Gamethrowing vampires

[Ansem555]

In the first scenario, it shouldn't even happen because if the Townies know who the Vamp is (which they obviously did) on top of having them outnumbered, there is no choice of "Well I want to win as a Vamp!" because Townies must kill Vampires, it's in the role description. Choosing to become Vamps when you have already won is gamethrowing as a town and will be obvious should a report be filed. I'm not ignoring your statistics on the options that could happen, the point is that you have already won and yet are choosing to throw it away for your whole Faction (yes, it changes and yes you win, but you are giving Vamps a win they didn't earn because reasons), which is what the Devs are against.

As for the second scenario, I'll admit that one is a bit tricky. It's a big mind game for sure and a huge moral dilemma for the Mayor. Either go for the win to eliminate the Vamps (but go down with them and Town wins without him) or vote for his own to "lose" but still become a Vamp. Thing is, either way a Vampire is going to bite you and there's nothing you can do about it so it's up to you to be the swing vote.

In my honest opinion (not fact, opinion, because a Dev, Admin or even a more expert player could answer much better than I can on the second one), I think you should follow your Rolecard to the end come hell or high water. You shouldn't be blackmailed basically into going against it because you're under threat of losing the game for yourself, you have a goal to follow that isn't "Turn Vamp if you're going to lose for yourself." The better team wins, and if Vampires make it public that you are the sacrificial lamb then the Vampires as a faction didn't play well enough to get you into the fold without blackmail and should lose with you with them if that's what it takes.

[James2]

In the first scenario, it shouldn't even happen because if the Townies know who the Vamp is (which they obviously did) on top of having them outnumbered, there is no choice of "Well I want to win as a Vamp!" because Townies must kill Vampires, it's in the role description. Choosing to become Vamps when you have already won is gamethrowing as a town and will be obvious should a report be filed. I'm not ignoring your statistics on the options that could happen, the point is that you have already won and yet are choosing to throw it away for your whole Faction (yes, it changes and yes you win, but you are giving Vamps a win they didn't earn because reasons), which is what the Devs are against.

You ignored test's point. If you (the general you) are one of the townies in that scenario, it's possible the other townie could choose to side with vamps, in which case your own strategic position is that if you try to oppose the vampire, you'll lose.

To extrapolate from this, by the time the other townie whispers to the vamp that they'll help lynch you, it's already too late for you to do anything. The possibility of the other townie doing that (which exists regardless of whether or not they "should") means that it is strategically valid for you to preempt them by whispering to the vampire first.

As for the second scenario, I'll admit that one is a bit tricky. It's a big mind game for sure and a huge moral dilemma for the Mayor. Either go for the win to eliminate the Vamps (but go down with them and Town wins without him) or vote for his own to "lose" but still become a Vamp. Thing is, either way a Vampire is going to bite you and there's nothing you can do about it so it's up to you to be the swing vote.

In my honest opinion (not fact, opinion, because a Dev, Admin or even a more expert player could answer much better than I can on the second one), I think you should follow your Rolecard to the end come hell or high water. You shouldn't be blackmailed basically into going against it because you're under threat of losing the game for yourself, you have a goal to follow that isn't "Turn Vamp if you're going to lose for yourself." The better team wins, and if Vampires make it public that you are the sacrificial lamb then the Vampires as a faction didn't play well enough to get you into the fold without blackmail and should lose with you with them if that's what it takes.

It's absurd to say that someone should go against their win condition to help a team they can't win with (definition of gamethrowing actually).

[testaccount1234]

Thank you James, you've clearly understand what I'm talking about. What Ansem is doing is thinking about playing the short-game when in reality, you should be playing the long game.

You ignored test's point. If you (the general you) are one of the townies in that scenario, it's possible the other townie could choose to side with vamps, in which case your own strategic position is that if you try to oppose the vampire, you'll lose.

To extrapolate from this, by the time the other townie whispers to the vamp that they'll help lynch you, it's already too late for you to do anything. The possibility of the other townie doing that (which exists regardless of whether or not they "should") means that it is strategically valid for you to preempt them by whispering to the vampire first.

Agreed. The best strategy is to side with the Vampire because of you have a better chance of winning than not siding with them. Remember, even though this is a team game you'll have think of playing the long-game. If you see a move that would increase your chances of winning but would also mean making a bunch of people lose, from a strategist's perspective you take it. Also, I'd like to expand on OP's scenario. If you were a Vampire Hunter and the Vampire didn't know it, the best route to take is to lynch the remaining townie and then backstab the Vampire at night. If you whisper to the Vampire first, the Vampire will be more inclined to believe you. Same with Veteran & Vigilante.

This is a game of deception. By lynching the other townie, the Vampire could be signing his or her own death warrant.

It's absurd to say that someone should go against their win condition to help a team they can't win with (definition of gamethrowing actually).

Technically, they're not going against their own current win condition (which is still town's win condition to kill all Vampires) but they're not playing the long-game. Failing to see how certain actions will have an effect on future outcomes will be one of the downfalls of losing. Because they failed to see that they'll finish the game with a Vamp win-con, the Mayor just shot themselves in the foot, not realising that they're not finishing the game with a town win-condition.

It's like when can't lynch the Neutral Killing in a game because that'll mean that Mafia wins. Sure lynching the Neutral Killing is in the win condition but because of that, you're making the Mafia get one step ahead of you.

[James2]

Technically, they're not going against their own current win condition (which is still town's win condition to kill all Vampires) but they're not playing the long-game. Failing to see how certain actions will have an effect on future outcomes will be one of the downfalls of losing. Because they failed to see that they'll finish the game with a Vamp win-con, the Mayor just shot themselves in the foot, not realising that they're not finishing the game with a town win-condition.

It's like when can't lynch the Neutral Killing in a game because that'll mean that Mafia wins. Sure lynching the Neutral Killing is in the win condition but because of that, you're making the Mafia get one step ahead of you.

As I've pointed out earlier in the thread, it's absurd to define "win condition" as anything other than the conditions one wins in. That's what it means in plain English. In that scenario, the mayor wins with vampires. So he is, ironically, going against his win condition if he helps the town.

[shapesifter13]

Win Condition doesn't matter. You need to follow the goal of your role. If you don't, you are gamethrowing.

[Mroz4k]

Testaccount, what you are reffering to in your previous question as a "hypothetical question" is actually called "thief´s paradox" in Microeconomics.

Anyways, thats beside to point. You are actually very wrong in the whole basis of it.

Outcomes:
1. Townie 1 wants to win with Town, Townie 2 wants to win with Town = Vampire gets lynched, town wins.
2. Townie 1 wants to win with Town, Townie 2 wants to win with Vampire = Townie 1 gets lynched, Townie 2 & Vampire wins.
3. Townie 1 wants to win with Vampire, Townie 2 wants to win with Town = Townie 2 gets lynched, Townie 1 & Vampires wins.
4. Townie 1 wants to win with Vampire, Townie 2 wants to win with Vampire = No-one gets lynched, Both townies & Vampire wins.

Here is where you are wrong.

1. This is the option you are supposed to take. This one is not game-throwing. However, lets assume that Game-throwing is not the issue in here.
2. makes sense. Its still game-throwing for the Townie 2, and you can appeal to that during your trial, have them vote innocent and achieve the outcome 1.
3 also makes sense. Same as option 2, and vice-versa.
4. This is where you are wrong. At most, only 1 Townie wins. Not both. Because by the time Vampire chooses one of the targets, the "Nobody was
killed stalemate scenario" is announced. So, unless Vampires hang someone, they loose as well. So, only 1 Town wins, period. And thats why, logically,
you are not supposed to ever take this option. And why the "Vampire" doesnt have 75% win ratio, but only 50%.
(sure, you can go the stubborn way and claim that Town and Vampires make a deal that one of the Vamps will hang the other Vamp, and then wait next 2
days to bite the last Town, which is a possibility... and while we are at it, we can assume that Cows will start raining from the sky and Serial Killer comes
back to life.

The whole suggestions are riddiculous, because the "What if" scenario can be applied to a number of things.

Lets also mention other possible outcomes you didnt.

• Towns decide not to lynch anyone. Vampire decides not to bite anyone. Noone lynches noone, game goes to stalemate, nobody wins.
• Vampire leaves the game. Towns win.
• One of the Towns leave the game. Vampire decides not to bite anyone. Game ends in stalemate.
• One of the Towns leave the game. Vampire bites this person as well. Game ends in a stalemate.
• One of the Towns leave the game. Vampire bites the other person. Vampires win the game.
• One of the Towns was a Retributionist. Retri helps the Vampire lynch the other Town. Then, he ressurects a Jailor. He stays Ret because its not yet time for Vamps to bite another person. They lynch the last Vamp.
• One of the Towns was a Retributionist. Retri helps the Vampire lynch the other Town. Then, he ressurects a Jailor. He becomes a Vampire, but throws the game as a Vampire, lets the Jailor execute both the other Vampire and then him as well.

See my point, finally?

There is hundreds of possible outcomes, not just your 4 mentioned ones. There is literally no end to possible outcomes if you include "game-throwing" as an option.
Which is why its not an option. There is only 1 possible outcome in this. You are supposed to lynch the Vampire if you have the option to do so.

Hypothetical solution:

If there are 6 people left, the game is still technically "mid-game" and there is no certainty in any of it. Especially considering Vampires - because Vampires retain the knowledge of the Townies they once were. So, they could be just faking it, and these Investigators may not actually be Investigators. Therefore, you are not required to lynch anyone.

That is not neccesarily game-throwing. As a Mayor, technically, you are allowed to vote, or not vote.
If you choose not to vote, two things may happen. You are either bitten, and become a Vampire, or not bitten, and retain being Townie. Anyways, regardless what you are, you would at this point maintain the Town game-style. You lynch one of the known Vampires. If you are a Vampire, you avoid revealing that you lost your voting power. And, even if they reveal you as a Vampire and hang at this point, it doesnt matter, because Vampires have won.
Anyways, Day ends, and there is 5 people left - 2 Vampires, 3 Town. Next night (Vampires cannot bite) you hang the next Vampire.
Another day ends, 1 Vampire left, 3 Town.
Now, regardless of what happens now, you win. If the Vampires didnt initially bite you, its 2 Vampires vs 2 Town, with you being the Mayor. All you need to know is hang two correct targets.
And, even if you misslynch and hang only one Vampire, and one Town, the Vampires will have to bite you to turn you, so you would either win as a Town, or as a Vampire.
If Vampires did bite you, its 2 Town vs 2 Vampires. Noone votes for a day, because its stalemate. On the other day, you hang your Vampire partner, or he hangs you - doesnt matter. This way, you avoid the game ending in a stalemate.
Its 1 vampire, 2 Town, on a night when Vampires bite. Vampire bites one of the Town, its 2 Vampires 1 Town scenario.

There you go. Even over the "threat", you can still 100% win. And its not that you are throwing the game, because regardless of the outcome in this, you are initially following your goal. Your ideal outcome of this is to win as a Town. That is, if Vampires dont bite you, regardless of you initially voting, or not. If they did not, you are capable of winning the game as a Town, so you will do that... and you fullfilled your duty as a Town.

... and this is, ladies and gentlemen, what you call a strategy.

However...

The only thing that stays relevant in this scenario: Game-throwing is against rules. In this situation, there is only one correct way of solving this. That is to hang the Vampire. If you act any other way, you are game-throwing, and whether you win or not it does not matter because you are getting yourself banned in the proccess.

Lets not forget that winning the game is not the most important thing. First, you follow the rules, winning the game is secondary!!!