NO INFORMATION GAME THREAD

[tabako]

I like the new title, traz.

[shortline99]

[ QUOTE ]
good game. loller at tabako surviving.

This is why vote history means nothing :P

[/ QUOTE ]
qft, and sigh

but somehow it's the only way to convince anyone of anything

[clowntable]

I do not agree. I tend to use vote history to decide who to reread. Also vote history is usually quite helpfull in the midgame.
But whatever ppl play differently that's what makes it fun [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[xorbie]

people saying vote history means nothing are so wrong. so, so wrong.

[shortline99]

[ QUOTE ]
people saying vote history means nothing are so wrong. so, so wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
i rechallenge you to HU for roles

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
people saying vote history means nothing are so wrong. so, so wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't mean "nothing" but it certainly means less than the emphasis a lot of people put on it.

[dmk]

eh???

vote history means a lot. the problem is that most people don't understand what the history means due to incomplete information.

i.e. you have 2 wagons on D1, but only know 1 of their roles. you can't just assume the other's role is X or Y

[Jeremy517]

So just theorizing here, and I'm probably way off, but...

In a normal WW game, when it gets down to five and a villager gets lynched, if there are no confirmed villagers that need to be killed off, might it sometimes be better for the wolf to not night kill someone, thus making it a four-person end game rather than a three-person end game?

[dmk]

jeremy,

doubtful. also, most games require a night kill. if you don't send one, it'll be randed

[traz]

Of course vote history means SOMETHING. But imo, most of the ways its used and interpreted is just wrong.