WW Game "league"?

[triggercut]

I have the time and ability to handle a more robust scoring system, just need to figure out the fairest way to do it.

As was pointed out, sometimes a Seer can win the game in a 9-man basic game by collecting a pool of 2-3 living, proven villagers and forming a vote bloc and as such is worth rewarding there, too.

[bb2112]

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.

Yeah, I'm not married to that particular scoring system either, but I like the idea of correct actions/votes being rewarded, while incorrect actions/votes are penalized.

Maybe it is as simple as:

Wolf
+1 for every villager lynched while alive
+1 for a wolf win
-3 for a wolf loss

Max 4pts Min -3pts

Villager
+1 for every wolf lynched which has your vote
-1 for every villager lynch which has your vote
-2 if your vote is on a seer lynch
+2 if your team wins
+1 if you survive to the end
-1 if your team loses

Max 5 pts Min -5 pts

Seer
+1 for every wolf scanned
+1 for every wolf lynched which has your vote
-1 for every villager lynch which has your vote
+1 if your team wins
-2 if your team loses

Max 5 pts Min -5pts

This is just an idea. Not married to this either.

[stessier]

What about having seasons? These are simple games with time limits, so they should be relatively short. Start with a 5 Game Season and then re-evaluate the scoring system? With time limits and constant play, we should be able to knock that out in about 2-3 months, no?

I'm just afraid we will never start as we continue to revamp the scoring.

[Newcastle]

i'd be open to playing. I have no real thoughts on scoring...am sure you will work something out that's equitable. Would add another twist to it.

However, how would yous core the "random roles games"? Since they might have some rule tweaks making it more balanced to a faction.

Woudl the rules be simple vanilla ie seer, mason, shooter, protector, coroner...etc?

[stessier]

i'd be open to playing. I have no real thoughts on scoring...am sure you will work something out that's equitable. Would add another twist to it.

However, how would yous core the "random roles games"? Since they might have some rule tweaks making it more balanced to a faction.

Woudl the rules be simple vanilla ie seer, mason, shooter, protector, coroner...etc?

All League Games are Super Simple - 1 Seer, 6 Villagers, 2 Wolves. These could be played while other games were ongoing because they are so Simple!

[stessier]

I have the time and ability to handle a more robust scoring system, just need to figure out the fairest way to do it.

I still think the Mod should do the scoring and have a thread the score is dumped into. Maybe you could have the first post and update that with running totals? I would also be willing to do this. The new tables have the potential to make it look purty.

[triggercut]

I don't know how to do tables, but would be happy to set everything else up and keep scores.

So:

--put up one thread with signups for "season 1". Even if players can't participate in the first match, they can sign up and the number of players who sign up will determine the season length. First season will be a trial run of sorts, and consist of 5 matches. Scoring will be assessed and tabulated and tracked in this thread.

--After a few days, put up thread for signups on Season 1, match 1. All players who want to participate in the league will have 48 hours to sign up.

--Season 1 Match 1 proceeds in that S1M1 match thread.

I think we've agreed on this much, and just need to proceed to finalizing scoring. I have some league rules that would be worth considering:

1. In the match signup threads, 10 players are needed during that 48 hour window. If more than 10 sign up, then the 10 who'll participate are chosen by random.org. Anyone signing up who didn't get in will be allowed priority for the next match in the season.

2. Once 10 participants determined, League Commish (stessier, wanna be co-commish with me?) uses random.org to determine the Moderator. Moderator is awarded a single point for moderating.

3. Mod then takes over the match; he uses random.org to determine who the wolf team will be, and who the seer on the village team is. He unlocks a wolf forum for that team, and a spoiler lounge for dead players and non-participating league members to kibbitz on the match underway.

4. At the conclusion of the match, the mod determines the scores and posts them; players and commish review those scores for accuracy and we proceed to the next match in the season.

5. Two sets of "winners" in each season--total points, and points per game.

[triggercut]

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.

Yeah, I'm not married to that particular scoring system either, but I like the idea of correct actions/votes being rewarded, while incorrect actions/votes are penalized.

Maybe it is as simple as:

Wolf
+1 for every villager lynched while alive
+1 for a wolf win
-3 for a wolf loss

Max 4pts Min -3pts

Villager
+1 for every wolf lynched which has your vote
-1 for every villager lynch which has your vote
-2 if your vote is on a seer lynch
+2 if your team wins
+1 if you survive to the end
-1 if your team loses

Max 5 pts Min -5 pts

Seer
+1 for every wolf scanned
+1 for every wolf lynched which has your vote
-1 for every villager lynch which has your vote
+1 if your team wins
-2 if your team loses

Max 5 pts Min -5pts

This is just an idea. Not married to this either.

I like this scoring plan somewhat, but let's do away with "seer specific" scoring and just make all the villager scoring conform to that +5 to -5 score range.

Also, I would say that making a wolf team win a +2 for all team members would be a good adjustment.

[bb2112]

I like this scoring plan somewhat, but let's do away with "seer specific" scoring and just make all the villager scoring conform to that +5 to -5 score range.

Also, I would say that making a wolf team win a +2 for all team members would be a good adjustment.

As I said, I'm not married to it. If you are going to up a wolf win to +2, then that would mean that the wolves be at +5 Max, -3 Min. Not sure if that is an unfair advantage or not.

[Semaj]

Specials should in theory be able to get more points, since they determine the game.

[Remus West]

Specials should in theory be able to get more points, since they determine the game.

I could not disagree more.

[Unagi]

Same. While some Specials are brief holders of privledged knowledge, if they die with it - they didn't help much. Once they share it, they are actually more in the dark than the villagers. In the end, it's almost always up to the villagers to actually have played a game that 'convinces others of their innocence', while finding the wolves.

Specials often can sway the game enormously - but it's just as often the villagers that either tank their effort or carry it over the goal line.


I don't think the seer should be dinged harder than a villager for a team loss.

[Semaj]

i'd argue, but I don't have the patience. If villagers are more important than seer, why dont the wolves let the seer live?

[triggercut]

i'd argue, but I don't have the patience. If villagers are more important than seer, why dont the wolves let the seer live?

Not "more important".

"As important".

[Isgrimnur]

I really think the potential points for every player should be the same, regardless of role. The wolves need to have the potential to lose just as badly as everyone else.

I don't know how you would do that. Given the small number of wolves, say a -1 if you're in on the killing vote of your teammate, something along those lines.

[Remus West]

I really think the potential points for every player should be the same, regardless of role. The wolves need to have the potential to lose just as badly as everyone else.

I don't know how you would do that. Given the small number of wolves, say a -1 if you're in on the killing vote of your teammate, something along those lines.

I don't think they should be penalized for voting a teammate off since that is a time honored method of gaining some credibility and trust which can allow them to win. You penalize that you essentially close off some points from them for victory.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm not married to that idea, and didn't really consider it viable, but I stand by the main assertion that the wolves should not have an inherent league point advantage by being capped at a -3 for a disastrous game.

[Remus West]

How about an additional -1 per wolf killed by lynch before an equal number of humans?
First lynch = wolf = -1
Third lynch = 2nd wolf = another -1 since only lynch #2 was Human.

Fills in the additional -2 to even it up in the even of a horrible game.

[LordMortis]

Why not make a ladder? Everyone starts at an arbitrary number of points for a floor and you gain or lose points based on the average of your opponents. Basically bastardizing an ELO system where you average teams scores to make calculations as if they were one on one games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system" target="_blank

[Isgrimnur]

How about an additional -1 per wolf killed by lynch before an equal number of humans?
First lynch = wolf = -1
Third lynch = 2nd wolf = another -1 since only lynch #2 was Human.

Fills in the additional -2 to even it up in the even of a horrible game.

Yeah, I could get behind something like that.

[stessier]

2. Once 10 participants determined, League Commish (stessier, wanna be co-commish with me?) uses random.org to determine the Moderator. Moderator is awarded a single point for moderating.

Sure thing!

You also mentioned setting up a wolf forum. Do people think it is necessary? With only two wolves, I think PMs would suffice. We could use OOWW, but that would mean extra work for the Mod of any non-league game was going on to make sure you had the right forum permissions. It can definitely be done if we want to go that way, just not sure it is worth the effort.

Also, where do we stand on time limits? 72 hours for days and 24 hours for nights?

[stessier]

Why not make a ladder? Everyone starts at an arbitrary number of points for a floor and you gain or lose points based on the average of your opponents. Basically bastardizing an ELO system where you average teams scores to make calculations as if they were one on one games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system" target="_blank

On the first read through, I didn't see the highlighted portion and was wondering how you were going to do it. I think I like it. The calculation is quite easy too. Start everyone at 1500 and let it float.

[Newcastle]

2. Once 10 participants determined, League Commish (stessier, wanna be co-commish with me?) uses random.org to determine the Moderator. Moderator is awarded a single point for moderating.

Sure thing!

You also mentioned setting up a wolf forum. Do people think it is necessary? With only two wolves, I think PMs would suffice. We could use OOWW, but that would mean extra work for the Mod of any non-league game was going on to make sure you had the right forum permissions. It can definitely be done if we want to go that way, just not sure it is worth the effort.

Also, where do we stand on time limits? 72 hours for days and 24 hours for nights?

72 hours for a day i think would be alright. I think it would help move things along. 24 hours for nights is sufficient.

-I am always a fan of supersecret forums. Since i am one of those who enjoys going through and reading the discussion of teh wolvies or others once dead. Maybe a special OOWW League forums? If we do have forums. I think they should be different than the OOWW forums we currently use, that way it makes life easier i would think and avoids any potential spoiler reveals and so forth. But i am easy. I just like forums...

I also think if you moderate 1 game, then you no longer mod for the rest of the season. Just allows that player to play. And makes it more fair in terms of point gain & loss.

Also, whats the chance of people lynching another person solely because they are a points leader? I'd say high with this crowd (i'm looking at you remus & CR).

-Oh did i mention that a supersekrit forum would be cool...one that is not associated w/ our current OOWW forum.

[stessier]

Why not make a ladder? Everyone starts at an arbitrary number of points for a floor and you gain or lose points based on the average of your opponents. Basically bastardizing an ELO system where you average teams scores to make calculations as if they were one on one games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system" target="_blank

On the first read through, I didn't see the highlighted portion and was wondering how you were going to do it. I think I like it. The calculation is quite easy too. Start everyone at 1500 and let it float.

So it would be

Ladder Change = (Points from Game) * (Your Team Average Ladder Points) / (Opponent Team Average Ladder Points)

Right?

[LordMortis]

Why not make a ladder? Everyone starts at an arbitrary number of points for a floor and you gain or lose points based on the average of your opponents. Basically bastardizing an ELO system where you average teams scores to make calculations as if they were one on one games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system" target="_blank

On the first read through, I didn't see the highlighted portion and was wondering how you were going to do it. I think I like it. The calculation is quite easy too. Start everyone at 1500 and let it float.

So it would be

Ladder Change = (Points from Game) * (Your Team Average Ladder Points) / (Opponent Team Average Ladder Points)

Right?

Something like that or possibly even exactly that. I'm not math or stats guy. I think ladders or an ELO system are cool and look at relative strengths/successes without reading too much into establishing dominance by sheer volume of playing. They also allow you the ability redeem yourself over time or lose stature when getting rusty.

[stessier]

72 hours for a day i think would be alright. I think it would help move things along. 24 hours for nights is sufficient.

And for weekends/holidays - if a deadline falls on a weekend/holiday, it would be moved to the same time on the next available weekday. So it the 72 hour deadline would fall on a Sunday at 4pm, it moves to Monday at 4pm. If a deadline falls at 4pm on some random Wednesday holiday, it moves to 4pm on Thursday.

In the case that a deadline is reached without a lynch, no lynch occurs. If a Night ends with no orders from one team, that team loses it's night order.

Thoughts?

[stessier]

Something like that or possibly even exactly that. I'm not math or stats guy. I think ladders or an ELO system are cool and look at relative strengths/successes without reading too much into establishing dominance by sheer volume of playing. They also allow you the ability redeem yourself over time or lose stature when getting rusty.

Math for a real ELO is...involved. This is a huge bastardization, but at least factors team strength in a bit.

[stessier]

And just to recap what I think is the proposed scoring

Wolf
+1 for every villager lynched while alive
+2 for a wolf win
-3 for a wolf loss

Check on Wolf Lynch:

IF (# of Humans Lynched) < (# of Wolves Lynched) THEN -1
Else 0

Max 5pts Min -5pts

Villager / Seer
+1 for every wolf lynched which has your vote
-1 for every villager lynch which has your vote
-2 if your vote is on a seer lynch
+2 if your team wins
+1 if you survive to the end
-1 if your team loses

Max 5 pts Min -5 pts


The upshot of the Remus Rule is that once the wolves reach 2 Villagers Lynched, no more bonus points can be lost
If 1 Villager Lynched, max 1 bonus point can be lost
If 0 Villagers Lynched, max 2 bonus points can be lost

[Remus West]

Looking at the scoring table, I also do not think you deserve a point for surviving to the end. Usually those that survive to the end are those that are demonstrating the least danger to the wolves...thus it is almost a mark against rather than for in my mind.

[stessier]

Looking at the scoring table, I also do not think you deserve a point for surviving to the end. Usually those that survive to the end are those that are demonstrating the least danger to the wolves...thus it is almost a mark against rather than for in my mind.

The end could come quickly if you get two wolves lynched right off the bat!

If we remove that point, then we should knock a Wolf Win back down to +1 so the max points are both 4.

[stessier]

Upon further consideration, I think you should get the point for surviving to the end. Staying alive to help the team is part of the game too.

[Newcastle]

72 hours for a day i think would be alright. I think it would help move things along. 24 hours for nights is sufficient.

And for weekends/holidays - if a deadline falls on a weekend/holiday, it would be moved to the same time on the next available weekday. So it the 72 hour deadline would fall on a Sunday at 4pm, it moves to Monday at 4pm. If a deadline falls at 4pm on some random Wednesday holiday, it moves to 4pm on Thursday.

In the case that a deadline is reached without a lynch, no lynch occurs. If a Night ends with no orders from one team, that team loses it's night order.

Thoughts?

weekends count as 1 day....holiday weekends are 1 day also. adds a bit of strain to folks potentially, but if the goal is to keep the pace brisk, i think folks will fall in line.

[stessier]

We give a +2 to a Wolf win. What if it were

Win = +1
Seer Lynched = +1

Give some kudos to a wolf who pulls off a successful claim/counterclaim scenario.

[Newcastle]

Looking at the scoring table, I also do not think you deserve a point for surviving to the end. Usually those that survive to the end are those that are demonstrating the least danger to the wolves...thus it is almost a mark against rather than for in my mind.

i think with this crowd...denying people points will become part of the game as well. Hence, say a quiet one...survives for 2 games till the end..my bet is they will be amongst the first to go in the following games.

I think surviving till the end is a worthy endeavor.

Plus since the pool is so small, i am betting most will be contributing to a decent degree.

[Remus West]

Upon further consideration, I think you should get the point for surviving to the end. Staying alive to help the team is part of the game too.

Staying alive to help the team is good but most often those that live to the end are those that are not helping the team. Why do you think the wolves do not kill the silent ones? If I'm a wolf and you keep shouting for Unagi's head am I going to take you down or wait to see which of you emerges from the scrap - hopefully using your obsession as the last day lynch? My point is that survival can easily be as much about playing poorly as it is playing well. Giving a point for surviving punishes players like Grund that are more likely to be perceived as dangerous regardless of their role or contributions in any particular game.

[Newcastle]

maybe make a point system for "identifying the wolves".....to reward the more astute players like grund who die early.

Something like this...a post you make that you make where you list who the potential wolves are. Obviously done before those wolves are identified. And say you get more points if there are no wolves revealed, and less points as the wolves are caught.

So say on day 2 I Make my "list" that says

john is a wolf
eric is a wolf

innocent list is:
Joe, Jeb, Jack

Can make an "official" list that you can post 1/game whom your suspects are. This way gives people a chance at potentially nailing em?

The more i had right, the more points its worth. Say i do it prior to any wolves known...i get 3 points. If 1 wolf left, i get 1 point?

[stessier]

maybe make a point system for "identifying the wolves".....to reward the more astute players like grund who die early.

Something like this...a post you make that you make where you list who the potential wolves are. Obviously done before those wolves are identified. And say you get more points if there are no wolves revealed, and less points as the wolves are caught.

So say on day 2 I Make my "list" that says

john is a wolf
eric is a wolf

innocent list is:
Joe, Jeb, Jack

Can make an "official" list that you can post 1/game whom your suspects are. This way gives people a chance at potentially nailing em?

That could become a bookkeeping nightmare.

A different, but perhaps easier, bookkeeping nightmare would be to award points based on the votes at the end of each day. So you get a +1 if it is on a wolf and a -1 if it is on a Villager. But they only count if there is a lynch. We'll have the final vote counts from everyday anyway, so it wouldn't add a lot of work, but it would change the total points quite a bit for the Villagers.

[stessier]

Upon further consideration, I think you should get the point for surviving to the end. Staying alive to help the team is part of the game too.

Staying alive to help the team is good but most often those that live to the end are those that are not helping the team. Why do you think the wolves do not kill the silent ones? If I'm a wolf and you keep shouting for Unagi's head am I going to take you down or wait to see which of you emerges from the scrap - hopefully using your obsession as the last day lynch? My point is that survival can easily be as much about playing poorly as it is playing well. Giving a point for surviving punishes players like Grund that are more likely to be perceived as dangerous regardless of their role or contributions in any particular game.

Ok, you've convinced me.

[stessier]

Something like that or possibly even exactly that. I'm not math or stats guy. I think ladders or an ELO system are cool and look at relative strengths/successes without reading too much into establishing dominance by sheer volume of playing. They also allow you the ability redeem yourself over time or lose stature when getting rusty.

Math for a real ELO is...involved. This is a huge bastardization, but at least factors team strength in a bit.

I was putting together a Google Doc spreadsheet for a true ELO ladder, but realized it didn't make any sense for us. All it does is adjust a rating based on a win or loss. It doesn't take into account any of the points we award/lose for our play.

Perhaps we could use their calculation in place of my simple ratio. So it would be

New Ladder Points = Current Ladder Points + (Game Points) * ABS(Result - ELO)

Result = 1 for a Win, 0 for a Loss

ELO = Q(player) / [Q(player) + Q(opponent)]

Q(X) = 10^[(Current Ladder Points of X) / 400]


But then looking at that, I think my simple ratio looks mighty enticing too.

[triggercut]

when I originally conceived of the scoring, one of the things that made sense to me was that since WW games are essentially asymmetrical, that there should be asymmetrical scoring.

In other words, I think the Wolves have a tougher bit of sledding than do the Villagers. If the Villagers play a merely competent game, the Wolves must be outstanding to beat them. If the wolves play competently, the villagers have a decent shot of winning even if they have a few dramatic misplays. As such, my thoughts are that the scoring to offer a bit less risk to the wolves, so that if they play competently and are defeated, they may still score positive points.