Please remove the Survivor role.

[Brilliand]

Depending on which way the meta goes, either evils can lie and say they're Survivor, or Survivors need to lie and say they're something else. Either way is fine.

Not really though

When scum claim Survivor, Survivor claims get lynched

Thus Survivors claim non-Survivor roles

Yes, that's what I said. Either scum can safely claim Survivor, or "Survivors need to lie and say they're something else".

[orangeandblack5]

Not that's not an either or because A inevitably leads to B

So it's not A or B

It's just B

[Brilliand]

Not that's not an either or because A inevitably leads to B

So it's not A or B

It's just B

Not necessarily. There will always be some roles that are scum-claimable (mostly Town roles). It's important for game balance that there be enough potential claims for scum that Town can't afford to just lynch every claim that scum might potentially make.

My either-or is "Either Survivor is a Town-like role, that scum might claim because Town doesn't want to lynch the real thing, or Survivor is a Scum-like role, that scum won't claim because Town will promptly lynch you if you do." Every role that can't swiftly confirm itself will be in one of those two categories.

[James2]

Hello players of Town of Salem,

Hereby i petition that the Survivor role must be removed out of the game for multiple reasons.

1: Players just don't trust Survivor claims anymore, even if they asked for Invest and/or Trackers.
2: It's a very boring role with no purpose and in most games other players will lynch you if you even vote once during a game.
3: As soon as a Medusa stones someone or Pestilence shows up people always point towards the Survivor claims.

I know that removing the Survivor role from the game has implications for the Guardian Angel role and a solution for that might not be easy to find.

With friendly greetings,

A very salty and way too many times lynched for no reason Survivor player
BorgOverlord001

Lynching Survivors is the correct strategy for town. Being upset about losing is not a valid reason for removing a role from the game (though, incidentally, Survivor has the second highest winrate in the game last I checked, which was admittedly some time ago).

Exactly, when the optimal strategy for town is to lynch that claim, it hurts the role, because you are instantly suspicious. We need a way to confirm survs because right now they're viewed by the meta as evil role's scapegoat and nothing more

Killing survivors is generally the correct strategy even when their role is known for certain.

In any case, being lynched on mistaken pretenses is part of the game and not a valid reason for getting to auto-confirm yourself.

[PikamanUltra]

In any case, being lynched on mistaken pretenses is part of the game and not a valid reason for getting to auto-confirm yourself. I don't know how to single out tiny parts of quotes lol

It is a part of the game, but there has to be a balance, it happens to survs too often compared to everybody else, we should probably do something about that.
Also, I disagree that survs should claim something different, this makes them even more sus if found out, and imo the best strat for surv is to side with town, so lying to them and being caught makes you look like instant scum and gets you lynched
#LETSURVSSUPPORTINGTOWNCLAIMSURVS

[orangeandblack5]

But then scum claim survivor and you have to start lynching them anyways and then we're back at square one

[PikamanUltra]

Unless you give surv a way to confirm itself like I suggested and then we're not

[Brilliand]

Unless you give surv a way to confirm itself like I suggested and then we're not

Survs getting to self-confirm would be bad; it would take all the tension out of the role.

Certain Town Investigative roles can confirm the Survivor, though, so it isn't an entirely opaque scumclaim.

But then scum claim survivor and you have to start lynching them anyways and then we're back at square one

There's also scumreading; since survs would be perfectly happy with Town winning, they're liable to be a bit more helpful than the evils are.

[Superalex11]

I think this is a fairly reasonably analysis of survivor's play: https://i.gyazo.com/4c8f14054106a562bf0 ... 87e3fe.png
It's as minimal a form as I could make it, so certain redundancies are excluded (such as certain suspicions being grouped, or certain tautologies).

As seen, evils fake claiming survivor actually isn't nearly as impactful as one may first think. Really the only thing it changes is the survivor's believability in cases where town has no other leads. But as far as I understand, town is better off at minimum getting claims from everyone else before hanging a survivor, even in contexts where evils do often fake claim survivor.

I believe the fundamental problem with survivor is not that it's unbalanced, or that it's likely to be hanged, or too dependent on meta-gaming or anything of that sort. And I believe the latter portion of this thread addressing the survivor in this manner is misguided.
Rather, I believe the fundamental problem with survivor is that it's boring, and only has costs to its play. In any good game, there will be good moments (e.g. making a good play, winning), neutral moments (e.g. grinding, normalcy), and bad moments (e.g. making a mistake, losing). The way these games remain good/fun is by balancing these moments such that the overall net benefit is positive - i.e. the total value from good moments outweighs that from bad moments, even if that means the quantity of bad moments is higher. The problem with survivor is that it's overwhelmingly neutral and bad moments, with only a few minor good moments thrown in.

[James2]

It is a part of the game, but there has to be a balance, it happens to survs too often compared to everybody else, we should probably do something about that.

There is a balance. You just don't like it because you don't like having to put effort in as a Survivor.

Also, I disagree that survs should claim something different, this makes them even more sus if found out, and imo the best strat for surv is to side with town, so lying to them and being caught makes you look like instant scum and gets you lynched
#LETSURVSSUPPORTINGTOWNCLAIMSURVS

Survivors should whatever is most likely to lead to their wincon being fulfilled, given current meta. That is separate from what the town ought to do to increase its own chance of winning.

[chitownmvp01]

Hot take

Rethinking strategy doesn't make the role suddenly have an actual purpose to the game

It's pretty awful overall and at best it's just a kingmaker

Survivor is like never used anymore in Forum Mafia for this exact reason. Haven't played TOS in forever, but I was never a fan of the role.

[PikamanUltra]

It is a part of the game, but there has to be a balance, it happens to survs too often compared to everybody else, we should probably do something about that.

There is a balance. You just don't like it because you don't like having to put effort in as a Survivor.

This implies you believe i'm whining that I have to actually try to win. You say that I'm upset I have to put effort in but I do work hard on every role, my surv record may not be amazing but that's not why I'm campaigning for this buff. Not everyone who believes a role is underpowered is just lazy or unwilling to put effort in, and your comment fails to display that.

[orangeandblack5]

You're right

Only people who believe the solution to underpowered roles are mechanics that confirm them as that role are lazy and unwilling to put effort in

jk jk just ignore James2

[PikamanUltra]

You're right

Only people who believe the solution to underpowered roles are mechanics that confirm them as that role are lazy and unwilling to put effort in

jk jk just ignore James2

Jeez that small print almost got me until I tried quoting it.

[James2]

It is a part of the game, but there has to be a balance, it happens to survs too often compared to everybody else, we should probably do something about that.

There is a balance. You just don't like it because you don't like having to put effort in as a Survivor.

This implies you believe i'm whining that I have to actually try to win. You say that I'm upset I have to put effort in but I do work hard on every role, my surv record may not be amazing but that's not why I'm campaigning for this buff. Not everyone who believes a role is underpowered is just lazy or unwilling to put effort in, and your comment fails to display that.

Survivor is not underpowered. It has the second highest win rate in the game.

[Superalex11]

Survivor is not underpowered. It has the second highest win rate in the game.

1) Winrate does not imply power. A role can be likely to win yet still possess little influencing ability (i.e. power). Survivor inarguably does not possess as much inherent influencing ability as many other rules, hence it is relatively underpowered.
2) What's your source? As far as I recall the only official statistics on something like winrate by role is years-old and not exactly rigorous.

[James2]

Survivor is not underpowered. It has the second highest win rate in the game.

1) Winrate does not imply power. A role can be likely to win yet still possess little influencing ability (i.e. power). Survivor inarguably does not possess as much inherent influencing ability as many other rules, hence it is relatively underpowered.

If this is your definition of "power", it's not clear what relevance it has. "Power" in this sense is more a factor of the individual player than their role.

2) What's your source? As far as I recall the only official statistics on something like winrate by role is years-old and not exactly rigorous.

SarahSaurus's statistics are several years old, and were before the Ranked role lists was revised, but the underlying mechanics of Survivor have not changed (if anything, Survivor may now be more likely to win than town).

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48271&p=1866645#p1866645

I believe Lokiben also collected statistics with basically the same results, though I haven't been able to find them.

[Brilliand]

If this is your definition of "power", it's not clear what relevance it has. "Power" in this sense is more a factor of the individual player than their role.

No, it... really isn't. Roles can get large amounts of influencing ability from their role power.

The Jailor is a good example of a role that has a huge effect on the game, whether or not the player playing it is any good.

Or, as an example of a role whose power doesn't help its win chances, consider the Jester. A Jester without its revenge kill would have less power, but a much higher winrate; a Jester with a greatly buffed revenge kill (say, the ability to kill every other player in the game at once) would have far more power, but a much lower winrate.

[Superalex11]

If this is your definition of "power", it's not clear what relevance it has. "Power" in this sense is more a factor of the individual player than their role.

I clarified that power is roughly equivalent to "influencing ability". If you're not sure what relevance "influencing ability" has in this discussion then I don't know how to help you. Also, see Brilliand's response to the second claim in this quote, as I wholly agree with it.

SarahSaurus's statistics are several years old, and were before the Ranked role lists was revised, but the underlying mechanics of Survivor have not changed (if anything, Survivor may now be more likely to win than town).

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48271&p=1866645#p1866645

I believe Lokiben also collected statistics with basically the same results, though I haven't been able to find them.

So yeah... statistics being 3.5 years old on a ~6 year old game is already a tell-tale sign of their quality. They're also only covering 155 games, allowing for plenty of variance-bias, and they're also only for ranked games. While it's true that this discussion is technically about survivor as a role, and not survivor as specifically and only existing in AA/CAA, it would be disingenuous at best to act like information about a role in one gamemode accurately reflects that role in a completely different gamemode.

[James2]

If this is your definition of "power", it's not clear what relevance it has. "Power" in this sense is more a factor of the individual player than their role.

No, it... really isn't. Roles can get large amounts of influencing ability from their role power.

The Jailor is a good example of a role that has a huge effect on the game, whether or not the player playing it is any good.

Or, as an example of a role whose power doesn't help its win chances, consider the Jester. A Jester without its revenge kill would have less power, but a much higher winrate; a Jester with a greatly buffed revenge kill (say, the ability to kill every other player in the game at once) would have far more power, but a much lower winrate.

If this is your definition of "power", it's not clear what relevance it has. "Power" in this sense is more a factor of the individual player than their role.

I clarified that power is roughly equivalent to "influencing ability". If you're not sure what relevance "influencing ability" has in this discussion then I don't know how to help you. Also, see Brilliand's response to the second claim in this quote, as I wholly agree with it.

Yes, the Jailor and Mayor can exert considerable influence using brute force alone. Everyone else is dependent on their charisma and will power.

In any case this is irrelevant. Mafia is balanced around win conditions, not its ability to satiate the players' libido dominandi.

SarahSaurus's statistics are several years old, and were before the Ranked role lists was revised, but the underlying mechanics of Survivor have not changed (if anything, Survivor may now be more likely to win than town).

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48271&p=1866645#p1866645

I believe Lokiben also collected statistics with basically the same results, though I haven't been able to find them.

So yeah... statistics being 3.5 years old on a ~6 year old game is already a tell-tale sign of their quality. They're also only covering 155 games, allowing for plenty of variance-bias, and they're also only for ranked games. While it's true that this discussion is technically about survivor as a role, and not survivor as specifically and only existing in AA/CAA, it would be disingenuous at best to act like information about a role in one gamemode accurately reflects that role in a completely different gamemode.

Your point would be valid if the results did not cohere with what we would expect. Survivor is by nature a very easy role to win as.

[Superalex11]

Yes, the Jailor and Mayor can exert considerable influence using brute force alone. Everyone else is dependent on their charisma and will power.

No. Jailor and mayor are not somehow distinctly the only powerful roles on account of your believing them to be. Arguing that a role's power is dependent on the player's charisma and willpower is stupid because it can apply to every role. Obviously we're talking within the context of an expected level of charisma and willpower being used by a player with the role in question.

For example, when we say a jailor has power it's because we can reasonably assume that at some point he'll use his execution - or at least threaten to. We can also say a doctor has power because we can reasonably assume that he'll actually be using his heals on targets he believes should be healed. Obviously the use of a role's abilities are not inherent to a player having that role in a game, but it would be stupid to argue anything without the assumption that the player would make use of those abilities in some expected fashion.

I'm beginning to believe you're not taking this discussion seriously.

In any case this is irrelevant. Mafia is balanced around win conditions, not its ability to satiate the players' libido dominandi.

Again, are you being serious here? Do you really not understand what I/we mean when we say "power"? Here, I'll give some more examples:

- The ret's power comes from its resurrection; by bringing someone back from the dead, the ret gains voting influence (by becoming confirmed), and indirectly influences the game through the person they resurrected (as that person can now influence the game much more strongly than they could while dead)
- The lookout's power comes from its ability to see visits; by seeing visits to a target, the lookout threatens evils to stay away from that target (or rather, several possible targets), gaining influence around that target (e.g. ensuring their survival) and possibly indirectly the game through that target (as that person will be more likely to continue to be able to influence the game)
- The sk's power comes from its ability to kill at night while being protected from basic attacks; by choosing who gets to live and die (to an extent), the sk gains influence over the game by removing the influence of others; the sk's defense also acts as an influencer, as it increases the likelihood of his survival at night, thus increasing the likelihood that he will be able to continue influencing the game maximally (i.e. while alive, as opposed to dead)
- The amne's power comes from its ability to remember as a role; after remembering, the amne is not only able to gain voting influence (by confirming itself as desired), but it takes on the power of whatever role remembered as, gaining influencing ability in whatever sense that may be; but even before remembering, the threat of remembering as a certain role is often influencing enough to certain roles to make note of an amne's presence, and potentially influencing decisions (e.g. an evil killing the amne before it can become a TP)

Recalling the reason this sub-discussion even started, you claimed that survivor is not underpowered because of its high winrate. I am arguing that winrate, while not independent of power, is not causally related to power alone, and thus no strong assumptions can be made about power on the basis of winrate. Rather, the role itself should be looked at with the understanding of what power is (as defined, "influencing ability" is adequate).

As I hope I've made evident, every role has some level of influencing ability. But I don't see how one can argue that survivor doesn't have one of the lowest levels of influencing ability among the different roles that might be in a game (implicitly, now explicitly, of AA/CAA). If you do believe this to be true, I'd like to hear you argue it.

Your point would be valid if the results did not cohere with what we would expect. Survivor is by nature a very easy role to win as.

This is simply a logical fallacy. You cannot assert data to be evidence of a conclusion on the grounds that it aligns with that conclusion alone. If you could, I could go and make a fake spreadsheet right now showing the opposite and present it as evidence of the opposite. The numbers themselves are not the only important aspect - the data needs to be legitimate.

Since the data you've provided isn't legitimate (at least insofar as this discussion is concerned), it's functionally irrelevant and might as well not exist. As a result, your claim of surv's winrate is baseless, and also might as well be asserted false until demonstrated otherwise. (Note: I'm not saying surv is particularly difficult to win as - especially compared to something like ww - but I certainly don't agree that it's "easy" to win as surv)

Again though, ultimately winrate cannot be used to imply anything meaningful about power alone, so from hereon I'll not be responding to arguments making such a claim.

[James2]

Yes, the Jailor and Mayor can exert considerable influence using brute force alone. Everyone else is dependent on their charisma and will power.

No. Jailor and mayor are not somehow distinctly the only powerful roles on account of your believing them to be. Arguing that a role's power is dependent on the player's charisma and willpower is stupid because it can apply to every role. Obviously we're talking within the context of an expected level of charisma and willpower being used by a player with the role in question.

For example, when we say a jailor has power it's because we can reasonably assume that at some point he'll use his execution - or at least threaten to. We can also say a doctor has power because we can reasonably assume that he'll actually be using his heals on targets he believes should be healed. Obviously the use of a role's abilities are not inherent to a player having that role in a game, but it would be stupid to argue anything without the assumption that the player would make use of those abilities in some expected fashion.

I'm beginning to believe you're not taking this discussion seriously.

Roles abilities usually don't matter for influencing ability. Mafia is primarily a game of minds and wills, who exerts the most influence depends on the personality and skills of the player (and also, of course, on the player's goal).

In any case this is irrelevant. Mafia is balanced around win conditions, not its ability to satiate the players' libido dominandi.

Again, are you being serious here? Do you really not understand what I/we mean when we say "power"? Here, I'll give some more examples:

- The ret's power comes from its resurrection; by bringing someone back from the dead, the ret gains voting influence (by becoming confirmed), and indirectly influences the game through the person they resurrected (as that person can now influence the game much more strongly than they could while dead)
- The lookout's power comes from its ability to see visits; by seeing visits to a target, the lookout threatens evils to stay away from that target (or rather, several possible targets), gaining influence around that target (e.g. ensuring their survival) and possibly indirectly the game through that target (as that person will be more likely to continue to be able to influence the game)
- The sk's power comes from its ability to kill at night while being protected from basic attacks; by choosing who gets to live and die (to an extent), the sk gains influence over the game by removing the influence of others; the sk's defense also acts as an influencer, as it increases the likelihood of his survival at night, thus increasing the likelihood that he will be able to continue influencing the game maximally (i.e. while alive, as opposed to dead)
- The amne's power comes from its ability to remember as a role; after remembering, the amne is not only able to gain voting influence (by confirming itself as desired), but it takes on the power of whatever role remembered as, gaining influencing ability in whatever sense that may be; but even before remembering, the threat of remembering as a certain role is often influencing enough to certain roles to make note of an amne's presence, and potentially influencing decisions (e.g. an evil killing the amne before it can become a TP)

Recalling the reason this sub-discussion even started, you claimed that survivor is not underpowered because of its high winrate. I am arguing that winrate, while not independent of power, is not causally related to power alone, and thus no strong assumptions can be made about power on the basis of winrate. Rather, the role itself should be looked at with the understanding of what power is (as defined, "influencing ability" is adequate).

As I hope I've made evident, every role has some level of influencing ability. But I don't see how one can argue that survivor doesn't have one of the lowest levels of influencing ability among the different roles that might be in a game (implicitly, now explicitly, of AA/CAA). If you do believe this to be true, I'd like to hear you argue it.

As I said before, the satiating players' desire to dominate others (the desire for "influencing ability") is not the point.

Your point would be valid if the results did not cohere with what we would expect. Survivor is by nature a very easy role to win as.

This is simply a logical fallacy. You cannot assert data to be evidence of a conclusion on the grounds that it aligns with that conclusion alone. If you could, I could go and make a fake spreadsheet right now showing the opposite and present it as evidence of the opposite. The numbers themselves are not the only important aspect - the data needs to be legitimate.

Since the data you've provided isn't legitimate (at least insofar as this discussion is concerned), it's functionally irrelevant and might as well not exist. As a result, your claim of surv's winrate is baseless, and also might as well be asserted false until demonstrated otherwise. (Note: I'm not saying surv is particularly difficult to win as - especially compared to something like ww - but I certainly don't agree that it's "easy" to win as surv)

Ah, freshman logic class. Brings back memories. Trust me though, deliberately missing the point so you can point out "fallacies" doesn't make you look nearly as smart as you think it does.

Again though, ultimately winrate cannot be used to imply anything meaningful about power alone, so from hereon I'll not be responding to arguments making such a claim.

Dude it's a free country. You can reply or not reply at your leisure. I don't really care.

[Superalex11]

Are you being deliberately retarded, James? Not only are you not addressing the points made, but the claims you make in avoidance of those points are also wrong.

[CrimsonKatana]

There's literally nothing wrong with survivor and it doesn't need to be changed or removed or anything at all. I don't see the point of this thread. It's honestly annoying whenever I see a new reply on this thread.

[orangeandblack5]

I mean, I think whether or not something is wrong with it, in your opinion, is highly dependent on your baseline.

If things need to have positive aspects to be good, then Survivor is surely bad.

However, if things need to be actively harmful to be bad, then sure, there's nothing wrong with Survivor after it was pulled out of Ranked.

Frankly, I relate in that discussion on this thread has also gotten annoying rather than productive. Additionally, I think there are much bigger fish to fry when it comes to changes needed in the game.

Unfortunately all we can really do is wait until either we're on Unity or BMG is out of money. I have no idea how deep their pockets are or what sales look like nowadays, but I can't imagine they've been making money while working on a port (and ONLY working on a port) for the past three years.