Moderator: Zaxxon
pr0ner wrote:Doesn't vanilla werewolf have 1 seer per game?
triggercut wrote:pr0ner wrote:Doesn't vanilla werewolf have 1 seer per game?
Waaaaaait for the rules. Waaaaait for the rules.
pr0ner wrote:triggercut wrote:pr0ner wrote:Doesn't vanilla werewolf have 1 seer per game?
Waaaaaait for the rules. Waaaaait for the rules.
I'm too fast!
Oh, and in.
triggercut wrote:pr0ner wrote:triggercut wrote:pr0ner wrote:Doesn't vanilla werewolf have 1 seer per game?
Waaaaaait for the rules. Waaaaait for the rules.
I'm too fast!
Oh, and in.
Yea and verily, the whippet-like speed of Corey Patterson....
bb2112 wrote:Well this kind of died.
We have a scoring system (albeit not perfect). We have a mod for round 1. We have players. What are we waiting for again?
Oh, and I can play in the first game btw. I wasn't going to play while I was on vacation and playing in another game, but both have ended (for me anyway).
Yes, yes, I know, thank you Remus.
theohall wrote:We are waiting for the current non-league game to have more than a couple of deaths, so those involved in the league game aren't necessarily dual-hatting it.
purge wrote::doh:
triggercut wrote:purge wrote::doh:
If Remus is unable to run match 1, I'll Mod it and you can have my spot!
Remus West wrote:triggercut wrote:purge wrote::doh:
If Remus is unable to run match 1, I'll Mod it and you can have my spot!
I'm planning on getting it started (PMs out and night begun) tomorrow. That way the game should begin in earnest Monday.
triggercut wrote:You rule!
Thanks for running Match 1, and good luck to everyone who'll be on my team!
theohall wrote:Discussion time....
Should intentional "skips" be allowed?
I am against it.
bb2112 wrote:theohall wrote:Discussion time....
Should intentional "skips" be allowed?
I am against it.
The only way to stop it is if the person with the most votes gets offed, or random.com in case of a tie. Remus is right, if we leave it to a time limit like in the last game, I would just have waited it out, and was fully prepared to do so.
stessier wrote:I think I'd be for random.org over "most votes" because "most votes" could end with a Wolf dead. The Village should only get that benefit if they do it by Majority vote. Random.org with the wolves ineligible seems like a fitting punishment.
purge wrote:stessier wrote:I think I'd be for random.org over "most votes" because "most votes" could end with a Wolf dead. The Village should only get that benefit if they do it by Majority vote. Random.org with the wolves ineligible seems like a fitting punishment.
I disagree. If the village as an organism has put forth one or more likely candidates (lets say 4 majority, two candidates tied at 3 each) by a deadlock then random.org could be used to change a random persons vote to the other party (as flavor).
Remus -> NewCastle
Grund -> NewCastle
RevH -> NewCastle
NewCastle ->Grund
Purge -> Grund
ChaosRaven -> Grund
BB2112 -> None
In this example, if the deadline is reached, then the random.org will select one player to change their vote in the deadlock. If BB was selected with no vote, or no relevant vote, then it gets used one more time to determine who he aligns with (of the six voters).
This way it never is about the accused, but instead about the random nature of will under pressure.
stessier wrote:I'm not sure I fully understand, but as long as a Wolf doesn't die as a result of No Majority, I'm fine with it. It's up to the Villagers to actively end the slaughter - not get lucky and have fate step in by way of random.org to save them.
Remus West wrote:stessier wrote:I'm not sure I fully understand, but as long as a Wolf doesn't die as a result of No Majority, I'm fine with it. It's up to the Villagers to actively end the slaughter - not get lucky and have fate step in by way of random.org to save them.
+1
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest