Town of Salem Game Forums

met killed schultz out of the blue

i then tried to kill met and he killed me in return

i tried to kill met because, well, i needed to kill 50% of everyone else to win

TheNiceOne16 wrote:I assumed they really tried killing you. And it was self defense. Was I wrong?

I just straight up shot him in the back of the head when he sat down to do a part of the puzzle, and then waited until I could oneshot LoF in the ensuing fight.

Oh well I blame Nikitas stupid Sugar Glider from letting me check his wounds and assuming he was guilty.

Also Oppurtunist at Heart is WAY too OP for the wincon.

Yes Nelly. A role that removes literally every disadvantage of betraying is going to be very strong.

PolyesterHomes wrote:Yes Nelly. A role that removes literally every disadvantage of betraying is going to be very strong.

consider betraying

I would have, if I made a role that's ability was 'Ignore every penalty betrayal has'.

I mean

Subverting expectations is fine but when someone expects to win the game getting that subverted feels unfair

maybe I’m just residually salty though

I'm not salty. If anything i'm kicking myself for not realising this role could be in play. I definitely misplayed. I am slightly salty that Nelly is acting like the role isn't incredibly strong.

harder wincons = more strong roles

the cards were in play in knock met down a few pegs. but no one did anything productive with them

betraying against met (like my entire linked post suggests if you read it) shut him down a round as well

I disagree a lot nelly. First off I disagree with the post you linked like we've all already talked about. Second the two abilities of mets are designed for couter playless oneshots. Both in the sense he can leave with no one the wiser and instant kill giving no chance to beat them. It's an OP role for its wincon.

mind reading quote wall

Spoiler:

If you read my post you will have seen that my entire message was to hit Betray more often. Schultz even betrayed against Met. Met would have been out the door otherwise. Everyone else decided to stay outside and not use the cards in order to automatically ally.

Groups got one vote. If you did not trust your partner to ally, then you get to press the fancy ally button yourself.

For people so adamant on not going inside the elevators to vote, why did you not nab the cards from everyone?

Met's role is not OP. You all just allowed it to be.

I mean, the one time I insta-killed someone, there was another person in the room. That person I oneshot also betrayed me on his own gut.

I think the role is definitely mean-spirited, and the betray hiding is definitely taking advantage of the metagame to a degree you could argue is OP. So if Nelly had said change the passive that would have been cool with me, but I always wanted something to interact with betrays because that's my wincon.

I don't see the point about not wanting oneshots, it's a killing game, and I still have to actually roll, or combat has to actually happen for me to be able to one-shot. Plus, I need to have a weapon to do so. It wasn't hidden knowledge that I had that gun that killed those two. I didn't even have a good PRC stat. It's not like I look at the guy and snap their neck instantly, then vanish, and I was actually in another room talking to someone the whole time.

However this game everyone just allied apart from groups with me, and I was the only killer. I got into no trouble for killing, no qualms for having the gun and one had an investigation ability on me at any point I guess either. Like any killer, you can easily mob me, and I die. Hell, even in one on one, I can only function because of my active and even then I'm not the strongest. Schultz or LoF or any other beefy boy is going to eat me alive, and this goes triple if I don't have you know, the strongest weapon in the game.

It's also a betrayal game. So I'm sorry if people are salty. I know how it sucks to die, or lose in an instant. But that's a core part of what the game is based on.

Opportunist at Heart - Once per cycle of phases target a player. When you decide to attack the player you are informed of what the outcome would be and may decide against your action. If that player rolls a one in any combat interaction you are near you may kill them if you are free to perform said action.

i think they're referring to this, not the actual betraying part which was cool
this isnt OP, maybe a tad too strong at best with the nat 1=death but honestly it's w/ever. meant to be a fun, loosely balanced game not hyper balanced

Yes and I think hitting betray more often logically makes no sense. Only emtionally does it make sense and even then its got a bit of balance with emtional reasons to ally. Having zero ways to know that an ability like Aurums is in play makes it OP and abilties that one shot one kill people are not fun design and are too strong.

I bealived in trust. Taking someones ability to vote would be a betrayal. Staying outside however is my choice as a show of trust.

I really reallly REALLLY HATE one shots to the depths of my core. They make fights not fun at all. A even back and forth is the best way to make fighting fun. One shots totally null this unless the game is about setting up your one shot and stopping someones elses one shot.

It's fine if you disagree, I just felt like stating my opinion.

like realistically the only thing i would change is maybe lower stats(stats were just too high in general this game if we wanna talk hyper balance) and maybe make that nat 1 apply only to defensive rolls

but honestly if you wanna bitch about roles bitch about mine, mine was far worse because im pretty sure i would have statchecked half the game to death

actually it's just rolling one, not even nat 1 im retarded

yeah that's perfectly fine then

Instant deaths suck. I don't remember if I told Schultz if he could pull out Slots after he ducked. But that's just what happened with the puzzle rewards. Trying harder in Tag would have given you some better results as well as you could have asked for an item. ;)

No one would be talking about this if Met was the one who got one-shotted. Sometimes that's just how it goes.

itd be weirder if roles werent strong in a game like this where making strong/out there roles is kind of the point

I'll be totally honest. I would have because I'm a nerd who likes talking about theoretical shit.

One shots are the issue of it feels great to do it but it's fucking terrible to receive it.

I felt especially bad about it because of the work that went into my role and character.

Schultz128 wrote:One shots are the issue of it feels great to do it but it's fucking terrible to receive it.

I felt especially bad about it because of the work that went into my role and character.

its karma for SUaD

I mean oneshots are in the game mechanically. So long as you can have a knife and perform a check to slit someone's throat, and I don't think it should be removed. It's an entirely different playstyle to brawling, and I'd say it is very gratifying to the person doing the killing. And the brawling roles in this game would just snap any non-combat role in half without even breaking a sweat. How is that fair at all to your same standards?

You just don't enjoy this slice of the game, which is fine, you don't have to.