Two possibly interesting WW metagame plays

[Nicholasp27]

there is no one 'optimal' strategy

if we devise one, there will be a counter to it

[Tokyo!!]

If it was optimal, doesn't that mean that it would not matter what the opponents did? So how could there be a counter?

[metsandfinsfan]

Problem is if you say something blatantly wrong in your fake seering- the wolves know you are fake seering.
Most fakeseers give the names of villagers and not wolves .... but if they say "tokyo is a villager" but he is a wolf, then the wolves are in good shape.

[Tokyo!!]

Yes metsfan, absolutely. That is why if you do it, you have to be really sure on who you name as a villager. I only seriously attempted fake seering as a villager once, because everyone was trying to lynch me (yeah right), and I named the person who I felt was the absolutely most villagery person there could be. Thankfully I was right, and I died in the night, and our seer, Our House,(who they were going to kill instead according to wolf chat), was able to luckbox some wolves and get the win.

There are drawbacks, which is why you shouldn't use it unless you're really sure you won't screw over the village hard.

[Nicholasp27]

that's my point

there is no optimal strategy

any strategy u create, there is a counter to it

[traz]

If you suck, you have no business fake-seering

that is all

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
If you suck, you have no business fake-seering

that is all

[/ QUOTE ]

that's really the crux of it

[metsandfinsfan]

I kinda agree with dmb --
when in doubt -- lynch the liar

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
that's my point

there is no optimal strategy

any strategy u create, there is a counter to it

[/ QUOTE ]

Nick,

perhaps there is no game theoretic optimal strategy per se, but surely a massive imbalance in the frequency of certain actions or tendencies towards certain patterns vastly favors one side or another, and decreasing that tendency would help balance things. It's like bluffing (or any metagame dependant play) in poker.

[Nicholasp27]

ww is simply a balance of # of people on a side + information the side has

if u think lying will harm the wolves' info (who is seer) more than it will harm th e villagers' info (who could be wolves), then lying is good


the whole game the villagers are trying to figure out in (who are the wolves) and confusion in general can be counter-productive to that goal

but at the same time, the best way for the villagers to know is to get info from the seer, so the wolves' goal during the game is to kill the seer and avoid being lynched...if u can stop the wolves from killing the seer, then u have harmed their quest