ClimateChangeIsReal wrote: ↑
22 June 2019, 02:04
I disagree with the idea of random lynching day 1.
In a 12-player game (assuming no LG and witch does not save) there are 9 non-werewolves. If players abstain day 1, there is a 2/9 chance that the Fortune Teller will be attacked before day 2. If they lynch randomly day 1, there is a 3/9 chance of the same effect.
Not to mention, there are several other valuable roles (more than 3, the number of wolves) that you would not want to accidentally lynch (especially the Hunter!). Taking a 1.5x risk for something quite unlikely (lynching a WW) seems bad.
Now, if the players discuss
and try to deduce some werewolves on day 1, that would be different.
The logic behind that is, on day 1, the villagers all decide on who to lynch (the day starts with people shouting out who they want to lynch - Which is random at first. Hence random voting - then at the end they all decide on what to do). If the lynch target is a power role. They can just claim. So there is absolutely NO RISK AT ALL of lynching a power role day 1. In fact, if after the power role claims and someone lynches them, then it is obvious ww. Because there's another rule (to not lynch a power claim, most of the time unless it is actually favorable to do so, but lynching a power role on day 1 is very rare).
ww claiming a power role on day 1 is generally unfavorable to them, that it is not seen often at mafia from my experience. They can just be counterclaimed then.
So, since you have zero chance of lynching a power role (when the vilagers know what to do). then the likelihood of lynching a ww becomes much higher. AND the discussion will help LATER ON to determine who is werewolf, the day 1 lynch CAN BE QUITE VALUABLE in terms of information.
But that's all beside the point, I didn't want to put any numbers or statistics or any arguments for random voting and the like. Because that could take some time to argue and I'm a little lazy to dig up the game theory pages of discussion. My whole argument is entirely different. And is easier to argue.
My argument is:
1. Werewolf is similar to mafia that the differences could be ignored.
2. Therefore good strategies at mafia are good at werewolf.
3. If thousands of people worked for years playing mafia and developing game theory that they are known as the largest mafia community. It is very hard to argue that their conventions are wrong or aren't the best etc... One person can make a mistake, but thousands collaborating together make the margin of mistake VERY LOW. Those people say that "random voting" and discussion" are good in mafia
4. Therefore random voting, activity and etc... are good strategies in werewolf.
Points 2, 3 and 4 are strong logical points that I think are very hard to argue against.
Point 1 is what my whole argument rests upon, and it is why my whole argument could fall apart. I'm convinced that it is true, but I can see that it could be wrong.
But even if point 1 falls apart, we could still argue that some select strategies are good at mafia. Like discussion, is always good. random-voting could be argued for, etc...