Reverse WW - Game Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I’m also personally glad I didn’t have to see this result until today when my salty dolphin had severely died down from when FTF was annoying me so.
 
So real talk:
There was a lot of griping about mechanics/setup/balance etc on both sides. But I really hope that y'all appreciated @Animal Midwife and @StayingPositive2017 attempt at putting a new spin on things, and getting people out of the usual WW rut. Yes, it was an experiment. Were there some kinks? Yes. Did they both still put a lot of effort into it? Yes. And for the most part it sounds like people still had fun.

I for one thought they did a good job handling some of the things that popped up, especially taking away votes for players who didn't meet the post minimum. That was a creative way to punish players without affecting game balance when the objective was to die anyway.

Wonderfully done you two!


ETA: I did like.......5% of the work so I claim no credit for this haha
 
I think we've mostly discussed my thoughts on balancing future games of this type (in dead chat and wolf chat and wherever else I was complaining about things). I do think in general this is a harder win for wolves than a normal game, village apathy/absence helped us a bit here (theoretically) BUT it still took a heck of a lot of work to pull it off.

Overall did have fun for sure, thank you mods 🙂
 
I do think in general this is a harder win for wolves than a normal game
how so? weren't you allowed to kill one wolf, then FTF was just killed because of RNG? So only you and pip were actually the picks iirc
edit oop forgot about SAR shows how close I was following lol
 
If the new standard is going to be removing ability to vote as punishment in future games than I am legitimately out for awhile. Especially when it is post count based, not quality based, which was moderately annoying.
 
If the new standard is going to be removing ability to vote as punishment in future games than I am legitimately out for awhile. Especially when it is post count based, not quality based, which was moderately annoying.
modkilling wasnt a punishment that's an option here bc it's functionally extra points to your wincon
which is why they went with this punishment
 
If the new standard is going to be removing ability to vote as punishment in future games than I am legitimately out for awhile. Especially when it is post count based, not quality based, which was moderately annoying.
I could see removing one vote but the entire game just basically makes the person not want to play, which giving a punishment I would think you would want to do the reverse. Plus I dont really understand why Allie couldn't vote because she didnt not meet the requirement twice in a row, though I guess it was cumulative sorta thing not just back to back


(but also people shouldn't sign up for games they can't play)
 
I could see removing one vote but the entire game just basically makes the person not want to play, which giving a punishment I would think you would want to do the reverse. Plus I dont really understand why Allie couldn't vote because she didnt not meet the requirement twice in a row, though I guess it was cumulative sorta thing not just back to back
This is an option we discussed after the fact and if this setup were to run again. We came to a conclusion along the lines of what you said, that losing voting/night action privileges for a single cycle would be appropriate v.s. for the remainder of the game.
 
I could see removing one vote but the entire game just basically makes the person not want to play, which giving a punishment I would think you would want to do the reverse. Plus I dont really understand why Allie couldn't vote because she didnt not meet the requirement twice in a row, though I guess it was cumulative sorta thing not just back to back


(but also people shouldn't sign up for games they can't play)
I mean but if we mod killed someone they wouldn't be able to play either so same result
 
Incorrect, it was originally discussed as protection from rojos, did NOT expect a wolf to legit just out themselves on thread lol
oh I must have not understood what you said in spec chat then? I thought you said you added it because of him. was it a planned mechanic the whole time then?
 
how so? weren't you allowed to kill one wolf, then FTF was just killed because of RNG? So only you and pip were actually the picks iirc
edit oop forgot about SAR shows how close I was following lol
RNG thing only happened because of the particulars of the participation punishment in this game and a villager not voting (hence my comment about village apathy/absence)

But in general in this game type a wolf team has to play more perfectly than they do in a normal game. In a normal game you just have to be less sketchy than the sketchiest villagers. Here you have to be more village than the most village villagers.
 
This is an option we discussed after the fact and if this setup were to run again. We came to a conclusion along the lines of what you said, that losing voting/night action privileges for a single cycle would be appropriate v.s. for the remainder of the game.
What if it increases for each offense like one cycle the first time, two cycles the second, three the third, etc...?
 
I think they let this happen because MJ accidentally outted himself haha
As I said in spec chat, the two were unrelated events. Rebalancing a game in the middle of it running because one player made a bad move is implicitly unfair to the other team, and not something I'd let happen.

MJ outting himself was (according to him) part of his plan to screw with the setup and test the mods.
 
As I said in spec chat, the two were unrelated events. Rebalancing a game in the middle of it running because one player made a bad move is implicitly unfair to the other team, and not something I'd let happen.

MJ outting himself was (according to him) part of his plan to screw with the setup and test the mods.
that's not what you said in spec chat though, unless I am vastly misunderstanding 😳

wait so you literally just let one of the wolves kill MJ because he lost the game for them? or what? lol
yes because we would game-break that badly.

ehh it's ok tho I didnt read a lot of this game so I'm prob just confused 😕
 
that's not what you said in spec chat though, unless I am vastly misunderstanding 😳




ehh it's ok tho I didnt read a lot of this game so I'm prob just confused 😕
I think you're missing the sarcasm in Mel's response that you quoted from spec chat lol
 
No, I'd probably just kill the person after the second offense instead (provided no one offers to sub).
That was what I was getting at with the silencing. They would no longer be able to participate/strategize in a normal game, so I think something more in line with that would work better here if you wanted to stay in line with your general participation philosophy.
 
Of course then you run into...kind of the same issues that you had here.

Idk, I don't think there's a perfect participation punishment for this model because the balance is SO tenuous to begin with.
 
That was what I was getting at with the silencing. They would no longer be able to participate/strategize in a normal game, so I think something more in line with that would work better here if you wanted to stay in line with your general participation philosophy.
Yeah, the silencing seems good. Just was feeling stuff out for the first time and I appreciate feedback on how to improve this for any future runs.
 
Top