction, so of course I'm going to push for the former first. I've said my piece on the matter, and honestly there are players (like yourself and Lewwyn) better qualified to argue the merits and faults of the case.

[Irgy]

At any rate, my original stance was: a) it's flat out a bad idea, and b) if we MUST do it, wait until someone's on the block. Of course, b) is more of a fallback from a) than a strong conviction, so of course I'm going to push for the former first. I've said my piece on the matter, and honestly there are players (like yourself and Lewwyn) better qualified to argue the merits and faults of the case.

See, we don't actually agree then, because although I effectively agree with (b), I completely disagree with (a). It's a great idea to use the roles to eliminate suspects. It's just that it's also a slightly worse idea than delaying those claims for as long as possible.

He was a wolf in WW2 give him a break

You know how you catch a wolf Irgy? Process of elimination. Last thing I'll say on the subject.

You don't think I get that? It's what killed me in the end for goodness sake.

Here's the thing. All of 24 hours ago, I decided to, during the night, propose to the masons and fool that now is actually the correct day to reveal. Leave it too late and testing counter-claims is risky I thought. Exactly the position you're taking. Fully on board with it, about to suggest it myself.

What happened however, was thinking it through I realised why revealing later was, surprisingly, almost strictly better. Strictly better for the fool, and only not strictly better for the masons because of this risk of an unlucky death preventing the confirmable reveal. It was only a judgement call though until I actually wrote the post with the underlines and the probabilities. That post was the live act of me actually working out for sure that I was on the right track.

My point is, I'm not misunderstanding your point of view Lewwyn. I'm entirely on top of it. What the trouble is that there's a further chain of logic on top of your point of view which leads to my current view, and you simply aren't following it. Because it's quite counterintuitive, I'll happily admit that. So don't bother trying to tell me what I'm missing, try and figure out what I'm actually saying and what's wrong with it (which I expect is nothing).

[Roland]

See, we don't actually agree then, because although I effectively agree with (b), I completely disagree with (a). It's a great idea to use the roles to eliminate suspects. It's just that it's also a slightly worse idea than delaying those claims for as long as possible.

Well, no. Not exactly. I mean, my original knee-jerk reaction was that it was just a flat-out bad idea, but after I put a little thought into it I could see the merits to it. Then my main opposition was mostly emotional, as you pointed out. :neenernee I do see what you're saying, and I agree with it on principle. I feel it's best to wait until we're closer, rather than make a potentially rash decision right now. I believe I stated as much yesterday. I'm doing my best here to forgo my original emotional stance and follow the logic and reason of pro versus con, and it's lining me up with your line of thinking - for today. After today, depending on how things go, I may agree that it's finally time to do something different. Right now, though, I'm concerned it's too fueled by emotion and desperation.

I don't know. What I do know is that, in my mind, no one should claim unless it's life or death. That's been my stance since the Fool discussion, but honestly I was hoping it would never come down to this. Silly to cling to that hope anymore, obviously, so as you are doing the next best thing is to approach this logically and rationally. Personally, I'd rather wait and see how tomorrow's lynch turns out, but that's me. Others obviously have differing opinions, and that's fine. As I said, I'll leave it to others to better discuss this subject.

[Rowain]

Irgy just a little example:

Yesterday 6 people voted f&i 9 for MNG. Lets asume the wolfes divided evenly between those 2.
If I now know the 2 masons voted for f&I it becomes easy for me to suspect the remainig 2 playrs as wolves (MNG and myself the missing votes).
Now this is just an example but if we know 2 confirmed villagers we can look through the votings on the past 4 days and I'm sure we can find wolfes that way.

In a way those masons might become the point to stand on to move the whole game in our favor.

[Serdoa]

Mass claiming now does seem like a good short term move. I think it depends on how confident we are that we can catch all the wolves using this strategy.

Why should it depend on that? This strategy does has nothing to do with making sure to catch all wolves. It just makes our chances better to do so - today more then tomorrow (but I come to that soon).

No doubt a wolf or two should be easy to catch, but what about the others? I'm worried that we will spend four days lynching something like two wolves and two villagers, losing all the trusted innocents in the process. Then we would still have two wolves to catch, who most likely spent the last four days acting very reasonably and building up airtight covers. I'm not sure how to quantify it, but maybe it would be better to save this trump card for catching the final few wolves. Or at least wait until we are closer to the "must-lynch-a-wolf" point.

When is that "must-lynch-a-wolf" point reached? We are down to 14 players, with 4 wolves. We have not soo much time left I think. 3 wrong lynches and it's over, right?

Do you not remember yesterday at all? Me coming up with an independent theory, and lynch candidate, and going for it? I had more than half of the Village in line with me until everyone swung back onto Mr. Nice Guy, where you yourself parked your vote. I'm struggling to remember anyone or anything you've come up with aside from targeting me.

I'll go back and read it. Don't take it personally please.

After a bit thought, I think the claims should not be done this night, but maybe next if we fail to kill a wolf at least.

Why? Whats your reasoning?