TWG 204 - Forest Feast POST-GAME THREAD

[XelNya]

I didn't really see what went down, but it seems maybe a vote for a rerun should be done before maybe doing other games in a thread vote with it. Feels kinda bad to see a setup get washed and would sit better with me if we did that first.

But I wasn't really playing, so fine grain of salt of course.

[DaBackpack]

I think roundbox deserves MVP this game for nailing Raeko D0. Second place goes to Charu or Wolfe.

Town had an incredible coalition by D1. I had roundbox, Wolfe, and Charu locked as town, so we had 4/8 players as one voting bloc, which is one of the strongest I've ever seen in recent memory (and on D1, no less)

[bugkid666]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

I think roundbox deserves MVP this game for nailing Raeko D0. Second place goes to Charu or Wolfe.

Town had an incredible coalition by D1. I had roundbox, Wolfe, and Charu locked as town, so we had 4/8 players as one voting bloc, which is one of the strongest I've ever seen in recent memory (and on D1, no less)

i memed about roundbox being mvp but i did actually mean it... evidenced by me messaging Force on d0 "also rb is aggro this game and i'm living for it"

[Shadow_God_10]

Roundbox MVP for that Raeko call out IMO

Charu/DBP/Shado as a close second place

[the sun fan]

Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe

town gets hurt worse than wolves do when modkills need to happen, but you want to then also punish them further by taking away their lynch for a phase?

except for very few scenarios, modkills benefit wolves more. both the action (thinning town's numbers), and the cause (an inactive player) benefit wolves and hurt town.

as you said, modkills shouldn't have to happen. so assess it with me. they have to happen because of an MIA player. I say MIA because 5 posts over 48 hours is a very low bar to hit, and failing that means you aren't even playing the game.

So if the game is designed for 9 town and 2 wolves, the modkill in most cases forces that to 8 town and 2 wolves, instantly shifting the balance to wolves.

the only "benefit" to town in the whole thing is that the harm of the cause, (the inactive player that is already hurting town and negatively impacting the entire game), does not compound further by allowing the non-player to give wolves a SECOND free town (thereby thinning the town herd by both the inactive player and the subsequent nightkill). Modkilling only counteracts the compounding effect, but the harm to town is already done.

It makes no sense to add further harm by removing the lynch. By that logic, modkills should never ever happen under any circumstance because then, at least, the lynch control isn't stolen from town.

I mean to respond to the modkill discussion in general, but I'll just quote this post to save space

this post will also only discuss modkills during a day phase, particularly those that occur towards the end of a day phase. Modkills outside of a day phase are pretty rare anyways. I recall charu once getting modkilled in an anon-game nightphase, and ffa getting nightkilled during the pregame phase, but I think every other modkill that's happened on FFR has been during a day phase, or as the dayphase ends (basically in conjunction with the lynch, like when star and I modkilled tamburini in the most recent Fire Emblem game)

town does not get hurt worse than wolves when modkills happen during a day phase... like the vast majority of the time. This is assuming a modkill does not take the place of the lynch. The vast majority of the time, modkills occur for inactivity on FFR (which btw is the least offensive type of modkill to the integrity of the game. I'll stop with the cutaway thoughts but yeah, its good that inactivity is the main problem, rather than angleshooting or cheating or something)

Because most modkills occur because of inactivity, town eliminates a player who is almost always a ? for the solve, and it harms wolves to lose this regardless of whether the player was a wolf or not in almost all scenarios (the player can be a PR, or be a greencheck from an invest role or something, but I think we can all at least acknowledge what I'm arguing here).

The argument here of the cause (inactivity) benefitting wolves is correct, but the modkill deals with that as effectively as a day-vigi could. It does rob town of a lynch, but that player was likely in the POE, and it thins the POE nearly exclusively as a result.

Wolves win the game by escaping the POE. Granting town what is almost guaranteed to be two shots at killing a wolf (or an evil, for the sake of my following example) when there normally would be one. If anyone recalls the Corporations anon game, a late modkill virtually speedran the game because the 2nd to last threat to town was modkilled, leaving town with a chance to immediately look for the serial killer-esque role, which was immediately found.

Most games are also balanced around odd starting numbers with a day start, with wolves able to kill max 1 player per night. I won't explain the math of this entirely, but modkills (especially when compounding) grant town like an adrenaline shot of early info if they don't take the place of a lynch. Its classic "I'll gladly pay tomorrow for a hamburger today."

also it can incentivize getting modkilled in order to solve a game btw. it is inarguable that, for example, getting modkilled in a game with a f4 as town that is in the POE could benefit town's win% immensely. In this situation it is absolutely tantamount that the modkill take the place of the lynch.

-----------------------------------
Lastly, and not related to any of my argument,

I appreciate all discussion around modkills immensely. They're kind of camp-y in the way that art can be so gauche that it becomes artistic. People are kinda fixated on them as a result, I guess. It is interesting to see such discussion around this topic, and I know the main reasoning for it is because of the new rules that appear destined to be written in most/all OPs of games. We do need to figure out a standard where the most people are happy with the result, and discussion is how we do it, so I'm glad to see such engagement on it. Maybe part of it has to do with the game being so drama-free?
Glad to see it regardless of the cause.

[the sun fan]

oh, and for lar specifically, that's part of why I think modkills could and probably should wait until after EOD, rather than 90 or 60 minutes before. I understand the argument entirely that the game is unlosable for town after a theoretical point, and yeah
that's kind of stupid that the game continues

but it also has to be that way if you're modkilling before EOD finishes.

[Charu]

My only contribution to this topic is that, in all honesty, I didn't mind how it was done this game... once it was clarified what would happen at EoD.

Could give town a legitimate decision of actually no-voting, lmao.

[bugkid666]

send me your games!!! i want at least 3 submissions and right now i only have 2!!!!!

ty

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by the sun fan

but it also has to be that way if you're modkilling before EOD finishes.

I do not understand this. As far as I am concerned at the moment this is untrue

[the sun fan]

Originally Posted by MixMasterLar

I do not understand this. As far as I am concerned at the moment this is untrue

ok, I think I'm understanding why you feel this way
you never, ever want a scenario where the last wolf (or threat to town, really) is in a suspended modkill state, you want town to immediately win

am I correct in that assumption?

because I don't want that either. I'd like modkills to always wait until EOD. Btw, this would have the possibly unintended effect of discouraging instas, which I know you like
anyways

you appear to not want this, and seem fine to leave modkills at 90 to 60 minutes before EOD.

am I correct in this assumption as well?

[ShadoWolfe]

@sunfans bigpost

I understand where you're coming from. I just think we disagree about the fundamental nature of an inactive, and that premise extends to our thoughts on modkills.

You consider an inactive town/wolf to be a part of town/wolf. A player, albeit one whose performance, or lack thereof, obfuscates their alignment and attempts to gather info about it. If town, a weak town that forces town to create a better PoE and lynch within it, including the inactive if necessary. Removal of the inactive from the PoE helps town by removing a player they would otherwise need to lynch.

I don't. I called them non-players for a reason. The reason the bar is so low to avoid the modkill is that, fundamentally, it takes the absolute bare minimum engagement in game to avoid it. A player that needs to get modkilled because they were unable to make 5 game-related posts in 48 hours is not a player. They are, at that point, a deviation from the intended game design. An imbalance that needs to be resolved. Obviously, early replacements are ideal for this. But where there is no substitute, the modkill needs to happen to allow game to continue fairly.

It doesn't, at it's core, prevent the inactive meta entirely or remove inactive strats from wolf repertoires. It just sets the bar low enough to where there is a minimum amount of engagement from everyone to avoid non-players filling the roster.inning.

[ShadoWolfe]

At risk of sounding hyperbolic, I personally like to stress-test arguments by putting them to their logical extremes. So let's take a hypothetical game and fill it with inactives. The maximum amount of inactives possible that would still allow for a game, essentially leaving 3 active players. In any standard size game (9-13 players), assuming that all towns and mafias except for the minimum 2T, 1M needed to play are fully inactive below the 5 post minimum. What happens to game?

If modkills aren't a thing, that game is unwinnable for town. Hell, make it a micro and it's still unwinnable for town. It essentially destroys the balance of the game when there are non-players occupying player slots with no resolution.
If modkills kill the inactive players, ALL OF THEM. It still sets it to where it's F3 and both town and scum have a fighting shot at winning.

[ShadoWolfe]

Where I do think you have a valid argument is the timing of the modkill.

The question really becomes
"is setting the deadline to EoD-90 minutes townsided?"
or
"is announcing a modkill 60 minutes prior to EoD townsided?"

I think it's not if the flip is withheld, for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier posts following DBPs. I think that what it does is minimize the game disruption and chaos for both sides.

[ShadoWolfe]

I think the last question is one that hasn't been mentioned yet.

"is it still fair to allow town a lynch when the inactive is a wolf? doesn't that compound their advantage after wolves already took a massive hit?"

which I think is a fair question. Should the rule in question be modified to discount the lynch if the modkill is a wolf? What does that look like? Allow EoD to still occur, but then announce the wolf modkill and tell people that their lynch was invalidated?

It sounds ridiculous, but if you give it some thought it's not a bad idea. There's a lot of nuance that benefits from discussion here

[the sun fan]

Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe

@sunfans bigpost

I understand where you're coming from. I just think we disagree about the fundamental nature of an inactive, and that premise extends to our thoughts on modkills.

You consider an inactive town/wolf to be a part of town/wolf. A player, albeit one whose performance, or lack thereof, obfuscates their alignment and attempts to gather info about it. If town, a weak town that forces town to create a better PoE and lynch within it, including the inactive if necessary. Removal of the inactive from the PoE helps town by removing a player they would otherwise need to lynch.

I don't. I called them non-players for a reason. The reason the bar is so low to avoid the modkill is that, fundamentally, it takes the absolute bare minimum engagement in game to avoid it. A player that needs to get modkilled because they were unable to make 5 game-related posts in 48 hours is not a player. They are, at that point, a deviation from the intended game design. An imbalance that needs to be resolved. Obviously, early replacements are ideal for this. But where there is no substitute, the modkill needs to happen to allow game to continue fairly.

It doesn't, at it's core, prevent the inactive meta entirely or remove inactive strats from wolf repertoires. It just sets the bar low enough to where there is a minimum amount of engagement from everyone to avoid non-players filling the roster.inning.

I'm honestly surprised you're disagreeing with the post
by removing the so-called non-players from the game, you're arguing that town doesn't benefit?
imo they clearly, clearly do, while wolves would almost always prefer that to remain around

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by the sun fan

by removing the so-called non-players from the game, you're arguing that town doesn't benefit?
imo they clearly, clearly do, while wolves would almost always prefer that to remain around

I agree. But do wolves have the right to have that around? imo they don't. they signed up for a game assuming all players are active. the setup is balanced assuming all players are active. having non-players fill those slots disrupts that in two ways: it obfuscates all info on those slots to town, where info would normally be generated via discussion or gameplay, and it creates reeds for wolves to hide in by intentionally joining the ranks of the inactives, where normally those don't exist.

Removing said players restores the balance to an extent, and avoids compounding the problem. It's not a perfect balance, but it's the best you can get if replacements aren't available

[the sun fan]

I think a point that is being lost here
if you take the number of times that a player has replaced out on FFR and compare it to the number of times that a player has been modkilled (for any reason, not just inactivity)
we're looking at (I'm guessing) something like 6x or 7x more replacements than modkills. its not even close

replacements should generally be the preference, and historically, they have been
I think a better rule honestly is that the player is force-replaced so long as a replacement is available.

[ShadoWolfe]

Originally Posted by the sun fan

I think a point that is being lost here
if you take the number of times that a player has replaced out on FFR and compare it to the number of times that a player has been modkilled (for any reason, not just inactivity)
we're looking at (I'm guessing) something like 6x or 7x more replacements than modkills. its not even close

replacements should generally be the preference, and historically, they have been
I think a better rule honestly is that the player is force-replaced so long as a replacement is available.

earlier in this same thread that was agreed on by both bug and I, who are the only people who ran this rule so far.

so what do you recommend happens if a replacement is not available?

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by the sun fan

ok, I think I'm understanding why you feel this way
you never, ever want a scenario where the last wolf (or threat to town, really) is in a suspended modkill state, you want town to immediately win

Yes, and it works the other way too. If the modkill is a town that lowers villagers to be equal to threats then the game should end there as well

I don't know why you're refusing to acknowledge the wording that I want the game to end when a win condition is achieve. This seems extremely straight forward to me; an obvious course of action for a game with any win condition

Originally Posted by SunFan

I'd like modkills to always wait until EOD.

I don't. We've played that way enough times to know that this community will keep subverting to expectation of engagement and abuse coming in at the last second to stay I the game without any real engagement.

How many EODs have we played where no real discussion can happen because of inactive players, waiting to see if a vote in there slot will matter, only to see people it both alignments pop in 10 before cutoff with a series of 5 one-line posts that contribute nothing but enable their slot to continue to exist for another 78 hours?

Countless.

It isn't fun. It isn't engaging. It doesn't allow the majority of players to actually deduce the game and instead forces established best practices of dealing with those players----gameplay by reaction, not gameplay by engaging. It's ass, it makes it to where I don't want to play the game. I don't care what's technically more balanced at that point because the community at large is literally supporting players abusing the game to lock out the core spirit of it all by refusing to engage.

Wolves got so many free wins for this, where was the outcry then that the balance needed adjusting?

Killing inactives an hour out at least preserves EoD to the people willing to play it. I don't think it skews the balance too far one way or another (especially compared to certain roles and rules we've used over the years) and it's only been used twice, so until we start seeing wolves auto-losing to it repeatedly I don't see why this can't be the standard.

What it seems to me us that you don't want one player's action to completely change the game in an instant, but you fail to realize that's been happening the entire time---it was just a slow, unfun, agonizing ordeal before and now it's actually something people can play around.

Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe

"is it still fair to allow town a lynch when the inactive is a wolf? doesn't that compound their advantage after wolves already took a massive hit?"

Yeah.

Wolves don't want town to get two lunches? Play the game
Town doesn't want to lose two people and possibly lose before Lylo? Play the game
Both sides want to avoid that third fraction from taking out crucial targets? play the game

You don't play the game then you lose. Again, this seems pretty straight forward to me

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by the sun fan

I think a point that is being lost here
if you take the number of times that a player has replaced out on FFR and compare it to the number of times that a player has been modkilled (for any reason, not just inactivity)
we're looking at (I'm guessing) something like 6x or 7x more replacements than modkills. its not even close

replacements should generally be the preference, and historically, they have been
I think a better rule honestly is that the player is force-replaced so long as a replacement is available.

Replacements have also been inactive more then a few times.

Even when they're not, players have to react differently to slots that will be replaced, keeping them around "for free" another phase or two to try and be fair to the replacement. This benefits wolves along with the initial inactivity.

I've played with this rule enough to know it doesn't result in a fun, engaging or interesting experience and in many cases just drags out what could have just happened D0 with a modkilled