GRcade

BID0 wrote:how anyone who was adamant we didn't follow up on the riksilver list and can then say with a straight face that they had suspicions of DML being the alpha

You mean the Rik list they had evidence was 100% clean of the low level wolves people were gunning for and thus preventing a mass wipe of seered people?

Ikr, how could anyone be so wrong?

Met wrote:

BID0 wrote:how anyone who was adamant we didn't follow up on the riksilver list and can then say with a straight face that they had suspicions of DML being the alpha

You mean the Rik list they had evidence was 100% clean of the low level wolves people were gunning for and thus preventing a mass wipe of seered people?

Ikr, how could anyone be so wrong?

How could it have been 100% clean when the alpha was still in play and DML was one of the chief architects of not lynching Riksilver and diverting all attention away from that list.

Anyway my comment was aimed at those who claim to have known DML was the alpha or had a feeling that he was, but didn't want to pursue any leads from the day 2 list.

BID0 wrote:

Met wrote:

BID0 wrote:how anyone who was adamant we didn't follow up on the riksilver list and can then say with a straight face that they had suspicions of DML being the alpha

You mean the Rik list they had evidence was 100% clean of the low level wolves people were gunning for and thus preventing a mass wipe of seered people?

Ikr, how could anyone be so wrong?

How could it have been 100% clean when the alpha was still in play and DML was one of the chief architects of not lynching Riksilver and diverting all attention away from that list.

Anyway my comment was aimed at those who claim to have known DML was the alpha or had a feeling that he was, but didn't want to pursue any leads from the day 2 list.

I don't know about everyone else, but my motive for being so strongly against lynching members of the list straight away was down to knowing Met, another seer was on it.

Plus I figured coming back to the list later in the game would be something to do once all the seerable wolves were lynched.

FatDaz wrote:

Qikz wrote:
Songwriter for instance didn't post once. How are we supposed to work out if someones a wolf when they don't even post in the thread? Blind luck? I know it's in the game in it's current form, but it's kinda unfair.

And yet whenever someone suggests lynching inactives it always gets shot down with things like "when have wolves ever hidden as inactives"

These games always decline because wolves generally target the active players (makes sense since it leaves people who don't vote on mayor and gives wolves complete control of game)

By reducing the inactives it prevents hiding places and also cuts out the players who could be left but don't contribute.

Culling inactives at the very start makes sense. It gets people who for whatever reason aren't participating out of the game and I think it's fine that that's enforced at that point.

But to get rid of inactives half-way through the game would have to be done a different way, as you're actively taking away the wolves ability to decide who they're killing. Imagine you're a wolf and there's a villager you realise you have to take out as soon as possible, for whatever reason, only to be told "No you can only kill inactives tonight". That villager survives the night because the wolves had to kill inactives and then potentially does something that changes the game in some way. It's not fair to the wolves as it basically gives the villagers a night off from any kind of targeted attack.

You could perhaps do it as part of a special role. Someone who gets to kill off people who aren't posting a certain amount, but with an incentive to do so. Kind of like the Lone-Wolf or Rogue roles Drumstick had. It forces players to post as well.

Cheeky Devlin wrote:

FatDaz wrote:

Qikz wrote:
Songwriter for instance didn't post once. How are we supposed to work out if someones a wolf when they don't even post in the thread? Blind luck? I know it's in the game in it's current form, but it's kinda unfair.

And yet whenever someone suggests lynching inactives it always gets shot down with things like "when have wolves ever hidden as inactives"

These games always decline because wolves generally target the active players (makes sense since it leaves people who don't vote on mayor and gives wolves complete control of game)

By reducing the inactives it prevents hiding places and also cuts out the players who could be left but don't contribute.

Culling inactives at the very start makes sense. It gets people who for whatever reason aren't participating out of the game and I think it's fine that that's enforced at that point.

But to get rid of inactives half-way through the game would have to be done a different way, as you're actively taking away the wolves ability to decide who they're killing. Imagine you're a wolf and there's a villager you realise you have to take out as soon as possible, for whatever reason, only to be told "No you can only kill inactives tonight". That villager survives the night because the wolves had to kill inactives and then potentially does something that changes the game in some way. It's not fair to the wolves as it basically gives the villagers a night off from any kind of targeted attack.

You could perhaps do it as part of a special role. Someone who gets to kill off people who aren't posting a certain amount, but with an incentive to do so. Kind of like the Lone-Wolf or Rogue roles Drumstick had. It forces players to post as well.

The easiest way is to have a "post per day" limit enforced and if you don't reach that, even if it's something as low as 2 you get godkilled.

Cheeky Devlin wrote:But to get rid of inactives half-way through the game would have to be done a different way, as you're actively taking away the wolves ability to decide who they're killing. Imagine you're a wolf and there's a villager you realise you have to take out as soon as possible, for whatever reason, only to be told "No you can only kill inactives tonight". That villager survives the night because the wolves had to kill inactives and then potentially does something that changes the game in some way. It's not fair to the wolves as it basically gives the villagers a night off from any kind of targeted attack.

That happened in the game where I was the alpha. At the start we were only allowed to kill inactives which was bloody annoying and pretty unfair.

The inactives thing works two ways - you can say "how are we supposed to figure out who the wolves are if they don't post?", the wolves could well say "how are we supposed to figure out who the seers are if they don't post?". Personally, I think lurking in the shadows is a justifiable strategy. You can not post and still be playing the game behind the scenes.

I asked the this pack to kill only inactives for the first evening for the good of the game which they obliged. This is fairly common, because it gives those that want to be invested in the game some time to get stuck in, even those with less free time. There are also people that are routinely killed within the first five days simply because they are known to be its best players. This gives them (and everyone else) a small buffer.

Regards Moggy's point, in a game with anonymous accounts, I would personally allows the wolves/vampires open season from the off, as they can't knowingly target those known to be good players due to the aliases in play.

It's all about trying to strike a good balance for everyone.

Drumstick wrote:Regards Moggy's point, in a game with anonymous accounts, I would personally allows the wolves/vampires open season from the off, as they can't knowingly target those known to be good players due to the aliases in play.

Yeah I would allow open season and also allow people to hide if they want. If the players want to spend 10 days just killing inactives while the wolves eat the decent players then that's up to them.

Qikz wrote:Songwriter for instance didn't post once.

....which is untrue.

I posted at plenty thanks... Just because you think post counts under 90 a day isn't 'once' doesn't mean I was on the ball, ta.

Of course everyone knew it was me from Day One now...

Everyone knew it was you DML, the villagers just wanted to kill you one day before the absolute final day to make it more dramatic...


Out of curiosity, is 2 the fewest number of winners ever from these games?

Tomous wrote:Everyone knew it was you DML, the villagers just wanted to kill you one day before the absolute final day to make it more dramatic...


Out of curiosity, is 2 the fewest number of winners ever from these games?

Pretty sure it is. Don't remember it going that close to the wire before for either Villagers or Wolves.

Oh sorry...'pro-village' and 'anti-village'.

My favourite bit was that staydead had obviously been on the wikis and game sites so that he could play better, but still lost his strawberry floating mind.

pro-village. strawberry float me.

StayDead absolutely made the game for me, 100%. I wasn't really active or achieving anything so it gave me plenty to do.

He'd definitely take the most entertaining player award. Weird as it is, given how quiet the game got later on, he was probably beneficial to the villagers by actually stirring up debate.

PsychicSykes wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Met wrote:

BID0 wrote:how anyone who was adamant we didn't follow up on the riksilver list and can then say with a straight face that they had suspicions of DML being the alpha

You mean the Rik list they had evidence was 100% clean of the low level wolves people were gunning for and thus preventing a mass wipe of seered people?

Ikr, how could anyone be so wrong?

How could it have been 100% clean when the alpha was still in play and DML was one of the chief architects of not lynching Riksilver and diverting all attention away from that list.

Anyway my comment was aimed at those who claim to have known DML was the alpha or had a feeling that he was, but didn't want to pursue any leads from the day 2 list.

I don't know about everyone else, but my motive for being so strongly against lynching members of the list straight away was down to knowing Met, another seer was on it.

Plus I figured coming back to the list later in the game would be something to do once all the seerable wolves were lynched.

The thing about the Riklist was that for us villager plebs who didnt have seering powers or where in the circle of trust, it was the only thing to go on. In the end that list was choc full of special roles. Indeed there where a couple of wolves on there too. A few people had shortlisted cheeky devlin, and DML was top of my list as the alpha. Quikz and lots of other people seemed to do a very good job of diverting from the riklist and the villagers didnt really get the chance to lynch too many from them.

I would also say that the longer the riklist members survived, the more DMLs identity became fogged. In a way DML was protecting Met and vice versa by not going after each other.

It was only really when Lewis pmed me to lay off the riklist that i realised there was more at stake on that list and it was in hand. Sykes wa saying a couple of times in thread to lay off the riklist - that really painted a big target on him. All we could do until then was to look through riklist members posts for suspicious posting, which can be common to both special roles and wolves alike as they are both trying to hide thier identity.

In the end I did get some really incriminating evidence on DML, but I didnt get it into the thread before they killed me, Sykes and Pancake will vouch for that. Incidently DML - why did you decide to kill me when you did?

I think my proudest achievement in this game was to be mentioned on 90% of the pages despite getting killed pretty much straight away.

Either that or implicating Edd through a mayor vote which was clearly a joke.

Riksilver wrote:I think my proudest achievement in this game was to be mentioned on 90% of the pages despite getting killed pretty much straight away.

Either that or implicating Edd through a mayor vote which was clearly a joke.

My proudest achievement was offing you

That reminds me though, just before I died TAP messaged me saying that Mockmaster claimed to have shot Rik. Did we both shoot him?

Pacman wrote:My proudest achievement was offing you

That reminds me though, just before I died TAP messaged me saying that Mockmaster claimed to have shot Rik. Did we both shoot him?

No.

Mockmaster did however TRY to use one of his bullets. Shortly before he was mauled by the Werewolves, I received a PM. It contained 3 words:

Shoot Cheeky Devlin.

Alas, he was gotten to before he had the chance to fire the shot.

DML wrote:Of course everyone knew it was me from Day One now...

Honestly I'd been waiting weeks to post the PM prediction I gave Drummy.