Kikigiri wrote:Uhmmm wrote:Pirate is the most fun new role added in the game. It gives the pirate a fun goal and adds variety to the game. Plus it causes tense moments if you're on the other end of the plundering. It's like a fun mini game that adds variety to the game. Pirate is a neutral role and his only goal is to kill two people. He can win with everyone, which makes it even more fun.
Look at him from the perspective of everyone
else in the game, though.
1. The Pirate's ability to kill is entirely based on luck. This means that you cannot make strategies based on his actions. I can try and predict where an SK, Mafioso, GF, or Werewolf will attack; I can guess what they'll do (based on their goals and overarching strategy) and use this to plan ahead myself. They might get RBed or hit an immune, but these are all things that result from intersecting strategies and actions - stuff you can plan around. I know that the WW will attack every other night (unless they decide to stay home and nobody decides to visit them), and all of these are things I can strategize around. If something happens with one of those roles, it's a result of people's intersecting choices, all of which can at least notionally be predicted based on their goals.
The Pirate's killing relies on a die roll - a 1/3 chance, with no tactics to it at all - which makes it impossible to plan around whether he'll kill or not; and since he has no long-term goal beyond getting two kills, his targets are always utterly random from the perspective of everyone else. That makes the game less strategic, causes who wins to become more random, and therefore makes the game as a whole less balanced. (Again, as I keep saying - the balance that matters is
strategic balance, not win-rates. Are a wide variety of strategies viable? Do games play out in interesting ways? The Pirate hurts this and makes the game as a whole less fun, even if you enjoy screwing around while playing him.)
2. The pirate pierces immunity and can, based on a random die-roll, kill N1, before anyone has a real chance to influence anything. There's a few roles that pierce immunity, yes, but they tend to have more strategically-significant limitations - things that make it much less likely that you'll die to them so fast (and if you do, it's often because you made a tactical mistake.) The Pirate doesn't do any of that. He can just randomly kill a NK N1 and there's absolutely nothing whatsoever you can do to influence your chance of this happening to you in either direction. Again, this is not balanced. This is not fun, not for anyone but the pirate (who, when it happens, gets some cheap lols at lucking out and making the game awful for everyone else.) This is terrible design.
3. Because the Pirate has no goals beyond killing two people, their kills are always 100% unpredictable. This, again, makes the game less strategic. As a BG or Lookout, I can predict (to an extent) where the NK or Maf or Coven will hit, because I know their goals. The Pirate has no goals that matter from a tactical standpoint, just (in effect) random die-rolls; this ruins the balance that makes several other roles work and, again, generally just makes the game more random at the expense of tactical depth.
4. The pirate can win (sometimes very fast) and then stick around as a kingmaker, deciding the game entirely based on his arbitrary whims. This isn't fun for anyone else involved. Kingmakers are already a thing, of course, but the Pirate is the worst by far (since they're a kingmaker who can kill). You mentioned this as a
positive - obviously it's fun for the Pirate to just make a mockery of the game by arbitrarily doing whatever the hell he wants after winning, but it's unfun for everyone else, because it means their choices and planning and strategy don't matter at all in the face of the Pirate's random die rolls.
(I keep saying 'die rolls' when he actually plays rock-paper-scissors to emphasize the fact that there is
no strategy to that at all. If it just rolled 1d3 when you attacked, the effect would be the same.)
These are all the same problems I've pointed out with people's ability to evaluate changes before. People only evaluate "balance" from the perspective of "do I have a good win rate as this role? Do I have fun as this role?" That is not the most important part of a role; there is 1 of you and 14 other players. Roles have to be fun, sure, but the most important thing is the impact a role has on the
meta - the way it changes how people play, the strategies it rewards or punishes and how this influences the overarching way people play the game. The Pirate has a terrible effect on that by making the game as a whole more random for everyone involved, generally decreasing the value of strategy, increasing the chance that players will win based on random die-rolls or his whims rather than their own actions, and therefore making the game less balanced.
In a balanced game, the best player (or team) will win. When a role can easily result in someone winning arbitrarily, they're unbalanced. Every role has some risk of that (the game involves a lot of hidden information, and sometimes you do have to just guess), but the Pirate is the absolute worst role in this respect that the game has ever had, and unlike other such roles it has no redeeming features. Note that my objection here isn't that the
Pirate wins at random - I find that a bit silly, but I don't really care about it. My problem is that the Pirate can very very easily cause
other people to win or lose at random - ie. a Pirate who wins every die roll will have a dramatically different impact on the game than one who loses every die roll; and a pirate who always tries to target Town will have dramatically different impact than one that always tries to target the Mafia; and there is absolutely no difference between those than dumb luck in one case and the pirate's whims in the other.
(ie. yes, a Jester sometimes picks arbitrarily, but you have to guilty them to be vulnerable - so they add strategy, overall. And yes, a SK or WW could decide to always target the Town or Mafia, but their
ultimate goal is to win by beating both, which gives them more of a direction than random whimsy and lets people predict or play around their actions. The pirate doesn't have any of this. Tactically, the Pirate adds nothing to anyone except the pirate - nothing whatsoever - and this results in a game that is governed more by dumb luck.)
That's why my proposed changes to the Pirate are basically:
1. Change his goal to a Witchgoal. He could still sometimes be a kingmaker, and would still be sometimes free to pick a side, but now has a more concrete set of goals that let other people plan around him to an extent, adding strategic depth instead of taking it away.
2. Change the rock-paper-scissors game so each decision has strategic significance (ie. he gains some distinct benefit based on what card he chooses if he wins, so his target can try and predict what he wants and respond accordingly.)
He'd still be
sometimes random and arbitrary (just like a Jester or a Transporter is sometimes random and arbitrary), but with those changes he'd be something other players can 'use', strategically, and therefore a role that adds stuff to the game's strategic depth rather than just taking away - he'd be more like a Jester, basically. A wild card, yes, but a wild card people can plan around (and whom they're a bit more at fault if they lose to.)
This would keep a lot of what people like about the Pirate (he'd still have a huge amount of freedom and would still play the minigame) while adding enough structure to let people plan around him.