Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: WvV - possible changes for influencing and inactives

  1. #1

    Default WvV - possible changes for influencing and inactives

    Two things to pick up from last round: influencing and inactives.

    Influencing
    There was some discussion around influencing when it flared up during the last round with various options voiced. Can you post below/PM, preferences for the options below please?
    • A) only mute people who have had at least one previous warning for influencing when they die
    • B) mute people in the main/wolf/village rooms as soon as they die
    • C) remove people from the main rule when they die.

    The preferred option would become an update to the standard rules. If called for by the design, hosts can opt for a different approach.


    There were also a number of options, that we don’t think are approach for the standard rules or routine use. But, hosts may want to work them into rounds occasionally (particularly at Halloween!):
    • I) letting the dead have some kind of voting/special role;
    • II) last will and testament - one forum post from ‘the other side’ and/or a statement (perhaps filtered by the Gods); and/or
    • III) reviving some/all dead, one way or another.


    A simple update to accompany the rules - if they aren’t muted/removed would be:
    Dead players should not post about the game underway or tactics. This includes, no suggesting that one side/player is stupid or smart, no discussing how many wolves/villagers might be left, no discussing potential tactics etc. Each of these, and many more comments, can influence the views of others still directly involved in the game. If in doubt, don’t post.

    Inactives
    It’s not unusual for grumbling about inactives to happen. But it’s never been very clear what to do. Banning from a few rounds is counterproductive - it just reduces the number of places. Ensuring they don’t get active roles for a few rounds affects the odds of wolves/villagers for the next round. One suggestion is that their vote is randomly generated. It would be good if people could have a think about what they’d like to see, if anything.

  2. #2
    Cloud Strife

    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member septimus ii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,980

    Default

    I'm strongly in favour of not muting people in the main chat unless they do something to warrant it. WvV is as much an opportunity to chat with other people from the forum as it is a mafia game, and that should be supported. I would favour an amendment to the rules to make the definition of influencing to make it clearer to new players, and Sam's wording is good.

    Introducing a role for the dead is a very interesting idea, and could be a good addition, but it would need to be very carefully done. You would need to decide how much of an influence the dead would have, with it being easy to give them too much significance. Not something to be undertaken lightly.

    I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions on what to do with inactives. Perhaps simply leave it as a part of the randomness of the game?

  3. #3
    Mrs. Fantastic


    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member Ryder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    2,846

    Default

    As soon as someone slightly influences they are muted for the rest of the round. Hopefully next round they will learn.

    As for the dead.... Once dead, that's it imo. Last will etc is nonsense and would only hinder the game more than improve it imo.
    Server 2, Round 4
    Server 3, Round 8
    Server 5, Round 8

    Current Servers;
    Com4 - IGN;Casper
    Uk5 - Gjenganger

  4. #4
    Honoured Teuton MemberHonoured Teuton MemberHonoured Teuton MemberHonoured Teuton Member PinkFairyKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    1,777

    Default

    Influencing, I think that if people influence they should be muted for the rest of the round. But not instantly muted in subsequent rounds. The definition of "influencing" also needs changing in the rules I think. Your definition looks good Sam. As Septimus said, lots of people play WvV just for the chat. Muting people after they die would lead to the game becoming more dull.

    I think that once the dead are dead, they should be dead. I wouldnt like the chance for dead people to have final words posted in the KP. That would alter the game too much. Obviously if someone game up with an idea for dead to be involved (round specific) then that would be fine. I think that in general though, the dead shouldnt be allowed to speak.

    Banning inactives wouldnt help, it would just lead to lower player numbers. In the rules it says "rules are random", I think it should be changed back to the way it was before the 2014 rule change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Previous Rules
    Roles are chosen at random, although some thought is given as to whether the person would be appropriate for the role.
    If someone has a history of inactivity and their name is randomly chosen, then if the hosts feel it appropriate someone else should be selected. If an inactive is chosen as a wolf it shouldnt change the game too much. But if they are the seer then it could have a big effect.

  5. #5
    Well-Known MemberWell-Known MemberWell-Known MemberWell-Known Member Cait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    1,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha78 View Post
    Two things to pick up from last round: influencing and inactives.

    Influencing
    There was some discussion around influencing when it flared up during the last round with various options voiced. Can you post below/PM, preferences for the options below please?
    • A) only mute people who have had at least one previous warning for influencing when they die
    • B) mute people in the main/wolf/village rooms as soon as they die
    • C) remove people from the main rule when they die.

    The preferred option would become an update to the standard rules. If called for by the design, hosts can opt for a different approach.


    There were also a number of options, that we don’t think are approach for the standard rules or routine use. But, hosts may want to work them into rounds occasionally (particularly at Halloween!):
    • I) letting the dead have some kind of voting/special role;
    • II) last will and testament - one forum post from ‘the other side’ and/or a statement (perhaps filtered by the Gods); and/or
    • III) reviving some/all dead, one way or another.


    A simple update to accompany the rules - if they aren’t muted/removed would be:
    Dead players should not post about the game underway or tactics. This includes, no suggesting that one side/player is stupid or smart, no discussing how many wolves/villagers might be left, no discussing potential tactics etc. Each of these, and many more comments, can influence the views of others still directly involved in the game. If in doubt, don’t post.

    Inactives
    It’s not unusual for grumbling about inactives to happen. But it’s never been very clear what to do. Banning from a few rounds is counterproductive - it just reduces the number of places. Ensuring they don’t get active roles for a few rounds affects the odds of wolves/villagers for the next round. One suggestion is that their vote is randomly generated. It would be good if people could have a think about what they’d like to see, if anything.
    Influencing - I would go for option a) (and I assume option C means remove from main room)

    I liked your definition - tbh - I'd stop calling it influencing, and call it 'discussing the game'

    I liked the 'final will and testament' (obviously, it was my idea) - so maybe I can include it as a one off rule next time I host, rather than it being generic one

    Inactives: I like your idea of randomly rolling their vote (should still say they were inactive tho)
    I also think Pinks suggestion to return to previous rules about roles should apply.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    http://travian-reports.net/us/report/2261602b9eb That thing!
    http://travian-reports.net/us/report/442138afbca A fluffy hammer
    http://travian-reports.net/us/report/845573c4010 Titch the rammer with an inferiority complex. (5x - 4 weeks - worse ram tribe)
    and for the Faffing Hammer that got away
    http://forum.travian.co.uk/showpost....80&postcount=1

  6. #6
    Cloud Strife

    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member septimus ii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkFairyKing View Post
    Banning inactives wouldnt help, it would just lead to lower player numbers. In the rules it says "rules are random", I think it should be changed back to the way it was before the 2014 rule change.



    If someone has a history of inactivity and their name is randomly chosen, then if the hosts feel it appropriate someone else should be selected. If an inactive is chosen as a wolf it shouldnt change the game too much. But if they are the seer then it could have a big effect.
    I understood that it was at the hosts' discretion, with some hosts choosing randomly and some not

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by septimus ii View Post
    I understood that it was at the hosts' discretion, with some hosts choosing randomly and some not
    Yes; in practice - most of the time I believe it has been done randomly. It's a slippery slope if there is host discretion. Even with random and inactives it usually evens out. Obvious exceptions would be an alpha that isn't replaced.

  8. #8

    Default

    I really like your definition of influencing Sam. It definitely needs to be tightened up as too many people are unsure about whether something counts or not. I would certainly consider your option A too. I know there are people who remove themselves from the main room as soon as they die to make sure they don't influence, but I don't think that should be compulsory. I don't think the dead should automatically be muted either since they can sometimes make the main room more entertaining without actually chatting about the game at all.

    I do prefer the dead to be dead, even after being revived once myself, although I have no problem with the kp containing a reference to what is going on in the dead room now and then if it doesn't impact on the game. Sorry Cait, but I hate the idea of the dead having a chance to have last words.

    Inactives are a problem but not really a huge problem. Although it can impact on the game if a special is inactive I am not sure that is very different from the wolves killing one on the first night. I do see that an inactive alpha who wasn't being replaced could be the one circumstance where something would have to be done, but I think that might be the only one, and even then wouldn't really differ from the alpha being lynched. I am sceptical about the votes of inactives being randomly generated even if it was noted they were inactive although I suspect it depends on the number of people playing how much of an impact inactives really have.

  9. #9
    Gaul MemberGaul Member Gridy100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    138

    Default

    I think that as soon as someone has influenced they should be muted but I think that once they are dead in another round it should make no diffrence if they have had a previous warning or not they should not be muted. I feel that this would take away from the WvV experience as many people play it for the chat as much as the game. I do think that 'influencing' should be cleared up and I do like your definition Sam. Inactives are annoying but I think that it should be down to the host whether they are given a random role or a minor one if the have a history of inactivity. Talking of hosting, I'd like to host a round. PM me if you need me as I have no skype until Saturday night

    EDIT: Bacially exactly what Ryder said
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder View Post
    As soon as someone slightly influences they are muted for the rest of the round. Hopefully next round they will learn.

    As for the dead.... Once dead, that's it imo. Last will etc is nonsense and would only hinder the game more than improve it imo.
    Last edited by Gridy100; 27 May 2014 at 06:26 PM.
    Come to the dark side... WE HAVE COOKIES! OmNomNom

  10. #10
    Paralysis by analysis Avi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    1,807

    Default

    Hi Gridy, if you're interested in hosting a round then find yourself a partner in crime, come up with a theme and chat to us about it We're pretty easy going on who can host and we're working on some hosting guidelines to make it easier for you to get involved on the other side too.

    Re: Sam's post, if you are all happy and in support of Sam's wording on influencing then we would like to clarify that before the next round starts up. I think she has it spot on too. That does mean you can no longer feign innocence when caught doing it tho

    It was my idea regarding the inactive players having a random vote. My concern is with anything 'random', if it ended up influencing the game it would be attributed to the hosts. I like the theory of an inactive continuing to contribute to the voting process because it's my personal view that 'no lynch' is a waste of time . But maybe there is a better way we can come up with? A rolling vote wouldn't work as the player they've previously voted for is likely to be dead if they were going with the majority.

    It is difficult to define an inactive because people do come and go, miss one night, rejoin the next - and someone who does that has just as much a right to be a seer or have an important role because they are actively in the game, but intermittently. Someone who doesn't log on from the start or loses interest and drops out, would class as a problematic inactive. Perhaps we can introduce a clause whereby if someone uses their 5 days of inactivity within the first 7 days/week, their role can be reallocated on their death, and not declared. You could argue it's too late for this to have an effect but most games are lasting 14 days so at least that is attempting some restoration of equal sides.

    As always, very interesting to hear your ideas on improving a longstanding game on this forum.
    Uk1 armies: Round 2, Round 3, Round 5
    Uk2 armies: Round 2, Round 3, round 4
    Uk3 armies: Round 2
    Uk4 armies: Round 3
    Uk5 armies: Round 2, Round 3
    Uk6 armies: Round 2
    Ukx3 armies: Round 8, Round 9, Round 10, Round 11
    Ukx5 armies: Round 1

  11. #11
    Avatar Winner jawwwwsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    I would vote for option A with regards to influencing, and the idea of a randomly generated vote is much more appealing than just kicking people
    Previously - Jazzy Jeff | Lord Pan | Lorde | Hammer

    Quote Originally Posted by Elk33dp View Post
    Maybe if it was anyone else, but Josh is too talented to leave any hint at the real target. It's basically wack-a-mole.


  12. #12
    Well-Known MemberWell-Known MemberWell-Known MemberWell-Known Member Cait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    1,891

    Default

    I still think inactives should be kicked (in the way they currently are - after 3 consecutive or 5 total inactivities), but that on the 'allowed' inactive nights they could be randomly rolled. (If someone KNOWS they are going to be away - are they allowed to put in their vote in advance? I guess I assume they are but I don't know if it has ever come up)

    I don't think players should be kicked from future rounds for it.

    I hear folks no to last will and testament (that idea popped into my head due to the problems of people influencing - but if there is now a much clearer definition, which I think there is, I'm not wedded to it )

    I do think hosts should have some discretion around roles when someone has been a problematic inactive - maybe reporting anything like that to Avi/Sam - hmmm.

    Cait
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    http://travian-reports.net/us/report/2261602b9eb That thing!
    http://travian-reports.net/us/report/442138afbca A fluffy hammer
    http://travian-reports.net/us/report/845573c4010 Titch the rammer with an inferiority complex. (5x - 4 weeks - worse ram tribe)
    and for the Faffing Hammer that got away
    http://forum.travian.co.uk/showpost....80&postcount=1

  13. #13

    Default

    - so only mute people with a previous warning for influencing when they die (with others on good behaviour), obviously can apply some common sense so if they are still good months/years later, no reason to mute them every round

    …and will update the rules accordingly. I’ve got a list of those told off under the new regime as well.

    - do nothing for inactives at the moment (tho I am very attracted to try as a one-off the auto-completion of voting lol to see how it goes); if there is a persistent inactive *coughs* pankyyy, then hosts (with full awareness of whoever of sam/avi/grizz that’s not playing) may avoid giving them a special role. It sounds like the better thing to do is try to avoid rounds where one role has that much power to decide the game!

    As far as I can recall, no one has ever been stopped from voting in advance. But sometimes, it is difficult to know how to vote if it’s more than a night or two. (And I prefer voting in advance to voting by txt/sykpe - the risks of them getting lost or naughtiness can be high).

  14. #14

    Default

    i think 5 days of inactivity is too long, some game only last 7 to 10 days, also would go for option A, dead should be dead and leave inactives as they are

  15. #15

    Default

    I think muting is someone is trying to actively interfere while dead is a good idea. If people die but want to stick around the room during the day when people aren't talking WvV but just spamming then I see no problem with that.

    I think mutings will stop people from blurting out something on the chat if they are getting infuriated with people missing something that is glaringly obvious to them.

    However, if someone wants to interfere/influence then they will do it regardless of muting or not. I know someone who constantly did it. They would pm you from beyond the grave with 'so-and-so is a baddie Trust me (nods)'

    They obviously feel they can claim some credit for the win this way.

    There isn't anything you can really do about this though short of people reporting the ones interfering.

  16. #16

    Default

    I think dead people should stay dead and the other thing with not giving inactives a role the next round people will stay away from lynching/voting for them knowing that its in place or could be in place.

    UKX7 http://www.gettertools.com/speed.tra....4/kb/UD1raN3k

    Quote Originally Posted by Carrothead View Post
    I think I'll name a pig oInky in memory of you. :p

  17. #17

    Default

    Sorry - only just noticed this thread.

    Cait is bang on that it should not be referred to as influencing. Sam's wording is fine. I didn't notice that it had been changed on this round - will check again... Apologies if it has.

    I don't have any problem with how inactives work at the moment.

    Beyond the grave comment is a step too far I feel but I do see a possible use for it in a later "ghost" round.

    EDIT: Have now been back to the rules and this is there:

    If you have left the game through elimination, inactivity, or a ban, please do not influence the remaining players’ votes or decisions. This includes asking leading/pertinent questions. Nor should you ‘spam’ the thread or Skype room making it difficult for those who are still alive to keep up.
    In my view this should be amended to Sam's wording below with one word change - replace "influence" with "affect".
    Last edited by Bob Hawken; 07 Jun 2014 at 10:38 AM. Reason: Reviewed gamerules.

  18. #18

    Default

    affect and influence pretty much mean the same thing :p "to influence: to exercise influence on; affect; sway: to influence a person."

  19. #19

    Default

    Yeah, I actually think that 'influence' is a better word. Affect seems too restrictive. I know they mean the same thing as Sam said but if I had to choose a word influence would be mine. It seems to encompass more

  20. #20

    Default

    The only distinction - which might be more of a perception rather than dictionary - is that influence feels broader and could be used directly and indirectly, affect feels like it is narrower and more about direct changes rather than something more subtle/lots of tiny things added together.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •