TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

**Tasselfoot** · 10-29-2005, 08:36 AM

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

TPS: there are too many different things that could happen to have a set point value for everyone of them. Wolf successfully gets his fellow wolf lynched to prove human... human figures out a fake seer done by another green and gets them to admit it.... mystery PM works as intended... etc, etc, etc. There are hundreds of possible scenarios and tons more we haven't thought of yet.

Afro: I have always been in favor of MVP, and its mostly been Host's choice. The negative is, the host does not have all of the facts as to who should be MVP. In discussing this with Chardish, I pointed out that in 22 games, I could give you 1 person worthy of MVP over everyone else, and most people would agree with it... so, I'm for MVP. Always have been. Then again, had MVP been given out every game, I'd have about 9 of them. *shrugs* As it is I have 5.

**Afrobean** · 10-29-2005, 08:44 AM

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

I'd have about 9 of them

Somehow that doesn't sound quite right... You're terrible at being a wolf and I can think of many games where you have been green and been unable to help the humans.

Five, on the otherhand, sounds a lot closer to right.

Either way, is there anyway of working in a pip for MVP system? That way people will work hard to be MVP and thereby be more active and competitive.

**Tasselfoot** · 10-29-2005, 09:21 AM

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

MVP of TWG1-4 and 21. Led an alliance in 14, 15, and 17... so, theoretically, 8. Not worth arguing about though.

It wouldn't be hard to do a pip for MVP, but at the same time, only 1 person would get it per game... and some people are resigned to knowing they won't ever win MVP... or at least, they think that.

**User6773** · 10-29-2005, 09:47 AM

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

I don't think anyone will try extra hard to be MVP.

A) People feel it's a direct competition with Tass. Tass is the best human player here. I would argue that Alain is the best wolf.
B) Tass isn't quitting anytime soon.
C) MVP, in the eyes of many people, is too close to "only valuable player." It supposes that we can pin the human victory on a single person. In addition, people will feel like if they're not the MVP they didn't really help the humans win, which encourages inactivity.

No one tried extra-hard to be MVP when we did have MVP.

**Afrobean** · 10-29-2005, 10:17 AM

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

I can see what you mean there, Chardish. I suppose I just think differently than most people in seeing it as a means of competing being reason to be active.

**nforcer06164** · 10-29-2005, 10:33 AM

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

I don't think we need to make incentives for people to play. I mean, if somebody doesn't want to play, they shouldn't sign up. That's what I did last game, as did eb.

Can somebody explain this whole point system idea to me? I think I missed something somewhere.

**eyespewgreekfire** · 10-29-2005, 10:38 AM

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

I think we can see that the TWC is making things stupid if they're discussing systems of points for a game like mafia. Perhaps non TWC people should have at least a degreee of input in how the game is run? Until then, I'm playing on www.mafiascum.net The people there are better, and there is no nazi commitee.

**User6773** · 10-29-2005, 11:19 AM

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Originally posted by eyespewgreekfire

Perhaps non TWC people should have at least a degreee of input in how the game is run?

The whole point of this thread is so that the community can discuss ideas with each other and decide what's best, not just the TWC.

I swear that "nazi" is quickly becoming one of the most overused words online. Just because a governing body, well, governs, doesn't mean they're nazis.

**Tasselfoot** · 10-29-2005, 04:52 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else,

Also eyespew, you haven't played TWG here since twg12. That is 10 games you've missed... and ALOT of stuff too. Over the past game or two, alot of players (read: not TWC) have wanted a system to push activity. The two biggest ways? Post minimum (negative re-enforcement) or Point system (positive re-enforcement). But, TWC can't come up with a system for either that we feel is fair to everyone, and until we can (or anyone else), we won't impliment it.

And, as far as playing elsewhere... your playing was welcomed, but as you haven't been here for a while, you also haven't really been missed. So, we'd love to have you back, but if your feelings stay with what you said above, I doubt we'll lose any sleep over your decision.

Chardish: I agree with your comments re: MVP... but that doesn't mean that there still shouldn't be an MVP award given each game. Let people compete against me. Lastly, no offense against Alain... but in 6 completed wolf games he's played, his team has won 2 and he's survived only 1. Including twg22, LD and I are both 3/5 in wins and survivals as a wolf, statistically making us the best wolves with at least 2 games as a wolf (Alain would be 3/7 in team wins, 1/7 in survival). Panda and Shox are both 1/1 as a wolf.

**Tps222** · 10-29-2005, 05:02 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else,

EDITED FOR IRRELEVANCE TO THE TOPIC.

In all seriousness, can we at least get a game going?

**Afrobean** · 10-29-2005, 05:10 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else,

Tass, 22 doesn't count. You and LD are 2 for 4.

I have more than 2 games as a wolf (3), 2 wins, and 1 of those 2 wins I survived until the end. Does that make me the best wolf? No.

What I'm really trying to say is win to loss ratios are a bad way of measuring skill in the game. eb is quite good at this game, but he has a very high rate of loss.

**blahblah18** · 10-29-2005, 07:05 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else,

TASS AND ALL OTHERS, DO NOT CLUTTER THIS THREAD WITH USELESS SELF GLOATING CRAP.
THANK YOU

**mead1** · 11-25-2005, 02:46 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else,

Ok TWC, here's my beef. I wanted to play in this TWG, so did Rai. We both got in the signups on time, but I gave up so he could play. We know each other in IRL. There has been an unwritten rule about IRL acquaitances playing together, and I want it re-defined. I can see how it can be dangerous when two TWGers have access to each others computers, but come on, I see this guy 30 minutes a day on weekdays. That shouldn't disqualify both of us from playing TWG at the same time. It's not like people are like:

Me: Sup Rai, I'm a wolf in TWG!

Rai: Cool, I'm the seer!

People aren't that stupid. People who know each other IRL gaurd their roles just as well as people do over AIM. As long as the parties do not have regular access to each other's computers, I see no reason why this rule should stand.

**FishFishRevolution** · 11-25-2005, 02:49 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else,

I agree here, I think that if two people are living together, or visit each other often, then both playing in the same TWG should be disallowed, but in a situation where you just know somebody? I mean, I met mead and rai a week or so ago, if I really wanted to, I could go down there again, I know where both of them live.

**Tps222** · 11-25-2005, 02:49 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else,

I agree. It's not like they live together and know each other better than anyone. I feel as it is a dumb rule as well.

TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment