Tombstone Warz Post Game Thread

[Willie Kool]

Willie - I quickly felt you were blue on Day 1 after initially thinking I might have something. I stuck with you, however, because I thought it would help ensure that I would not be killed that night (let someone leading the charge against a green live). My position was that if you were blue I would save MWB because I figured they'd let me live. If you were red I was going to save myself.

I love to play, but I'll never hesitate to sacrifice myself when I'm blue.
If I would have been around on day 2, Hammer would have seen me go all pitbull on him again.

[MWB]

Not once did we attempt to kill a blue. Every kill we had was on a green

I killed enough blues to pick up the slack for you.

[redwill]

I killed enough blues to pick up the slack for you.

Haha. Yeah, we were pathetic. Blind as bats.

[newarenanow]

I also think its tough to criticize games when there is a perfect storm for one side or the other. It always appears like one side is overpowered if that sort of perfect storm hits. When you're designing a game with some different wrinkles its very difficult to run every iteration of how things may unfold and you sometimes run into an overpowering sequence of events. If a few things go a little differently, though, it could be a perfectly even game. I really liked the design, SDD.

I agree mostly, but this setup gave the greens a huge advantage, especially with only 15 players, no matter how you played the game. We tried to kill a green every single night, and mainly was unable to because no matter who we tried to kill, (except for the angel which was a crap shoot), it wasn't going to work the first time. And the way the writeups were, it clearly stated who we tried, so it was only simple logic to look at that person to get the communication between the greens.

The concept of the game was awesome. Just WAY too must advantage for the greens.

SDD still did a great job though!

[Kraftster]

I also think its tough to criticize games when there is a perfect storm for one side or the other. It always appears like one side is overpowered if that sort of perfect storm hits. When you're designing a game with some different wrinkles its very difficult to run every iteration of how things may unfold and you sometimes run into an overpowering sequence of events. If a few things go a little differently, though, it could be a perfectly even game. I really liked the design, SDD.

I agree mostly, but this setup gave the greens a huge advantage, especially with only 15 players, no matter how you played the game. We tried to kill a green every single night, and mainly was unable to because no matter who we tried to kill, (except for the angel which was a crap shoot), it wasn't going to work the first time. And the way the writeups were, it clearly stated who we tried, so it was only simple logic to look at that person to get the communication between the greens.

The concept of the game was awesome. Just WAY too must advantage for the greens.

SDD still did a great job though!

That's a good point on the writeups. I always think its so funny how you think you have all the hard work behind you when the game is designed and then you really have to put a lot of thought into the write ups and how much/how little to reveal.

[newarenanow]

That's a good point on the writeups. I always think its so funny how you think you have all the hard work behind you when the game is designed and then you really have to put a lot of thought into the write ups and how much/how little to reveal.

This. I remember I modded a game or two, and when you type up the writeups, you try to make them entertaining. But I found myself giving too much information. So I took the rule that I wouldn't mention any names unless they were killed and it didn't matter anymore. And if the reds tried to kill a protected player, just simply state that nothing happened. It just made my life as a mod easier.

[columbia]

That's a good point on the writeups. I always think its so funny how you think you have all the hard work behind you when the game is designed and then you really have to put a lot of thought into the write ups and how much/how little to reveal.

This. I remember I modded a game or two, and when you type up the writeups, you try to make them entertaining. But I found myself giving too much information. So I took the rule that I wouldn't mention any names unless they were killed and it didn't matter anymore. And if the reds tried to kill a protected player, just simply state that nothing happened. It just made my life as a mod easier.

Revealing a failed hit on a player can/does change the complexion of the game for the blues, in terms of what they (think) they know.

[mac5155]

That's a good point on the writeups. I always think its so funny how you think you have all the hard work behind you when the game is designed and then you really have to put a lot of thought into the write ups and how much/how little to reveal.

This. I remember I modded a game or two, and when you type up the writeups, you try to make them entertaining. But I found myself giving too much information. So I took the rule that I wouldn't mention any names unless they were killed and it didn't matter anymore. And if the reds tried to kill a protected player, just simply state that nothing happened. It just made my life as a mod easier.

Revealing a failed hit on a player can/does change the complexion of the game for the blues, in terms of what they (think) they know.

At one point during the last game I knew Rylan could be killed and not die the first time (I had a save). I contemplated to myself sending in the kill for him and then saving him

[relantel]

To be fair, with both sides having angels, and night kills, the fact that a player was saved would have said nothing about an alignment.

[newarenanow]

To be fair, with both sides having angels, and night kills, the fact that a player was saved would have said nothing about an alignment.

He wasn't even saved. We couldn't kill any of you on the first try. (Except for Kraster, who probably would have protected himself every other night).

And looking at who you viewed on night two, him being immune every odd night, and us happening ot kill him on Night 1 lead you to look at him, which then allowed you to communicate openly.

[TheHammer24]

The game would have played out a lot differently had we not shot MWB on night 1.

[newarenanow]

The game would have played out a lot differently had we not shot MWB on night 1.

It could have, but only for so long. With only 15 villagers, eventually we would have figured out/lucked out on finding a green. And with them being immune to the first attempted kill/immune every odd night, they would have eventually found each other.

The only way this doesn't happen is if we were lucky enough to kill MWB on and even night like on Night 2. We had less than a 10% chance of that happening.

[TheHammer24]

The game would have played out a lot differently had we not shot MWB on night 1.

It could have, but only for so long. With only 15 villagers, eventually we would have figured out/lucked out on finding a green. And with them being immune to the first attempted kill/immune every odd night, they would have eventually found each other.

The only way this doesn't happen is if we were lucky enough to kill MWB on and even night like on Night 2. We had less than a 10% chance of that happening.

The Reds could have won by killing MWB on Night 2, and doing so before we killed Kraftster so that there wasn't a recruit. FWIW, I considered killing Rel instead of recruiting Mac, which would have been advantageous because Rel didn't protect himself that night.

[newarenanow]

The game would have played out a lot differently had we not shot MWB on night 1.

It could have, but only for so long. With only 15 villagers, eventually we would have figured out/lucked out on finding a green. And with them being immune to the first attempted kill/immune every odd night, they would have eventually found each other.

The only way this doesn't happen is if we were lucky enough to kill MWB on and even night like on Night 2. We had less than a 10% chance of that happening.

The Reds could have won by killing MWB on Night 2, and doing so before we killed Kraftster so that there wasn't a recruit. FWIW, I considered killing Rel instead of recruiting Mac, which would have been advantageous because Rel didn't protect himself that night.

rel didn't need to protect himself. He was immune to the first kill no matter what.

[TheHammer24]

[MWB]

The game would have played out a lot differently had we not shot MWB on night 1.

Definitely. That led to me being trusted, rel seeing me, us being able to communicate, which led to being able to recruit a known blue. That was the whole key. We had everything break the right way.

[Kraftster]

The other thing I will note. When you are doing heavily theme based games, there's a feeling that you want the key characters to survive so the game plays out along a particular path. Happened to me in True Blood and less so in Matrix.

In games like that, though, its almost more of a role playing experience than it is about red vs. green.

[newarenanow]

The other thing I will note. When you are doing heavily theme based games, there's a feeling that you want the key characters to survive so the game plays out along a particular path. Happened to me in True Blood and less so in Matrix.

In games like that, though, its almost more of a role playing experience than it is about red vs. green.

Yeah. I like twists being added, but I don't like the RPs being made too powerful.

The whole premise of this game is the "uninformed masses" (green/blue) vs "the informed minority" (red), and having those masses try to figure out over time who the reds are, while the reds try to remain hidden and diminish the village.

The village have a few advantages to help (ie. protects, kills, and seer).

This past game, with only 15 people, the game was only going to last 5-7 days depending on how things played out. Chances of a green being voted out is very slim as they reveal themselves, that that leaves mainly the night phases to get the greens out. Even playing it almost perfect in that we attempted to kill a green each night, it would have taken us a minimum of 6 nights to kill all of the greens, including the recruit. By that time, with their sees and kills, some of that remaining village would have been cleared.

I'm not trying to sound like I'm complaining because I was on the losing end, SDD did a great job. Just trying to put some thoughts out there for future games so there are not as many lopsided advantages for one side or the other. I know there will be some instances where the perfect storm plays out and it's just dumb luck. But I think this one could have been avoided and still been a great game.

[TheHammer24]

How often do the reds win? It's 3/3 Village in games that I have played.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

The game would have played out a lot differently had we not shot MWB on night 1.

It could have, but only for so long. With only 15 villagers, eventually we would have figured out/lucked out on finding a green. And with them being immune to the first attempted kill/immune every odd night, they would have eventually found each other.

The only way this doesn't happen is if we were lucky enough to kill MWB on and even night like on Night 2. We had less than a 10% chance of that happening.

The Reds could have won by killing MWB on Night 2, and doing so before we killed Kraftster so that there wasn't a recruit. FWIW, I considered killing Rel instead of recruiting Mac, which would have been advantageous because Rel didn't protect himself that night.

rel didn't need to protect himself. He was immune to the first kill no matter what.

He did lose he ability to see after that attempt though, and I pretty much gave away that he was a role player (Virgil Earp) in the writeup.

[mac5155]

How often do the reds win? It's 3/3 Village in games that I have played.

usually 60/40 village.

[columbia]

How often do the reds win? It's 3/3 Village in games that I have played.

Also consider the possibility of independents...I think it was Gaucho that won the first Star Trek game as a Romulan Sleeper Agent.

[Rylan]

How often do the reds win? It's 3/3 Village in games that I have played.

Also consider the possibility of independents...I think it was Gaucho that won the first Star Trek game as a Romulan Sleeper Agent.

Gaucho killed the wrong person which made him lose.

Overall I think the game had a lot of good points that were awesome. Unfortunately too few people made the game a little unbalanced.

[Kraftster]

How often do the reds win? It's 3/3 Village in games that I have played.

usually 60/40 village.

Whaa? You think?? I'd say 80/20.

[relantel]

How often do the reds win? It's 3/3 Village in games that I have played.

usually 60/40 village.

Whaa? You think?? I'd say 80/20.

60/40 sounds closer, judging from JI:1 onward.