I'm always cool with getting a few more votes.
Anyway, long day, scattered thoughts, many of which has already been commented upon, so I'll say my 'substantive' piece before taking a nap and hoping to wake up at a proper time.
Re the three-party dynamic's effect on gifted reveals:With competing wolf parties, they will be unsure as to how to deal with a real gifted reveal. For example, both parties might end up wasting their kill on a single target (or less likely, end up not killing the gifted because they expected the other Pack to do so.)
Also, there is little fear of a counterreveal or a false reveal: the revealing Wolf risks giving their Pack a numbers disadvantage against the enemy Pack. And they won't have a way of timing a fake reveal when they gain a numbers advantage over their rivals, because even they won't know if a Wolf not of their Pack has already been killed. (Of course, this information gap could change with the Dead thread activities...)
Re lynch/NIGHT kill analysis:For obvious reasons, voting analyses (my weapon of choice--or rather, the weapon I use because I have no choice) are quite useless, at least in the opening fog-of-war stage of the game.
So what about NIGHT kill analyses? According my game-theorising*, the Baddies would prioritise killing the Seer, a Wolf from the other Pack, the Ranger, the Lovers, and the Hunter, in that order. Now what do the first two targets have in common? They both possess an above-average knowledge of the alignment of the people in the Village. So posting analysis of the dead could yield information as to why they had been targetted. (Of course, now that I've said it, the Wolves would now probably go after the quiet ones. Hehe. But on a less flippant note, I do realise that making such an analysis public could influence future Wolvish behaviour.)
My scattered thoughts are petering out. I'll be back when my brain cells stop screaming at me.
_____
*As someone who has watched
No Game No Life twice (even being an editor for the first two volumes of the novel's English translation), and as someone who has read the Wikipedia article on Nash equilibrium, I believe I am qualified to game-theorise.