fwogcarf wrote:If Survivor does need a rework, then this is a good solution.
Except I feel Survivor is fine as it is and honestly doesn't need a rework. What are the problems with survivor?
BasicFourLife wrote:fwogcarf wrote:If Survivor does need a rework, then this is a good solution.
Except I feel Survivor is fine as it is and honestly doesn't need a rework. What are the problems with survivor?
- Kingmaker
- Hard to achieve goal
fwogcarf wrote:BasicFourLife wrote:fwogcarf wrote:If Survivor does need a rework, then this is a good solution.
Except I feel Survivor is fine as it is and honestly doesn't need a rework. What are the problems with survivor?
- Kingmaker
- Hard to achieve goal
Explain what you mean by "Kingmaker".
I do understand why it's hard to achieve goal, but that's what four bulletproof vests are for.
BasicFourLife wrote:fwogcarf wrote:BasicFourLife wrote:fwogcarf wrote:If Survivor does need a rework, then this is a good solution.
Except I feel Survivor is fine as it is and honestly doesn't need a rework. What are the problems with survivor?
- Kingmaker
- Hard to achieve goal
Explain what you mean by "Kingmaker".
I do understand why it's hard to achieve goal, but that's what four bulletproof vests are for.
Kingmaker is a player who can decide the winner biased on whoever they want, skill doesn't matter in this situation. The win / loss for the other players is uncontrollable and there's nothing they can do about it, ex: SK v GF v Surv, Surv chooses the winner...That creates swing and swing is bad for the game.
Boredfan1 wrote:EXCEPT, town usually lynches the survivor OR a dumbass mafia/NK kills the survivor THUS, it can't be a kingmaker a lot of the time. PLUS, the survivor being a kingmaker isn't actually a bad thing, it is a pretty balanced thing all things considered since people usually pity the NK but not always so it's not skewed towards anyone and helps reduce the town's ridiculous win rate. If anything, there needs to be an incentive to not hang the survivor otherwise any changes are pointless. I suggest giving them the jester revenge mechanic which targets abstainers and guilties while the jester's targets anyone who votes innocent on them. Plus, the jester wouldn't say he will have his revenge on this rework but something else like "The Jester's death triggers dark magic!" or something.
lemonader666 wrote:>-Kingmaker isn't bad, it's balanced.
so you're saying that a kingmaker, who can decide to either give a NK or a town member the win is balanced
>-Surv RARELY gets to be kingmaker due to the hatred for non town roles by town thus, it commonly gets lynched and idiotic evils tend to try to kill them.
Not if they:
-Don't retardedly reveal their role
-Actually help town
-Not be retarded
>-Because of the previous point, survivor is NOT easy to play as.
False
>-There's needs to be an incentive to not hang or kill the survivor.
Survivor is a shit concept on it's own, it can join and betray any sides it wants at any time. Obviously town would kill survivors immidiately unless they did the things above.
t. not an idiot
lemonader666 wrote:http://www.blankmediagames.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=36848
/thread, again.Boredfan1 wrote:EXCEPT, town usually lynches the survivor OR a dumbass mafia/NK kills the survivor THUS, it can't be a kingmaker a lot of the time. PLUS, the survivor being a kingmaker isn't actually a bad thing, it is a pretty balanced thing all things considered since people usually pity the NK but not always so it's not skewed towards anyone and helps reduce the town's ridiculous win rate. If anything, there needs to be an incentive to not hang the survivor otherwise any changes are pointless. I suggest giving them the jester revenge mechanic which targets abstainers and guilties while the jester's targets anyone who votes innocent on them. Plus, the jester wouldn't say he will have his revenge on this rework but something else like "The Jester's death triggers dark magic!" or something.lemonader666 wrote:>-Kingmaker isn't bad, it's balanced.
so you're saying that a kingmaker, who can decide to either give a NK or a town member the win is balanced
>-Surv RARELY gets to be kingmaker due to the hatred for non town roles by town thus, it commonly gets lynched and idiotic evils tend to try to kill them.
Not if they:
-Don't retardedly reveal their role
-Actually help town
-Not be retarded
>-Because of the previous point, survivor is NOT easy to play as.
False
>-There's needs to be an incentive to not hang or kill the survivor.
Survivor is a shit concept on it's own, it can join and betray any sides it wants at any time. Obviously town would kill survivors immidiately unless they did the things above.
t. not an idiot
lemonader666 wrote:>-Kingmaker isn't bad, it's balanced.
so you're saying that a kingmaker, who can decide to either give a NK or a town member the win is balanced
>-Surv RARELY gets to be kingmaker due to the hatred for non town roles by town thus, it commonly gets lynched and idiotic evils tend to try to kill them.
Not if they:
-Don't retardedly reveal their role
-Actually help town
-Not be retarded
>-Because of the previous point, survivor is NOT easy to play as.
False
>-There's needs to be an incentive to not hang or kill the survivor.
Survivor is a shit concept on it's own, it can join and betray any sides it wants at any time. Obviously town would kill survivors immidiately unless they did the things above.
t. not an idiot
Boredfan1 wrote:Seeing as the neutral RARELY wins in comparison to town
Boredfan1 wrote:,the survivor possible giving them the win helps the win rate balance out a bit better
Boredfan1 wrote:2: If they reveal day one, they get suspicion cast upon them and they almost always get hanged by town. If they don't reveal except when asked, they are told they are lying for not revealing day one and are hanged. EVEN if they try to help town, they still tend to get lynched for not being town due to the idiotic tribalistic mentality people have. THUS, the point and following point still stands.
Boredfan1 wrote:3: Again, survivor acts as a balancer when allowed to actually be played which is rare. Survivor tends to lean on the town side anyways so if they aren't immediately lynched, they would prove to town they can work with them. Some will pretend to work with town to help an neutral killing and that's good because again, it helps even out the win rate and if every survivor helped town, then you might as well make the survivor a town role.
Boredfan1 wrote:Again, survivor acts as a balancer when allowed to actually be played which is rare.
lemonader666 wrote:Boredfan1 wrote:Seeing as the neutral RARELY wins in comparison to townBoredfan1 wrote:,the survivor possible giving them the win helps the win rate balance out a bit better
oh yeah, changing the win rate of neutral to town from very rarely to a bit less very rarely is a whole lot.Boredfan1 wrote:2: If they reveal day one, they get suspicion cast upon them and they almost always get hanged by town. If they don't reveal except when asked, they are told they are lying for not revealing day one and are hanged. EVEN if they try to help town, they still tend to get lynched for not being town due to the idiotic tribalistic mentality people have. THUS, the point and following point still stands.
Well then JUST REMOVE THE FUCKING ROLE.Boredfan1 wrote:3: Again, survivor acts as a balancer when allowed to actually be played which is rare. Survivor tends to lean on the town side anyways so if they aren't immediately lynched, they would prove to town they can work with them. Some will pretend to work with town to help an neutral killing and that's good because again, it helps even out the win rate and if every survivor helped town, then you might as well make the survivor a town role.Boredfan1 wrote:Again, survivor acts as a balancer when allowed to actually be played which is rare.
So you think biased balancers are fair and square?
Boredfan1 wrote:lemonader666 wrote:Boredfan1 wrote:Seeing as the neutral RARELY wins in comparison to townBoredfan1 wrote:,the survivor possible giving them the win helps the win rate balance out a bit better
oh yeah, changing the win rate of neutral to town from very rarely to a bit less very rarely is a whole lot.Boredfan1 wrote:2: If they reveal day one, they get suspicion cast upon them and they almost always get hanged by town. If they don't reveal except when asked, they are told they are lying for not revealing day one and are hanged. EVEN if they try to help town, they still tend to get lynched for not being town due to the idiotic tribalistic mentality people have. THUS, the point and following point still stands.
Well then JUST REMOVE THE FUCKING ROLE.Boredfan1 wrote:3: Again, survivor acts as a balancer when allowed to actually be played which is rare. Survivor tends to lean on the town side anyways so if they aren't immediately lynched, they would prove to town they can work with them. Some will pretend to work with town to help an neutral killing and that's good because again, it helps even out the win rate and if every survivor helped town, then you might as well make the survivor a town role.Boredfan1 wrote:Again, survivor acts as a balancer when allowed to actually be played which is rare.
So you think biased balancers are fair and square?
1: Seeing as people commonly leave for getting roles they hate such as neutral killing, giving them a reason to not hate the role helps the overall balance of the game.
2: The execution of the role is what's bad, not the concept of it. Hence why I suggested what I did for the role.
3: Survivors as balancers are again, for the reason stated, not a big deal. The idea is to play on the compassion and empathy of players. I've seen a lot of neutrals, particularly survivors side with the neutral killing because of how absolutely screwed they get. And it isn't just be me who has seen this, it is something most people would have seen if they played more than ten matches. This whole game is based around real people so there's no way to eliminate bias but in the grand scheme of things, the bias of survivors isn't that big of a deal when if you can't get them to help you, you get rid of them. Thus, more balance.
lemonader666 wrote:Well then JUST REMOVE THE FUCKING ROLE.
The Boogeyman wrote:I am the boogeyman, and I am coming to get you!
SillyPantsJackson wrote:lemonader666 wrote:Well then JUST REMOVE THE FUCKING ROLE.
This is completely illogical. The role should not be removed simply because people who play town have no idea how to play.
Boredfan1 wrote:1: Seeing as people commonly leave for getting roles they hate such as neutral killing, giving them a reason to not hate the role helps the overall balance of the game.
Boredfan1 wrote:2: The execution of the role is what's bad, not the concept of it. Hence why I suggested what I did for the role.
Boredfan1 wrote:3: Survivors as balancers are again, for the reason stated, not a big deal. The idea is to play on the compassion and empathy of players. I've seen a lot of neutrals, particularly survivors side with the neutral killing because of how absolutely screwed they get. And it isn't just be me who has seen this, it is something most people would have seen if they played more than ten matches. This whole game is based around real people so there's no way to eliminate bias but in the grand scheme of things, the bias of survivors isn't that big of a deal when if you can't get them to help you, you get rid of them. Thus, more balance.
SillyPantsJackson wrote:lemonader666 wrote:Well then JUST REMOVE THE FUCKING ROLE.
This is completely illogical. The role should not be removed simply because people who play town have no idea how to play.
lemonader666 wrote:Boredfan1 wrote:1: Seeing as people commonly leave for getting roles they hate such as neutral killing, giving them a reason to not hate the role helps the overall balance of the game.
>He uses leaving the game as an argumentBoredfan1 wrote:2: The execution of the role is what's bad, not the concept of it. Hence why I suggested what I did for the role.
The concept of survivor is terrible. It's literally just "don't die"Boredfan1 wrote:3: Survivors as balancers are again, for the reason stated, not a big deal. The idea is to play on the compassion and empathy of players. I've seen a lot of neutrals, particularly survivors side with the neutral killing because of how absolutely screwed they get. And it isn't just be me who has seen this, it is something most people would have seen if they played more than ten matches. This whole game is based around real people so there's no way to eliminate bias but in the grand scheme of things, the bias of survivors isn't that big of a deal when if you can't get them to help you, you get rid of them. Thus, more balance.
I'm just not even gonna argue with this retarded argumentSillyPantsJackson wrote:lemonader666 wrote:Well then JUST REMOVE THE FUCKING ROLE.
This is completely illogical. The role should not be removed simply because people who play town have no idea how to play.
The role should be removed because it's concept and mechanics are UTTERLY shit.
Boredfan1 wrote:Good job. Sarcasm
Boredfan1 wrote: Also, you're opinion of the survivor role is just that and in the grand scheme of the game, doesn't amount to anything. I've explained why you can't just take it out and so have others.
Boredfan1 wrote:It is just a poorly executed role, not one that is completely worthless.
BasicFourLife wrote:Name: Survivor
Alignment: Neutral Benign
Abilities
- Choose to put on a bulletproof, protecting you from all attacks at night.
Attributes
- You can only use the bulletproof vest 3 times. Fine
- If there are three or less players left alive (including you), you will escape from the Town the upcoming night successfully winning, if you survive that night. No thanks, Survivor should be a hero not a coward
- The Town will be announced the next day, if you have successfully escaped from Town. Not needed if escaping can only happen the way you stated above
- You will join the death-chat, if you have successfully escaped from the Town.
Special Attributes
- Attack: None
- Defense: (Basic)
Additonal Information
- I gave Survivor an alternative goal, to make it so Survivor cannot be a kingmaker in these situations. But that's what I mostly do as Survivor...
- To compensate for that, I removed one of Survivor's vests.
- You will still have access to the dead-chat, even though not being dead.
Goal: Live to the end of the game or survive until there are three or less players left alive.
Win Condition: You win with everyone. You must kill no one.
TheGator wrote:BasicFourLife wrote:Name: Survivor
Alignment: Neutral Benign
Abilities
- Choose to put on a bulletproof, protecting you from all attacks at night.
Attributes
- You can only use the bulletproof vest 3 times. Fine
- If there are three or less players left alive (including you), you will escape from the Town the upcoming night successfully winning, if you survive that night. No thanks, Survivor should be a hero not a coward
- The Town will be announced the next day, if you have successfully escaped from Town. Not needed if escaping can only happen the way you stated above
- You will join the death-chat, if you have successfully escaped from the Town.
Special Attributes
- Attack: None
- Defense: (Basic)
Additonal Information
- I gave Survivor an alternative goal, to make it so Survivor cannot be a kingmaker in these situations. But that's what I mostly do as Survivor...
- To compensate for that, I removed one of Survivor's vests.
- You will still have access to the dead-chat, even though not being dead.
Goal: Live to the end of the game or survive until there are three or less players left alive.
Win Condition: You win with everyone. You must kill no one.
Zee235 wrote:I honestly think survivor is fine as it is. Neutral benign roles (except guardian angels) should be able to pick there side. They are meant to be kingmakers. The whole point of surv/amne is that in order to complete their goal they have to chose a side. Kingmakers are not always a bad thing it is just part of the game.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests