TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

[Xiz]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

wait, with how many players? any chance we could still shoot for 24?

I'd say no. Let the extra 2 or whatever be replacements. I'm almost positive there will be at-least one replacement.

[FoJaR]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

i think we're gonna end up with 20.

20 is a huge game though.

[Afrobean]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

i mean we just had a game that wasnt really wolves vs humans, it was more like broken mechanic vs inactivity

how is that game fun for anyone? it certainly wasnt a satisfying win for me.

Is this you admitting that your game has a broken mechanic? I don't know if I'd say that, maybe it's just got some kinks that need to be worked out.

I love the idea of incorporating Prisoner's Dilemma directly in the game rather than just as a meta element that could be analyzed beyond the context of a single game. I just don't think the execution here is ideal. Rules should be clear and quantitative. A player should know if they are breaking a rule, lines should be clearly drawn. Toeing lines is going to happen in every game, but when the lines aren't clearly drawn, you're more likely to end up with players walking past the point where a clear line would have been drawn. If a game is broken, it's not the fault of the players, it's the fault of the host for not designing the game to avoid those possible breaks.

And if a game is broken, you better believe that players will exploit it. I mean, look at seer/guardian games. "Follow the cop", they call it at mafiascum. For so long, this was been the norm and the expected game-style here. But you can't just have a seer and a guardian and make an unclear amorphous rule that "The seer and guardian can't ally with each other." If you want to discourage that kind of play, you need to make a clear rule which would prohibit or limit it (e.g., guardian can't guard blues, guardian can't guard the same player more than once, wolves get a free vigi kill they can use at any time, etc.). Saying "don't talk about [insert game element]" isn't very clear or fair, especially if that game element could be discussed and worked over outside of the game by non-players before it even starts. I mean, it's clear that you think I crossed the line in my posts, but can you tell me exactly where that line was? Was it when I asked about getting meta about meta? Was it my second post that explicitly linked to an example of Prisoner's Dilemma that players may not have been familiar with? Was it when I started talking indirectly about a sort of player who would just pick betray each night and how it would be in everyone's best interest to never try to betray such a person?

Also, you really can't force players to play the way YOU want the game to be played. They're going to follow the rules to the best of their ability and make up their own way of handling things. For example, I would love it if players would write paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs for every post they make, but that's not realistic. And if I wanted to try to enforce that as a rule while hosting, I'd have a really hard time doing it effectively and fairly.

no, you're completely allowed to interrogate people about why they made their choices in the dilemma, you're just not allowed to go "everyone do this and humans win GG"

Do you think there's a way for humans to do this? Like a sure-fire way to get it done? I'm not so sure. Even if a "good" team plan was in place, you might find people like me choosing to betray just because I know I'm the only one I can trust and I'd rather have either myself or no one at all getting special power. I might not care if I might fuck shit up for my team, I'd be playing with trust in the only player I know I can trust, which is EXACTLY the point of the idea behind Prisoner's Dilemma.

However, if there's a technique whereby humans could have a surefire strategy to win, how can we combat it within the game's rules? If the technique is "every human choose 'trust' and report back if you get betrayed", how is the best way to mitigate that? For example, maybe no more than (6 - n) players total each night can get powers where n is the number of nights, and no one gets confirmed if they were betrayed or should have had powers and randomly didn't? Maybe wolves could choose to "trust", and when they did this, the human partner who receives a power from it would be corrupted somehow (seer reports would come back incorrectly, guarding would do nothing, psychic report would be inaccurate, vigilante would kill the user instead of the target, etc.)? Maybe the wolves could be given a power to misdirect another player's choice so that they could be made to APPEAR to have chosen "betray"? Your proposal of only one player getting powers through trust/trust might be a little too extreme though, as it would discourage players from choosing trust due to the low payout. Trust/trust should be the BEST option overall, and it should be artificially encouraged, since the normal human nature is to distrust due to being in the uninformed majority.

by the old rules what afro did would have made it so that he couldnt post in thread, couldnt participate in the dilemma and put his vote on himself. for the rest of the game. before the game even started.

This seems like a legitimate stratagem. It puts me in what I might think would to be a relatively strong position regardless of my role and it requires minimal continued effort going forward. It also removes the afrobean element from play, and I understand some folks might appreciate that. It's a reasonable trade-off.

And you never said discussion of game mechanics were against the rules before the game even started. How is that enforceable? What if someone who hadn't signed up to play had posted exactly what I had? What if I had posted from an alt account and no one knew it was me? It can't be cheating if the game hasn't even started. I wasn't even sure if I was able to sign up!

[Afrobean]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

hi im afrobean

[yo man im awesome]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

Is this you admitting that your game has a broken mechanic? I don't know if I'd say that, maybe it's just got some kinks that need to be worked out.

I love the idea of incorporating Prisoner's Dilemma directly in the game rather than just as a meta element that could be analyzed beyond the context of a single game. I just don't think the execution here is ideal. Rules should be clear and quantitative. A player should know if they are breaking a rule, lines should be clearly drawn. Toeing lines is going to happen in every game, but when the lines aren't clearly drawn, you're more likely to end up with players walking past the point where a clear line would have been drawn. If a game is broken, it's not the fault of the players, it's the fault of the host for not designing the game to avoid those possible breaks.

And if a game is broken, you better believe that players will exploit it. I mean, look at seer/guardian games. "Follow the cop", they call it at mafiascum. For so long, this was been the norm and the expected game-style here. But you can't just have a seer and a guardian and make an unclear amorphous rule that "The seer and guardian can't ally with each other." If you want to discourage that kind of play, you need to make a clear rule which would prohibit or limit it (e.g., guardian can't guard blues, guardian can't guard the same player more than once, wolves get a free vigi kill they can use at any time, etc.). Saying "don't talk about [insert game element]" isn't very clear or fair, especially if that game element could be discussed and worked over outside of the game by non-players before it even starts. I mean, it's clear that you think I crossed the line in my posts, but can you tell me exactly where that line was? Was it when I asked about getting meta about meta? Was it my second post that explicitly linked to an example of Prisoner's Dilemma that players may not have been familiar with? Was it when I started talking indirectly about a sort of player who would just pick betray each night and how it would be in everyone's best interest to never try to betray such a person?

Also, you really can't force players to play the way YOU want the game to be played. They're going to follow the rules to the best of their ability and make up their own way of handling things. For example, I would love it if players would write paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs for every post they make, but that's not realistic. And if I wanted to try to enforce that as a rule while hosting, I'd have a really hard time doing it effectively and fairly.


Do you think there's a way for humans to do this? Like a sure-fire way to get it done? I'm not so sure. Even if a "good" team plan was in place, you might find people like me choosing to betray just because I know I'm the only one I can trust and I'd rather have either myself or no one at all getting special power. I might not care if I might fuck shit up for my team, I'd be playing with trust in the only player I know I can trust, which is EXACTLY the point of the idea behind Prisoner's Dilemma.

However, if there's a technique whereby humans could have a surefire strategy to win, how can we combat it within the game's rules? If the technique is "every human choose 'trust' and report back if you get betrayed", how is the best way to mitigate that? For example, maybe no more than (6 - n) players total each night can get powers where n is the number of nights, and no one gets confirmed if they were betrayed or should have had powers and randomly didn't? Maybe wolves could choose to "trust", and when they did this, the human partner who receives a power from it would be corrupted somehow (seer reports would come back incorrectly, guarding would do nothing, psychic report would be inaccurate, vigilante would kill the user instead of the target, etc.)? Maybe the wolves could be given a power to misdirect another player's choice so that they could be made to APPEAR to have chosen "betray"? Your proposal of only one player getting powers through trust/trust might be a little too extreme though, as it would discourage players from choosing trust due to the low payout. Trust/trust should be the BEST option overall, and it should be artificially encouraged, since the normal human nature is to distrust due to being in the uninformed majority.


This seems like a legitimate stratagem. It puts me in what I might think would to be a relatively strong position regardless of my role and it requires minimal continued effort going forward. It also removes the afrobean element from play, and I understand some folks might appreciate that. It's a reasonable trade-off.

And you never said discussion of game mechanics were against the rules before the game even started. How is that enforceable? What if someone who hadn't signed up to play had posted exactly what I had? What if I had posted from an alt account and no one knew it was me? It can't be cheating if the game hasn't even started. I wasn't even sure if I was able to sign up!

are you fuckin serious





just play the game and get over it

[Charu]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

And you never said discussion of game mechanics were against the rules before the game even started. How is that enforceable? What if someone who hadn't signed up to play had posted exactly what I had? What if I had posted from an alt account and no one knew it was me? It can't be cheating if the game hasn't even started. I wasn't even sure if I was able to sign up!

To be fair, I think it's unfair for you to be unable to join a game because you were giving scenarios that would best make the humans win with these current rule sets. HOWEVER, I don't think you should've posted your "what if" scenarios in public before the game started.

What if other players didn't take your scenarios in account? What if they just didn't dig that deep to come to a conclusion that would best have the humans win? I don't know man, since you openly talked about some scenarios and what is the best thing to do if you're a human, it sort of ruins the charm the game was going for because people will see this (like me) and go "OH, well that's interesting, I'll have to do that if I'm human and I'll probably be screwed if I'm a wolf since I don't want to openly say not to do that and plus can't even mention it because of the meta rule when the game starts!".

Oh, but Charu ma darlin', what about finding a balance in the game, this was a good thing that someone pointed it out!

Well yes and no. I think if you have a problem with how the game is set up, you PM the host and or if the player signup hasn't even begun yet, you PM the person who posted an idea and tell them these scenarios and then the person can make corrections accordingly. Boom-boom, everyone wins! No one publicly says what's wrong with the game, doesn't give an unfair advantage of having knowledge before the game starts, and everyone yells at each other that they're wolves just as normal.

[Charu]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

Err... I guess you could publicly say what's wrong with it in the host sign up thing, yeah, disregard that part, lol. That's what those threads are meant for! But certainly not here when the game is going to start soon.

[j-rodd123]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

laying my slank cover now, gonna be posting the least (not really)

sooooo

m
e
t
a

[Charu]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

I'm so tempted to overuse a joke right now and post your avatar. Why is your avatar so fitting right now?

omg...

[AnkoAcid]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

i wanna plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

[FictionJunction]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

are you fuckin serious

just play the game and get over it

except afrobane is a much better player than you and everything he's said actually matters a lot

[thesunfan]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

stayed up past my bedtime hoping fojar would send the PMs.
Fojar is a bastard.

[FoJaR]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

alright PMs going out.

[FoJaR]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

final rules are that trust/trust results in each player having a 50% chance of getting a power.

everything is balanced.

[YoshL]

Re: TWG CV SIGNUPS: Christmas in the Clink

in as a replacement.

cause time.

did you just not see this? lol just wondering cause i was in like 100 posts ago ish