Schultz128 wrote:this is still being discussed lmao
balanced doesnt equal fun, no, but for competitive play you ought to prioritize overall game balance equality than worrying about each player being able to click a button each night.
mafia-based games aren't founded in their skill level through abilities primarily, it's primarily through your ability to properly analyze other players and effectively communicate that analysis.
abilities are just a shortcut for that.
Schultz128 wrote:also 2.5 years later and the poll is still entirely skewed to the favor of one specific side of the argument in its options for voting, imagine that.
call it a petition if you want, all that does is that it just lets you hide a negative majority to your supporting minority and make it look more supported than it is.
ICECLIMBERS wrote:Stop acting like a ringleader bigot, goose.
literally in the op of this bad thread wrote:It isn't a fun role to play and has bad mechanics, please get it out of TG immediately.
Gooose26 wrote:Schultz128 wrote:You don't need abilities to use skill.
Yes but abilities supported by skill will always be better than no abilities with skill. Leaving it up to your teammates to do their part of using abilities isn’t very fun or fair for you as a citizen
Gooose26 wrote:2.5 years later and you’re still complaining about a useless “petition”. Its not about finding how many people believe what, and that’s never been the goal. Just because you might use the poll system for different reasons doesn’t mean that every other reason is wrong.
Schultz128 wrote:Gooose26 wrote:2.5 years later and you’re still complaining about a useless “petition”. Its not about finding how many people believe what, and that’s never been the goal. Just because you might use the poll system for different reasons doesn’t mean that every other reason is wrong.
so then what's the point of it then, to show how many people actually read the thread? you can easily just show "hey man we got 40 voters supporting this!" when that's out of 100 total people and the other 60 don't support it, but you can't show that because you're only showing who's agreeing with.
you're advertising it as a petition, and then when someone criticizes the structure of your petition you say "the poll isnt actually relevant man what level of irony are you on", it's a shitty diversion tactic that makes the ideas being suggested seem more supported than it is, but because you play off the actual importance of this poll you're not claiming responsibility for the influence of its results. it's a slimy tactic that i would expect of TG.
either have the petition/poll to actually show who agrees/disagrees or don't have it at all, otherwise it's just a misleading piece of info, whether purposeful or not.
-Remove Town Citizen, Keep Town Power
-Remove Town Power, Keep Town Citizen
-Remove both Town Citizen & Town Power
-Keep both Town Citizen & Town Power
ICECLIMBERS wrote:Stop acting like a ringleader bigot, goose.
orangeandblack5 wrote:Gooose I don't wanna be that guy but like
Do you even know who you're talking to here
Because you coming after me as if I'm thinking about meta exclusively over balance in this discussion highly implies you have exactly zero context and is honestly kinda embarrassing
I don't pretend to be any smarter or better than others but when it comes to this kind of thing I have literal tons of experience from countless different angles to draw from, so acting like I'm imposing an unfit viewpoint for a scenario that's somehow "different" is just wrong.
If you actually want to talk balance that's fine, but I'm not about to give you the time of day until you show you're using your own head half as much as you say I should be using mine. Otherwise you can just go dig through my past posts and argue with them - I've done plenty of explaining on all the points you call into question.
ICECLIMBERS wrote:Stop acting like a ringleader bigot, goose.
orangeandblack5 wrote:Gooose, at no point was I attacking your presence in the community.
I'm just stating that the allegation that I have no idea what I'm talking about is provably unfounded, and that's a lot bigger than purely TG. Nowhere do I say you haven't done way more for TG, nowhere do I say you have less right to talk about it - ironically, that has literally been entirely you. I'm not out here to negate opinions, but I have no qualms about defending my own.
Side note, I wasn't even a founding member of TG. I was brought on after just like everyone else.
orangeandblack5 wrote:Regardless, however, I think your implication that only balance affects meta and the inverse is just wrong is, well, also unfounded. Things are rarely that simple. Game design certainly isn't one of those rare cases. Besides, it is not any less possible to balance a game with Citizens than a game without them, and in fact it's easier to do so because there is less swing. So if balance really trumps all, you should be on the side of Citizens.
orangeandblack5 wrote:As it is, balance is not the end-all-be-all of game design. If you actually evaluate your own arguments against Citizen, they are all either relating to the concept of even mechanics or the subjective idea of "fun", so you are clearly aware of this. There are many many answers to any game design question, and they're each going to have their own pros and cons. To out-of-hand dismiss somebody for a perceived focus on an area that is in your personal opinion not the most important is just childish.
orangeandblack5 wrote:To then claim that others can't see the full picture? That they're "pessimistic" or closed-minded because they think there are different solutions than your own? That's my problem here.
orangeandblack5 wrote:At this point you probably would be unable to explain my thoughts on having Cits in TG/ToS to a satisfactory level, and I am in fact pretty sure that if you tried to explain my views you'd get a lot of fundamental things wrong. And that's kind of the point of having a discussion - but that's really hard when you're out here dismissing people out of hand in a show of flagrant hypocrisy.
orangeandblack5 wrote:So yes, I have "the gall" to stand up to what amounts to petty bullying by pointing you towards my experience and status in the community. God forbid I imply I might not be a random nobody just because I've been doing this for years and have earned a solid reputation over that time. I'm literally not doing anything to attack you or your views, and yet you're acting like I'm using my status to wreak havoc. I hold no power over TG, and nobody holds anything over BMG, so I'm not sure what exactly you're scared of - but it really needs to stop.
ICECLIMBERS wrote:Stop acting like a ringleader bigot, goose.
ICECLIMBERS wrote:Stop acting like a ringleader bigot, goose.
ICECLIMBERS wrote:Stop acting like a ringleader bigot, goose.
Gooose26 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:Gooose, at no point was I attacking your presence in the community.
I'm just stating that the allegation that I have no idea what I'm talking about is provably unfounded, and that's a lot bigger than purely TG. Nowhere do I say you haven't done way more for TG, nowhere do I say you have less right to talk about it - ironically, that has literally been entirely you. I'm not out here to negate opinions, but I have no qualms about defending my own.
Side note, I wasn't even a founding member of TG. I was brought on after just like everyone else.
These are good points from your personal viewpoint, but I'd argue that from my personal viewpoint, certain comments can be interpreted differently. The point that matters is that I can tell that your points have intellectual thought behind them and that you aren't trying to ad hominem me. Hopefully this is the end of this part of the discussion.
Gooose26 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:So yes, I have "the gall" to stand up to what amounts to petty bullying by pointing you towards my experience and status in the community. God forbid I imply I might not be a random nobody just because I've been doing this for years and have earned a solid reputation over that time. I'm literally not doing anything to attack you or your views, and yet you're acting like I'm using my status to wreak havoc. I hold no power over TG, and nobody holds anything over BMG, so I'm not sure what exactly you're scared of - but it really needs to stop.
Nobody is going to take my side in this because I've become something of an outcast in certain parts of these forums, and that's probably for good reason, but I don't like some of the ways you've referred to yourself. They seem elitist, and my response was probably a bit rash or headstrong, but I don't think that you need to build a reputation to be a good balancer. And I don't think a good reputation makes you a good balancer either. I'd make the argument that balancing is an art; it requires thought, creativity, a positive mindset, patience, logic, etc. Anybody can become a great balancer. The way you referred to your experience felt to me like you were justifying an intellectual authority. If that's not how you meant it, then I apologize for my careless response.
Gooose26 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:Regardless, however, I think your implication that only balance affects meta and the inverse is just wrong is, well, also unfounded. Things are rarely that simple. Game design certainly isn't one of those rare cases. Besides, it is not any less possible to balance a game with Citizens than a game without them, and in fact it's easier to do so because there is less swing. So if balance really trumps all, you should be on the side of Citizens.
I think it is a simple statement that summarizes a complex ideology. It's like saying E=MC squared, which looks simple, but looking at the math behind it, it's everything but simple. The size of our posts is enough to point that out. I believe you are defining balance different than I am. Obviously, (and this disclaimer because I don't want it to seem like I'm defining how you view balance, I'm just defining my side here and from my perspective it seems we aren't in the same spot) I don't know how you define balance, the idea in my mind is that we can can take two asymmetrical factions, evils and town, and give them equal (balanced) win rates, without allowing cheap metas to occur, exploitations of core mechanics, or anything that is not the intended way for the game to be played. My point in saying this is that there is more to it than simply how powerful the faction is, it's also about the use of mechanics.
Gooose26 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:As it is, balance is not the end-all-be-all of game design. If you actually evaluate your own arguments against Citizen, they are all either relating to the concept of even mechanics or the subjective idea of "fun", so you are clearly aware of this. There are many many answers to any game design question, and they're each going to have their own pros and cons. To out-of-hand dismiss somebody for a perceived focus on an area that is in your personal opinion not the most important is just childish.
I probably have said that some people don't find the role fun, but I typically only say that as a counter-argument to people who say they find the role fun. If you asked me why Citizen is unbalanced, I would not bring up anything about how fun it is. Really my only main argument is about distribution of skill across unequal roles, which applies to Town (Power) just as much as Citizen, which is why I roped both of these concepts into the same thread.
Gooose26 wrote:Kirize12 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:Honestly treating NK as a full-fledged faction is a mistake in my eyes. They exist to speed up the game, not truly to win. Sad but true, and also the reason I'd support removing Neutrals from Ranked entirely.
Agreed
This is what I call “loser theory”. If you are here accepting that a 15th of the rolelist is simply going to ruin somebody’s experience every single game, I’d argue that you don’t have the mindset to problem solve or work with others to build solutions. You’re simply accepting that Town of Salem will never be balanced and that it is people like you who derail every balance discussion that takes place.
Balancing isn’t a yes or no question, it is a question of how. The start of every suggestion is a belief that the game can be improved from it’s current state, whether physically in the game or just in theory on the forums. At the very least, this is me, a realist, trying to convince you, pessimists, that there is an underlying meaning. You guys aren’t visionaries.
Gooose26 wrote:There are plenty of ways to fix something, I agree, but I would argue that not everything can be fixed; bad ideas need to be scrapped. One common argument against the Blackmailer is that hearing whispers is a bad mechanic, and chat blocking is a bad mechanic. Rather than go off on another discussion, let's just assume that is true for the sake of the argument. At that point, we can't fix the Blackmailer, because the entirety of its core is bad. We just have to make a new role. In other words, there are concepts in Town of Salem that will not be balanced no matter what we suggest to improve it, they simply must be removed and replaced with better ideas, or reworked to a point that they are no longer recognizable.
Gooose26 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:To then claim that others can't see the full picture? That they're "pessimistic" or closed-minded because they think there are different solutions than your own? That's my problem here.
The point that I made here that you are referring to was about NK. You've accepted that it can't be fixed. To me that's just lazy. My question to you is, what part of NK is unfixable?
Gooose26 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:At this point you probably would be unable to explain my thoughts on having Cits in TG/ToS to a satisfactory level, and I am in fact pretty sure that if you tried to explain my views you'd get a lot of fundamental things wrong. And that's kind of the point of having a discussion - but that's really hard when you're out here dismissing people out of hand in a show of flagrant hypocrisy.
Citizen is a necessary evil for games like Forum Mafia. If every role had abilities in a setting where discussion takes place at a very high level, and every action gets analyzed to some extent, then the mafia would simply be overwhelmed by a town that can confirm itself way too quickly. Literally any information in these games is milked to the maximum. Luckily, Citizen allows a rolelist to feature a majority faction without giving everybody power roles that can potentially devastate a mafia game.
Citizen is also great because it brings the game back to a state of how the game should be played. It defines a proper culture. I remember returning to Town of Salem a year ago, after not playing for a long time, and I simply couldn't respect the game anymore because I'd been exposed to Forum Mafia. Whenever I would use a scumread, or I wouldn't immediately appeal to the massclaim meta, I was assumed to be evil. If we were to introduce Citizen to this format, you would find that those playing Citizen will start to scumread a lot more. The use of abilities should be a result of proper scumreading, deception, etc. It should not work as a replacement for these things. In Town of Salem, abilities have become a replacement. Whenever I play(ed) Forum Mafia, I would look for VFM games for this reason. I love the culture of these games.
Citizen is also easy to balance (Obviously this is throwing away all of my arguments against Citizen, but I'm taking your perspective when saying this). A role with no abilities would work as a standard for where the line can be drawn for a balanced game. Let's walk through it, starting with the basics. Where is a healthy game? 8 citizens vs. 4 goons? 9 citizens vs. 5 goons? Now that we've established this, we can add in a few power roles. We can gauge the effect that this has on the game. Now we can add in a few more, and a few more. And that's how we'll be able to build a balanced environment. That's why TG held tests, it allowed us to study how each role effected the game and determine what changes needed to take place.
For those who say it is not fun, this is also not a great argument. It is my opinion that these people often do not know how to scumread. Just because you have no abilities in your role card does not mean that you do not have an ability to do anything. You can read in between the lines. I would make the argument that having abilities is a distraction; you have to worry about those dang abilities instead of scumreading the game. In a game that lasts what, 20 minutes or so? There is at least enough content for a few hours of analysis.
Gooose26 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:Sounds like you haven't played Citizen ever lmao
It's definitely a great role, is super fun to play, and lets you do a lot that you can't really justify doing with many other roles
That being said
I think you're in the wrong part of the forum lmao
Name one ability that you are given when you roll the Citizen that you are not given when you roll any other Town role in Town of Salem. Your argument is based on meta play that you’ve experienced. You’ve built a bias to how the game of mafia should be played based on this experience, and it may be an effective style, but it’s not a standard of balance. You’re now indirectly enforcing this bias on others because you are using it as a standard of balance and it is not getting the whole picture from an aggregate perspective. That’s where FM and TG split on the topic: FM looks at meta while TG looks at balance.
You think it is a great role, you think it is super fun to play. Lots of others do not think it is a great role and lots of others do not think it is super fun. These are both entirely subjective statements that have no relation to the balance of the role. You also haven’t defined what “great” means. Does it mean great as in powerful? Citizen is not nearly as great as Jailor then. Does it mean great as in balanced? Well I’d argue that it is simply too weak. Does it mean great as in useful? Well, it definitely is useful for hosts who can’t make a balanced rolelist. All of this to say that this argument is irrelevant, at least to this section of the forums.
Hellosither wrote:Kirize12 wrote:Hellosither wrote:Kirize12 wrote:Gooose26 wrote:Kirize12 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:Honestly treating NK as a full-fledged faction is a mistake in my eyes. They exist to speed up the game, not truly to win. Sad but true, and also the reason I'd support removing Neutrals from Ranked entirely.
Agreed
This is what I call “loser theory”. If you are here accepting that a 15th of the rolelist is simply going to ruin somebody’s experience every single game, I’d argue that you don’t have the mindset to problem solve or work with others to build solutions. You’re simply accepting that Town of Salem will never be balanced and that it is people like you who derail every balance discussion that takes place.
why am i here i didnt say this
remove town in general
your signature is cringe
also goose you're cringe and wrong
no u
pain.
dolphina wrote:Hellosither wrote:Kirize12 wrote:Hellosither wrote:Kirize12 wrote:Gooose26 wrote:Kirize12 wrote:orangeandblack5 wrote:Honestly treating NK as a full-fledged faction is a mistake in my eyes. They exist to speed up the game, not truly to win. Sad but true, and also the reason I'd support removing Neutrals from Ranked entirely.
Agreed
This is what I call “loser theory”. If you are here accepting that a 15th of the rolelist is simply going to ruin somebody’s experience every single game, I’d argue that you don’t have the mindset to problem solve or work with others to build solutions. You’re simply accepting that Town of Salem will never be balanced and that it is people like you who derail every balance discussion that takes place.
why am i here i didnt say this
remove town in general
your signature is cringe
also goose you're cringe and wrong
no u
pain.
All my homies know is pain
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests