Just understand going in that the game is 100% guessing, bandwagoning and badgering people where most of the time you're dead wrong, and you'll be okay.
You can go look through the history of the games where the results are posted, and the people who will claim, at length, how good they are at TWG and how experienced they are at TWG, frequently expressing that they are SURE that the wolves are X and Y, only to have the wolves be A and B instead.
Well anyways, I think that's the charm of the games, doho. Just because anyone can be very wrong and then have a "WHAT THE HECK!?!?" moment when they learn the truth.
Originally posted by JohnRedWolf87
Charu the red-nosed Snivy
Had a very shiny nose
And if you ever saw it
You could even say it glows
All of the other Snivies
Used to laugh and call him names
They never let poor Charu
Join in any Snivy games
(Click the arrow to see the rest)
Originally posted by Vendetta21
All in all I would say that Charu not only won this game, his play made me reconsider how I play it.
That's not the meaning of the game. It's very different when you play it with people who know what they are doing. That's also why I forsake the games on this website.
far from it. no one can be completely accurate, but success rates vary a lot based on how well each team plays.
Originally posted by MracY
That's not the meaning of the game. It's very different when you play it with people who know what they are doing. That's also why I forsake the games on this website.
not sure where you got your impression of the game on this site. gotta be honest: I would wager that there are at least a few players here who would challenge or - gasp! - outplay you.
When people who've played dozens if not hundreds of games, who are regularly hailed as the best of the players on the site express their surety that they have figured out who the wolves are and are just 100% wrong, that pretty clearly suggests that skill is not actually a thing you can develop over time at this game.
anyone can be 100% wrong at a given time. however, the best (human) players will be 100% wrong far less often than some other players. I can't scientifically prove this or anything, but win rates and certain examples of logic trumping uncertainty will support my point.
poker is similar in a number of ways. performance in a single instance will rely on luck (cards dealt) and guessing (what hands other players have and how they will respond to bets/actions). however, over time, the most skilled players will "guess" more accurately than the least skilled players. there's a pro tour for a reason.
anyone can be 100% wrong at a given time. however, the best (human) players will be 100% wrong far less often than some other players. I can't scientifically prove this or anything, but win rates and certain examples of logic trumping uncertainty will support my point.
poker is similar in a number of ways. performance in a single instance will rely on luck (cards dealt) and guessing (what hands other players have and how they will respond to bets/actions). however, over time, the most skilled players will "guess" more accurately than the least skilled players. there's a pro tour for a reason.
This is actually quite testable if we have all FFR's games still, if someone would care to waste hours of their time doing so.
Comment