Nk Winning against anyone in a 1v1

[Ravenkills]

I noticed that a lot of times the neutral killing roles win in a 1v1 against mostly everyone but sometimes the game continues. This week I have had the inconsistency of this rule get in my way twice.
-Example 1: My role was veteran; I had one alert left and I was playing with a werewolf. Right after the other last townie died, the match ended even though I had an alert.
-Example 2: My role was werewolf and I was in a game with a retributionist. I had got the other townie hung and it was just me and him. I expected the match to end there but it didn't. Heused doctor on the first night that I attacked. The next day the game said that the match would end in a draw the following day even though a townie was hung the previous day. I attacked him again that night and he used escort on me but he didn't die because he was retributionist.
My Suggestion: Just be consistent with how the rule works. If it is one other person and a neutral killing role, they should either let the match continue for a set amount of days or let the neutral killing role win by default. My personal opinion is that the neutral killing role should win by default. It just makes more sense.

[Brilliand]

The draw resolution is only supposed to resolve theoretically drawn situations. If one of the players is able to force a win within the time limit, the game just lets them play it out.

Seems consistent to me.

That said there's not much reason not to just hand the win to the side that has an obvious and guaranteed path to victory.

[PatrykSzczescie]

1v1 scenarios where only one side can win but there's a way to get a draw, the game ends with the win for the one whose opponent has no chance of winning.

Ret is an exception for now because it's newly reworked role. It's difficult to implement a patch to give a win to the one whose opponent has no way of winning the game because it depends on ret's opponent and unused dead roles, which are different every game.

[Joacgroso]

Winning as NK would be way less satisfying if you couldn't kill the last townie.
But besides that, this would be unfair to veterans. If the game stopped every time a sk and a townie are the last survivors, then the sk would know the last townie is a veteran if the game didn't end. The reason why the veteran auto loses against ww is that vets have no way to win that scenario, while wws could technically win if the vet has no alerts or doesn't alert.

[DiamondRanger8]

Winning as NK would be way less satisfying if you couldn't kill the last townie.
But besides that, this would be unfair to veterans. If the game stopped every time a sk and a townie are the last survivors, then the sk would know the last townie is a veteran if the game didn't end. The reason why the veteran auto loses against ww is that vets have no way to win that scenario, while wws could technically win if the vet has no alerts or doesn't alert.

That doesn't really make much sense to me tbh, since veteran can still draw it out, but maybe they could make it so NKs win against veterans with no alerts left.

I noticed that a lot of times the neutral killing roles win in a 1v1 against mostly everyone but sometimes the game continues. This week I have had the inconsistency of this rule get in my way twice.
-Example 1: My role was veteran; I had one alert left and I was playing with a werewolf. Right after the other last townie died, the match ended even though I had an alert.
-Example 2: My role was werewolf and I was in a game with a retributionist. I had got the other townie hung and it was just me and him. I expected the match to end there but it didn't. Heused doctor on the first night that I attacked. The next day the game said that the match would end in a draw the following day even though a townie was hung the previous day. I attacked him again that night and he used escort on me but he didn't die because he was retributionist.
My Suggestion: Just be consistent with how the rule works. If it is one other person and a neutral killing role, they should either let the match continue for a set amount of days or let the neutral killing role win by default. My personal opinion is that the neutral killing role should win by default. It just makes more sense.

To me it depends on if your only talking about town roles or all roles. For example, it wouldn't make sense to make a neutral killing draw out against the pestilence for example.

[Brilliand]

That doesn't really make much sense to me tbh, since veteran can still draw it out, but maybe they could make it so NKs win against veterans with no alerts left.

Then the NK could just never attack in order to wait for the autowin, making the game harder for the Veteran.

[kyuss420]

Winning as NK would be way less satisfying if you couldn't kill the last townie.
But besides that, this would be unfair to veterans. If the game stopped every time a sk and a townie are the last survivors, then the sk would know the last townie is a veteran if the game didn't end. The reason why the veteran auto loses against ww is that vets have no way to win that scenario, while wws could technically win if the vet has no alerts or doesn't alert.

That doesn't really make much sense to me tbh, since veteran can still draw it out, but maybe they could make it so NKs win against veterans with no alerts left.

The whole point of the stalemate detector is to avoid draws... Vet can never win in that situation, WW kills vet while vet kills WW... (isnt vet meant to have powerful defence while on alert???)

[KAKERMAN23]

it would be seriously unfair for both the veteran and the ww if the game continued in a ww vs vet 1v1, since it would essentially be a huge waste of time for the vet and an unfair gamble for the ww

[wozearly]

Winning as NK would be way less satisfying if you couldn't kill the last townie.
But besides that, this would be unfair to veterans. If the game stopped every time a sk and a townie are the last survivors, then the sk would know the last townie is a veteran if the game didn't end. The reason why the veteran auto loses against ww is that vets have no way to win that scenario, while wws could technically win if the vet has no alerts or doesn't alert.

That doesn't really make much sense to me tbh, since veteran can still draw it out, but maybe they could make it so NKs win against veterans with no alerts left.

The stalemate detector is primarily designed to overcome situations where Town can no longer win, but can use their abilities to prevent (or potentially prevent) the Maf/Coven/Vampires/NK from winning by forcing a draw. In those situations, the stalemate detector hands a win to the non-Town side. It also rules on a winner if the last remaining players are on opposing factions and unable to kill each other (e.g. SK vs GF).

This is partly a reasonable view by the devs that people don't really like draws, and "fighting for a draw" when you can't win is primarily a case of trolling your opponents to deny them a win. If you've been on the non-Town side of those situations, you'll likely recognise that anyone reaching that stage has legitimate earned the win.

The stalemate detector for the Veteran only kicks in against the Werewolf or Jugg(3rd upgrade) because those roles will always kill the Vet on attacking, but the Vet would kill them in the process. So the Vet cannot win, but can only draw. For all of the other NKs, including psuedo-NK Pestilence, it allows the game to play to the end.

I noticed that a lot of times the neutral killing roles win in a 1v1 against mostly everyone but sometimes the game continues. This week I have had the inconsistency of this rule get in my way twice.
-Example 1: My role was veteran; I had one alert left and I was playing with a werewolf. Right after the other last townie died, the match ended even though I had an alert.
-Example 2: My role was werewolf and I was in a game with a retributionist. I had got the other townie hung and it was just me and him. I expected the match to end there but it didn't. Heused doctor on the first night that I attacked. The next day the game said that the match would end in a draw the following day even though a townie was hung the previous day. I attacked him again that night and he used escort on me but he didn't die because he was retributionist.
My Suggestion: Just be consistent with how the rule works. If it is one other person and a neutral killing role, they should either let the match continue for a set amount of days or let the neutral killing role win by default. My personal opinion is that the neutral killing role should win by default. It just makes more sense.

Example 1 - you could no longer win, which is why the stalemate detector handed the victory to the WW
Example 2 - new Ret likely hasn't been taken into account in the stalemate detector because it would be tricky to determine which roles were hypothetically available to it. If it has access to a Bodyguard, it would be able to kill any of the NKs to win, but could force a draw with roles typically triggered by the stalemate detector if they were still alive. If you feel strongly about changing this, I expect the devs may be open to tweaking the rules when they have a moment - maybe drop shapesifter a PM so it's on his radar?

[Joacgroso]

The stalemate detector for the Veteran only kicks in against the Werewolf or Jugg(3rd upgrade)

Why does it matter how many upgrades the juggernaut has? Doesn't it have more than basic attack and less than powerful defense no matter what, which means he will always kill the vet and die if vet alerts? Or can astral visits make him vet immune?
I thought astral visits ignored transporters, which have lower priority than veterans.

[PleaseReadSiege]

I see no issue with this part of the stalemate detector. There are actual results of the stalemate detector that are more concerning and apparently up for debate: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=103938

[ProjectSuperBoy]

This is consistent. The Veteran forces the game to continue if they still have alerts, if not the detector kicks in.
In the Retributionist scenario, the game likely continued because Ret could still force a draw by keeping themselves alive.

[kyuss420]

The stalemate detector for the Veteran only kicks in against the Werewolf or Jugg(3rd upgrade)

Why does it matter how many upgrades the juggernaut has? Doesn't it have more than basic attack and less than powerful defense no matter what, which means he will always kill the vet and die if vet alerts? Or can astral visits make him vet immune?
I thought astral visits ignored transporters, which have lower priority than veterans.

Astral attacks dont ignore transporters, they happen just as if you were visiting, but you dont actually visit.

But youre right vet/jugg kill each other any time. Also it doesnt auto end as jugg vs vet. I have been in that situation, and ended up drawing, Vet claimed medium, so I had other priorities to kill and left them til last. Lucky they saved their last alert.

[DiamondRanger8]

The whole point of the stalemate detector is to avoid draws... Vet can never win in that situation, WW kills vet while vet kills WW... (isnt vet meant to have powerful defence while on alert???)[/quote]



Yeah veteran on alert has basic defense.

[wozearly]

The stalemate detector for the Veteran only kicks in against the Werewolf or Jugg(3rd upgrade)

Why does it matter how many upgrades the juggernaut has? Doesn't it have more than basic attack and less than powerful defense no matter what, which means he will always kill the vet and die if vet alerts? Or can astral visits make him vet immune?

Sorry, you're right - Jugg has default Powerful attack, so it should have the same outcome in the stalemate detector as the Werewolf irrespective of Juggernaut level. Kyuss' comment that this doesn't kick in is something that should be changed.

[wozearly]

In the Retributionist scenario, the game likely continued because Ret could still force a draw by keeping themselves alive.

But that's exactly what shouldn't happen, given the underlying principle of the stalemate detector.

If the Ret has access to a Bodyguard or Trapper in the graveyard, they can potentially win against some NKs (SK, Arsonist, <L3 Juggernaut), which is fine. But depending on the dead roles they have access to (Doctor, Crusader, Escort) there are also ways they could force a timeout draw against multiple NKs. Pseudo-NK Pestilence could also be forced into a draw via Bodyguards or Trappers.

Ideally, the NK should be given a win via the stalemate detector if the Ret can only force a draw and not win.

[PleaseReadSiege]

In the Retributionist scenario, the game likely continued because Ret could still force a draw by keeping themselves alive.

But that's exactly what shouldn't happen, given the underlying principle of the stalemate detector.

If the Ret has access to a Bodyguard or Trapper in the graveyard, they can potentially win against some NKs (SK, Arsonist, <L3 Juggernaut), which is fine. But depending on the dead roles they have access to (Doctor, Crusader, Escort) there are also ways they could force a timeout draw against multiple NKs. Pseudo-NK Pestilence could also be forced into a draw via Bodyguards or Trappers.

Ideally, the NK should be given a win via the stalemate detector if the Ret can only force a draw and not win.

I mean sure maybe, but correct me if I'm wrong, devs have NEVER added conditional exceptions like that to the stalemate detector. It's like asking the stalemate detector to end the game if the jailor has no more exes. It goes by role vs role, that's it, and I prefer it that way. Let the killing role finish the job.

[Brilliand]

I mean sure maybe, but correct me if I'm wrong, devs have NEVER added conditional exceptions like that to the stalemate detector. It's like asking the stalemate detector to end the game if the jailor has no more exes. It goes by role vs role, that's it, and I prefer it that way. Let the killing role finish the job.

In point of fact, the stalemate detector does behave differently depending on whether the Jailor has exes left or not.

[PleaseReadSiege]

I mean sure maybe, but correct me if I'm wrong, devs have NEVER added conditional exceptions like that to the stalemate detector. It's like asking the stalemate detector to end the game if the jailor has no more exes. It goes by role vs role, that's it, and I prefer it that way. Let the killing role finish the job.

In point of fact, the stalemate detector does behave differently depending on whether the Jailor has exes left or not.

...well that's a new one. They should fix that since there's no benefit.

[Brilliand]

In point of fact, the stalemate detector does behave differently depending on whether the Jailor has exes left or not.

...well that's a new one. They should fix that since there's no benefit.

If Jailor with no exes is up against Godfather, Godfather wins.

If Jailor with exes is up against Godfather, the Jailor is allowed to perform the kill and thus win.

That distinction seems pretty necessary to me.

[PleaseReadSiege]

In point of fact, the stalemate detector does behave differently depending on whether the Jailor has exes left or not.

...well that's a new one. They should fix that since there's no benefit.

If Jailor with no exes is up against Godfather, Godfather wins.

If Jailor with exes is up against Godfather, the Jailor is allowed to perform the kill and thus win.

That distinction seems pretty necessary to me.

Oh right...jailor can still jail with no exes for some reason.

[OreCreeper]

I mean sure maybe, but correct me if I'm wrong, devs have NEVER added conditional exceptions like that to the stalemate detector. It's like asking the stalemate detector to end the game if the jailor has no more exes. It goes by role vs role, that's it, and I prefer it that way. Let the killing role finish the job.

In point of fact, the stalemate detector does behave differently depending on whether the Jailor has exes left or not.

It only does that when it has to- for example with roles like jailor and juggernaut (vs roles like transporter).

[PleaseReadSiege]

I mean sure maybe, but correct me if I'm wrong, devs have NEVER added conditional exceptions like that to the stalemate detector. It's like asking the stalemate detector to end the game if the jailor has no more exes. It goes by role vs role, that's it, and I prefer it that way. Let the killing role finish the job.

In point of fact, the stalemate detector does behave differently depending on whether the Jailor has exes left or not.

It only does that when it has to- for example with roles like jailor and juggernaut (vs roles like transporter).

Yeah, while I forgot about why jailor needs the stalemate detector, this is what I was getting at. The game isn't looking at if the role is unable to win in that scenario; only if the roles facing each other are unable to end the games on their own no matter what.

[wozearly]

I mean sure maybe, but correct me if I'm wrong, devs have NEVER added conditional exceptions like that to the stalemate detector. It's like asking the stalemate detector to end the game if the jailor has no more exes. It goes by role vs role, that's it, and I prefer it that way. Let the killing role finish the job.

In point of fact, the stalemate detector does behave differently depending on whether the Jailor has exes left or not.

It only does that when it has to- for example with roles like jailor and juggernaut (vs roles like transporter).

Yeah, while I forgot about why jailor needs the stalemate detector, this is what I was getting at. The game isn't looking at if the role is unable to win in that scenario; only if the roles facing each other are unable to end the games on their own no matter what.

Its purpose is to forcibly end the game with a win if the two roles cannot end the game themselves (e.g. GF vs SK) or if Faction A cannot win, but is able to act in a way that forces a draw in order to deny Faction B a win (e.g. Mafioso vs Trans where the Mafioso refuses to attack, or Escort vs Arsonist where the Escort roleblocks the Arsonist into a timeout).

The Jailor is a scenario-based evaluation and, prior to recent changes, was arguably the only role that needed it with the occasional exception of Juggernaut.

Recent changes to Retri have now opened up a second role that would really benefit from scenario-based evaluation. Logically this should be considered, as the Ret has more opportunities to force a draw than to pull off a win.

I'm entirely with you in letting the killing roles finish the job wherever possible. Generally speaking the stalemate detector does this; although if I recall rightly there are a couple of odd situations where it kicks in without necessarily needing to. I'd be happy to see those changed.