Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBackpack
please don't give up, im listening
|
alright, I'll make a post to air all my thoughts on this
lets say, for a moment, that someone develops a w/w pairing, and surprise! the postgame says they were right (this assumes there was no mechanical information to base this w/w pairing on). How many times have you seen this? Now compare that number to how many times you think they were right for the right reason(s). You should have a very low number, right? Probably single-digits?
The reason your number is so low is because people almost never put everything together for the right reasons in TWG. Its like trying to see 13 moves ahead in Chess, and not just building hypothesis and analyzing lines about what your opponent might do, its literally knowing/guessing that your opponent is going to behave exactly this way for the next long while; its just not realistic for almost everyone to do.
So, I pose the question, why do people keep trying it if they're almost never right for the right reasons? There's probably a lot of different answers that can mesh together here, bias and people feeling like its what they're supposed to do being one. I counter this with the idea that you don't need to try and pin two of the three wolves together based on reasoning, you just need to find them individually scummy.
How many times in your life have you seen a town be right on two scumreads? Compare it to how many times you think that this was for the right reason(s). Ok, I'll grant that the number is probably not gigantic, but its almost certainly bigger than the original number, you probably did math wrong if you didn't get a larger figure.
The reason that this is higher is because its a lot easier to be right on two individual scumreads, especially given that the first flip actually helps you narrow things down a lot, whereas you're just up shit creek without a paddle in the other world where you've built a world of two.
The first world has you chase two rabbits, the second world has you chase one one day and another the next. Odds are you're going to catch more rabbits in the second path.
This is why its so frustrating today to see people talk about pairings, and I know I only talked about wolves together (I think there is a very small number of people on the internet who correctly make reads based on "these two people aren't wolves together," star-crossed is one of them for example), but I would generally apply it to w/t reads as well, because it does cast a wider net and people generally don't know what they're doing.
Even if people are right, and there's this overwhelming amount of information that needs to be resolved between fg/force or fg/plop (there isn't), then I would posit that they almost definitely have not gotten to a correct conclusion by the correct means, and the next time they try it as town, they are almost certainly not going to have a repeat result
I could talk about the math here, but its kind of boring to me, but you probably can tell that, even if humans are at least slightly better at developing reads than they would be if they randomly made them, that trying to chase two rabbits will generally not turn out well
it also gives wolves more leeway for their pushes, but that's a hard topic to talk about in general
tl;dr almost everyone would be better served just finding two or three scummy people and trying to decide between them, rather than spend time and effort on developing a world/team that will almost never be right for the right reasons