WW Game "league"?

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:39 am

One thing that occurs to me: I love the exotic twists in both story and mechanics that we've seen with various WW games here. Reminds me of playing poker in college--we'd have 6 of us, and the deal would pass, and the dealer could call any game: 7 card stud, Omaha, Hold Em, Low-Hole Roll Your Own, 3-2-1, Low Hole Low Chicago, Crunchy Gorilla (okay, my buddy Ken invented that game, which is 7 stud Low Chicago 5's are wild).

We eventually came back to the simple elegance of Hold Em.

Our WW games got me thinking: would it be possible to set up--concurrent to whatever game was going on regularly--a WW "league"?

We'd need at least 10 players, but more is fine. The game would always be "standard WW": 9 players, 2 wolves vs. 7 villagers. One villager is a seer, selected at random. Game opens with assumed NPC kill to alert the Village of wolves in it's midst.

We'd track stats as follows:

+3 points for any winning player on a Wolf team
+1 point for any winning player on a village team, except
+2 points for the Seer of a victorious village team.
-2 points for any player on a losing wolf team.
0 points to any player on a losing village team, except
-1 point to the Seer on a losing village team
+1 point for the moderator (Mod duties would shift from person to person in the league).

Details:

1. Mod duty shifts. Anyone in the league can act as a Moderator. If more than one player wishes to Moderate a game, then one is picked at random and the other two are given priority to moderate subsequent games
2. Turn time limits would need to be imposed.
3. Not everyone would play in every game. People have real lives and travel and work and families and commitments. Average points per game played would be the key stat. (Bubba only has 6 points, but he earned them in 7 games, making him quite the player...or not.)
4. Moderator's duty is to collect orders from the wolves, handle the Seer's scans for the village, and move the game along. Flavor text is unnecessary, just "You voted Bubba to be executed. Bubba dies and is revealed as a Villager."
5. Standard rules: Only wolves may PM, lynches happen during the day, wolf-kills at night, alignment (village or wolf) revealed upon lynching.
6. Idea would be to have games resolve in two weeks or so per contest.

Thoughts?

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:55 am

I find your idea intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:00 am

I'd be crushed if I wasn't in it.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:04 am

Unagi wrote:I'd be crushed in it.

frakked

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:59 am

Fascinating and fun!

I'd question the scoring system. What about something far more complex!

Wolves:

+1 point for each Villager lynched while alive
+1 point for being on the winning team
-3 points for being on the losing team

Villagers:

+1 point for each Wolf lynched while alive if in on the vote
+1 point for being on the winning team
-1 points for anyone alive on the losing team

Seer:

+1 point for each Wolf scanned
+1 point for each Wolf lynched while alive or dead
+1 point for being on the winning team
-3 points for being on the losing team

A 10 player game means 3 misses and the Town loses. The winning Wolf will have 4 points and a losing Wolf could have a minimum of -3 points.

A Villager gets points just for finding a Wolf and will lose a point if they are the reason the Village dies (ie, they are alive at the end). They can get a maximum of 3 points for winning and a minimum of -1 in a loss.

The Seer gets bonus points for actually scanning a Wolf. In a win, they get a maximum of 5 points and can end up at -3 in a loss.

We would also need a thread to track the scoring, a la Chaos' history thread. The Mod would be responsible for tracking the scoring and submitting it to the historical thread for each game.

I want in whenever it happens!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:14 am

stessier wrote:

The Mod would be responsible for tracking the scoring and submitting it to the historical thread for each game.

Mr Bubbles · Post by **Mr Bubbles** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:34 am

Definitely interested and I love the idea.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:43 am

I'd like to join this but I'm sooo burned out on WW right now.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:46 am

Scoop20906 wrote:I'd like to join this but I'm sooo burned out on WW right now.

Yeah, but this is super simple WW. 2 Wolves, 1 Seer - go! And you don't have to play every game - the score will show how good/lucky you are over time. Be a shame for you not to at least be on the roster of possible players.

Sean, Minister of KtSP · Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:51 am

I'm in.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:52 am

I'll go in as a possible player.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:54 am

Austin wrote:I'll go in as a possible player.

But not Mod? Too much math?

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:57 am

I'd try to keep the statistical tracking simple, and the points per game awarded simple.

It would be fun to also track "Favorite Snacks": the players most often eaten by the Wolves
Also fun to track "Gallows Dancers": players most often innocently hung

Biggest sticking point I see right now is a mechanism to force the game to keep moving. We've discussed this a lot in the past, and I'll have to go back and re-read.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:12 pm

My reason for the increased complexity was that the simple point totals don't really reflect how well a player can deduce things - it just shows how the team did.

So under the Simple Points, I could be pushing hard to lynch Villagers the whole game, but get points simply because everyone ignored me. That doesn't seem right.

Under the Complex Rules, you get points for doing things that make your team win.

Or at least that was the plan.

I like the idea of tracking Favorite Snack and Gallow Dancers.

As for moving the game along - just set hard deadlines. Miss a deadline, you miss the action. No consensus on lynch - no lynch. Miss a night time deadline, no kill/scan. Be brutal in the beginning and we can back off if we think it is affecting the game too much.

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:24 pm

Sounds fascinating. And I want in.

Love stessier's idea of the point totals. And triggercut's stat tracks also - could add in the "remuscide" also, number of times being the "leader" of a village and leading em to their doom.

I think in terms of keeping the game moving, maybe have a hard deadline of 2-3 days once sun up happens, and short night times, maybe 12-24 hours. Make sure people have their "orders" ready to go by nightfall. That should give enough time for people to participate and keeps the game brisk. So a game could take about 15 days or so.

Maybe add in the following to force the game to go more quickly
1. IF no vote is reached or majority by the deadline- random.org will decide whomever goes to the gallows. So basically it could be anyone going to the lynch.
2. If you haven't submitted your night order by a certain time...random.org does it for you - includes kills & scans. Or you forfeit it?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:25 pm

stessier wrote:
Austin wrote:I'll go in as a possible player.

But not Mod? Too much math?

I'd happily mod too. Did I do something wrong with math in a recent game? My oopsie this game was more of just not thinking things through far enough down the line. Trying to recall my math error game. (certainly possible as I am not super awesome at math)

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:35 pm

Austin wrote:
stessier wrote:
Austin wrote:I'll go in as a possible player.

But not Mod? Too much math?
I'd happily mod too. Did I do something wrong with math in a recent game? My oopsie this game was more of just not thinking things through far enough down the line. Trying to recall my math error game. (certainly possible as I am not super awesome at math)

Nope, no math error. Just thought your oopsie was because it would be so hard to track the points. Since it wasn't...er, carry on.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:06 pm

One nice thing about quantifying these achievements is that it's possible to grandfather the extant games in (not for actual standing, perhaps, but for seeding or handicapping or just to satisfy curiosity).

'raven?

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:12 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:One nice thing about quantifying these achievements is that it's possible to grandfather the extant games in (not for actual standing, perhaps, but for seeding or handicapping or just to satisfy curiosity).

'raven?

Now that was just mean. As though the poor guy doesn't have enough to do already.

You can count me in the player pool too.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:13 am

INterested as well. Need more time to read the thread and comment. Love the idea of a scoring system with rotating mods.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:56 am

ocd drive, engage.

((and I'd of course, be interested in part of this))

Sean, Minister of KtSP · Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:13 am

I'd be interested in a slightly more detailed point system, but not overly so. I'm on the fence about grandfathering in previous games, as the league is quantifying a very specific iteration of the game. I have no qualms about grandfathering in any straight up 2W1S version of the game, but any of the more complex variations we've concocted wouldn't be accurately represented by the league point system.

Lagom Lite · Post by **Lagom Lite** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:03 pm

Sure, why not.

Semaj · Post by **Semaj** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:23 am

definately an interesting concept.

Food for thought:

Should we give bonus points to ww's for how many survive or how few survive, or just surviving? Because in theory taking one for the team should be rewarded when done right. But selling out another WW for more points would be hilarious.

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:42 am

Now that the chaos of Halloween is over.....

First off, individual game rules should be standardized and adopted for all games played in this setting:

1. One player moderates the game.

2. The moderator will open up the game thread with a [WWL] tag in the subject line. 9 players may participate.

3. The moderator will choose 2 players using random.org to play the roles of the werewolves. The moderator will designate one as Werewolf #1 and the other as Werewolf #2.

4. The moderator will choose 1 player from the remaining 7 to play the role of the seer.

5. The game opens with an assumed NPC death and awareness by the "Village" that there are werewolves among them.

6. Each turn of the game will be designated by a day of the week. The game opens on a Monday Day turn.

7. Day turns are open for discussion amongst the players. The day turn ends when one player is voted to be executed by the Village. The execution takes place, the executed player is removed from the game, and the remaining players are told whether the executed player was a mere villager or a werewolf. If the village executes its Seer, the players will only be told that a villager was executed. The "autopsy" reveal shows only team, not role.

8. Villagers may not PM or discuss the game elsewhere at any time.

9. Werewolf players may PM one another.

10. Night turns begin after the execution and reveal of team during a day turn.

11. During the night, the players may talk in forum if they like.

12. During the night turn, the Werewolves will select one player to kill, and PM this choice to the moderator. If the werewolf players cannot agree on a target, at the moderator's discretion he may designate werewolf #1 to make the final selection.

13. During the night turn, the Seer may scan a single player to determine that player's team alignment. The Seer will PM his scan choice to the moderator, and will be told "Bubba is a villager" or "Bubba is a Werewolf".

14. The Moderator will hold the result of the Seer's scan in abeyance until he is sure that the Seer has not been the target of the werewolves in the night. The night time turn sequence is as follows:

a.) Werewolves turn in their attack target and the Seer turns in his scan target.
b.) Werewolf kill action resolved.
c.) If Seer remains alive, he is informed of his scan result

15. Game ends when either all wolves are killed (Village victory), or there are only villagers equal to the number of Wolves at the start of a Day turn.

16. (Rulez about keeping the game moving to be inserted here.)

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:05 pm

triggercut wrote:First off, individual game rules should be standardized and adopted for all games played in this setting:

Agreed. Some proposals:

1. One player moderates the game.

We should perhaps have a Willing To Moderate roster, and rotate among its members (on the assumption that (a) not everyone who wants to play wants to moderate, and that (b) some who want to moderate don't want to play, and (c) rotation is desirable).

4. The moderator will choose 1 player from the remaining 7 to play the role of the seer.

This should also be random. Trust the noise.

16. (Rulez about keeping the game moving to be inserted here.)

17. No edits. It's usually a gentlemen's rule, but maybe for this formalized process, it ought to be official. Preview! Preview!

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:05 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
triggercut wrote:First off, individual game rules should be standardized and adopted for all games played in this setting:
Agreed. Some proposals:

1. One player moderates the game.
We should perhaps have a Willing To Moderate roster, and rotate among its members (on the assumption that (a) not everyone who wants to play wants to moderate, and that (b) some who want to moderate don't want to play, and (c) rotation is desirable).

4. The moderator will choose 1 player from the remaining 7 to play the role of the seer.
This should also be random. Trust the noise.

16. (Rulez about keeping the game moving to be inserted here.)
17. No edits. It's usually a gentlemen's rule, but maybe for this formalized process, it ought to be official. Preview! Preview!

Gah! Teach me to post before my third cup of coffee (yes, I know, not healthy).

On rule 1: I think awarding a point to a player for moderating the game ensures that people will be willing to mod, the moderation duties will rotate, and those who do mod will carry out their responsibilities accordingly.

On rule 4: Yikes! I meant to add "at random, using random.org" after the word "choose". Yeah, all teams and roles *must* be random.

On rule 17: Absolutely.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:09 pm

I don't see the need for the point incentive to moderate. Mod-ing is fun!

If you feel points are absolutely necessary, maybe 0.5 points instead? 1 point seems like a lot based on the current scheme (we're using trig's originally proposed system, right?).

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:58 pm

stessier wrote:I don't see the need for the point incentive to moderate. Mod-ing is fun!

I agree. Points should only signify in-game victory. Awarding them for anything else skews the league tables.

Modding is

(a) its own reward
(b) a public service
(c) the cost of doing business

Semaj · Post by **Semaj** » Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:42 pm

There are tournament rules, you should check them out... it makes for WW's turning on each other for more points... really makes the game more interesting.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:09 am

As a league with set rules, rotating mods is an outstanding idea as it would also give folks who haven't moderated before a chance to moderate a ruleset which doesn't change. Would be an excellent opportunity for someone new to moderate.

Mr Bubbles · Post by **Mr Bubbles** » Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:57 pm

theohall wrote:As a league with set rules, rotating mods is an outstanding idea as it would also give folks who haven't moderated before a chance to moderate a ruleset which doesn't change. Would be an excellent opportunity for someone new to moderate.

Yeah that actually might draw me into a "first" mod experience.

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:14 am

(bump?)

(hey, now I've got time...)

bb2112 · Post by **bb2112** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:58 am

Very interesting concept. I would be interested.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:23 am

I'm all for it. Promise to stick around this time???

Didn't this spawn my "(Not so) Simple WW game" last time it was brought up?

bb2112 · Post by **bb2112** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:48 am

I also agree with Stessier about giving or subtracting points based on votes. This will actually tell more about the skill of the player than just being lucky enough to get on a winning team. It will also make people avoid lynching those in the lead simply because they want to be sure they are out and have them denied possible points. Individuals should have incentives to vote their own mind based on getting points for themselves and not trying to take points away from others.

Wolves:

+1 point for each Villager lynched while alive
+1 point for being on the winning team
-3 points for being on the losing team

According to this Wolves would max out at 4 pts per game. 3 missed Lynches and 1 for the win. This would give a range of 4 pts to -3pts.

Villagers:

+1 point for each Wolf lynched while alive if in on the vote
+1 point for being on the winning team
-1 points for anyone alive on the losing team

According to this Villagers would max out at 3 pts per game. 2 for lynched wolves if on the vote and 1 for the win. This would give a range of 3pts to -1pts

Seer:

+1 point for each Wolf scanned
+1 point for each Wolf lynched while alive or dead
+1 point for being on the winning team
-3 points for being on the losing team

According to this Seers would max out at 5 pts per game. 2 for scanned wolves, 2 for lynched wolves and 1 for the win. This would give a range of 5pts to -3pts

I like the idea of giving Mods 1 pt. Unless everyone is in the group is guarenteed to Mod a certain number of times, then there should be a reward for not playing and taking the gamble of getting more points, IMHO.

The more I look at the points outlined by Stessier, the more I think I like them.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:45 am

The way you have the Seer set up he could get killed the first night and still earn 3 points. I don't think he should get points for wolves killed when he is dead.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:48 am

Something I like better would be that he gets credit for each wolf lynched that he voted for or that he specifically revealed. If he can help the village in voting for a wolf while alive, he gets points. If he specifically calls out a wolf and the village lynches them, even after he's dead, he gets the point. But if he dies with info in the bag, even if the target later dies, he gets no credit.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:04 pm

Remus West wrote:The way you have the Seer set up he could get killed the first night and still earn 3 points. I don't think he should get points for wolves killed when he is dead.

It's been a while, but I think the reason I put it in there is because even finding Villagers is useful. Not as useful, of course, but useful. So he should get some credit if he reveals 2 Villagers that lead to all the wolves being caught.

I'm not married to any of this or anything. This was trig's idea and all - don't want to step on any toes if people want the simpler scoring instead.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:40 pm

stessier wrote:
Remus West wrote:The way you have the Seer set up he could get killed the first night and still earn 3 points. I don't think he should get points for wolves killed when he is dead.
It's been a while, but I think the reason I put it in there is because even finding Villagers is useful. Not as useful, of course, but useful. So he should get some credit if he reveals 2 Villagers that lead to all the wolves being caught.

I'm not married to any of this or anything. This was trig's idea and all - don't want to step on any toes if people want the simpler scoring instead.

Maybe give him 2 points for being on the winning side. Sure, he could luck into that but it is rare - particularly in the basic games.