Joacgroso wrote:I feel like I went from Light Yagami to Keiichi Maebara.
Joacgroso wrote: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.
Ravenkills wrote: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.
DiamondRanger8 wrote: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.
DiamondRanger8 wrote:Joacgroso wrote: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.
DiamondRanger8 wrote:Joacgroso wrote: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.
Ravenkills wrote: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.
wozearly wrote:The stalemate detector for the Veteran only kicks in against the Werewolf or Jugg(3rd upgrade)
Joacgroso wrote:I feel like I went from Light Yagami to Keiichi Maebara.
Joacgroso wrote:wozearly wrote: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.
Joacgroso wrote:wozearly wrote: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?
ProjectSuperBoy wrote:In the Retributionist scenario, the game likely continued because Ret could still force a draw by keeping themselves alive.
wozearly wrote:ProjectSuperBoy wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:PleaseReadSiege wrote: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 wrote:Brilliand wrote: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 wrote:PleaseReadSiege wrote:Brilliand wrote: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.
Brilliand wrote:PleaseReadSiege wrote: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.
OreCreeper wrote:Brilliand wrote:PleaseReadSiege wrote: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 wrote:OreCreeper wrote:Brilliand wrote:PleaseReadSiege wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests