Patch 1.5.9 Planned Changes

[alex1234321]

I only like the trial limit change. Where did BMG get the other ideas from? Mroz's Disguiser rework has been supported by >90% of people who voted, yet they are planning to make a change that nobody has even suggested. just because its popular doesn't mean it's good/ right for the game. Changes for the game should be based on what we want. Almost every forumer supports this change, and BMG should take the hint that it is what we want and what will help the game do better, regardless of whether or not it is right for the game. Additionally, although a role that can make people appear as the wrong roles after they die would be cool, it should not replace a role that can potentially add a lot to the game and should not be coupled with a role that can change investigative results. There already is a role called Framer. If this change was because of the trials, BMG could have just made it say "Samuel Parris (Disguised as Edward Bishop): xxx." It would have been much easier and better. Furthermore, BMG is making Witch into a buffed Neutral Consigliere. Orange's thread about roles not to post says that no Neutral role should be able to directly investigate; having to indirectly find their teammates is a core aspect of Neutral Evil roles. A scum autovest would have been much easier and is almost universally supported on the forums. orange isn't the boss. You're literally using his word as gospel. Just because he says a neutral role shouldn't be able to investigate doesn't mean they can't do what they want with it. It's the dev's game, not Orangeandblack's. It is just one example of people disliking Neutral roles that investigate people. In general, as I mentioned previously, Neutral Evil roles should have to try to find their teammates indirectly. If you ask everyone on the forums who has a decent understanding on balanced, nine out of ten would agree that Neutral roles should not be able to directly investigate. The game would do better if BMG did what we want for the reasons that I mentioned before. Here is the second major example (the first being the Mayor change) of BMG taking core mechanics from a role when there is an obvious alternative. please explain what the "obvious" alternative was for removing mayor games? There are a lot- Town Power, removing whispering entirely, lowering Mayors vote count, and even removing Mayor entirely would be better. Mayor is not the only role that can start whisper games; in fact, the majority of other Town roles can almost as easily. Finally, there is the Transporter change. Almost all forumers agree that Town roles should not be able to self confirm. Most, such as myself, think that any change that does not involve core mechanics should be implemented if it removes the confirmability of a Town role too. Transporter is overpowered mostly because of its confirmability, and now it is nearly impossible for it to hide its existence. i agree. This is the one change they're making that shouldn't be added. Although some people say that silent transports would not be the ideal solution because they would be too chaotic, nobody has ever even thought of making it more confirmable. One of Town's core mechanics is that they can use their abilities incorrectly and get punished for it. Transporter used to do this very well; if they transported someone who got investigated, the investigative role would get the wrong results, often causing a mislynch. This change would be like if BMG made Vigilantes unable to shoot Townies.

BMG, in the future, please make the changes that have been suggested by us forumers. if they took the word of is forumers as gospel and only added things we suggest, that would be a problem. We are NOT programmers, they are. Why would it be a problem? Their goal is to make as much money as possible from the game, and they do this by making us satisfied. Alternate changes that are supported by almost everyone on the forums have been suggested for all of the roles that you are going to change. I have never seen anyone suggest any of the changes that you are planning on makingagain, our word doesn't matter in the long run. Some people think that you should be able to drink at age 18 in the USA, that doesn't mean congress is going to change that law. The people who support that support it because they do not understand the consequences that that law would cause. The U.S. Government knows that if that were made into a law, some of the people who previously supported it would want it to be repealed. There is no reason that I could see that BMG's proposed changes are the best ones. Like 1.5, many people, including those who support the update now, will not like it once it is implemented.

[awesome5000]

If everyone knows who is transed, how the hell can someone claim transporter and get himself confirmed?

>implying confirmability is a desirable quality

But anyways:
1) claim transporter
2) wait for counterclaims
3) force everyone to transport different sets of people
4) wait and see who is transported
5) confirm the transporter and lynch all liars

Or
Transporter says d1, I will double trans myself. TP on me.
Trans insta confirmed.

or even
Transporter whispers transported people before the start of day.
Trans confirmed.

[KingOfFrance]

Yeah, This is the first time I'm ever posting anything on the forum. The only reason I'm doing this at all is because of how outraged I am at the proposed Transporter change. Transporter is by far my favorite role, and I believe it to be well balanced. Should this change become a reality, I'm afraid I will have to leave the game. I do like the proposed Disguiser change though.

[awesome5000]

Yeah, This is the first time I'm ever posting anything on the forum. The only reason I'm doing this at all is because of how outraged I am at the proposed Transporter change. Transporter is by far my favorite role, and I believe it to be well balanced. Should this change become a reality, I'm afraid I will have to leave the game. I do like the proposed Disguiser change though.

More like
Transporter is pretty OP
Most people here are against the change.
Mroz's disguiser change was better.

[KnucklesBine]

I like everything BUTTTTTT the transporter part threw me off for personally I do a risky tactic that pays off constantly.
When mafia I always pretend to be a transporter. 1st night through 2nd and 3rd I use names of recently dead such as
N1: Myself and Betty
N2: Myself and Greg
N3-- sometimes Ill start using fellow mafia to build my will.
Eventually itll come down to a invest investing me. Thats when this comes in real handy.
I can say I transported myself with such and such.
Its a risky play because debunking just takes some talking through but its my favorite one.

[Greenpandalover]

Is no one factoring in that the old disguiser was causing issues with reporting according to mods and reporting?

With Mroz's disguiser, the issue would still be there. The disguiser still becomes a whole new player, which was causing issues in the reporting/wrongful people getting reported.

This change of the disguiser removes that issue, while keeping the general idea of masking yourself as another.

This is a very easy fix- as I mentioned in my previous post, it could say something like "Betty Parris (Disguised as Samuel Sewall): xxx" in the Trial System.

I think youre forgetting the part where the disguiser has caused many false reports to take place, which waste the judges time, which makes it take longer to get rid of the toxic players.

Fixing the disguiser in this ways eliminates these misreports,, which gives more time to remove the actual toxic players.

[Daemon213]

I really wish they'd do something with the Retributionist. To me, the retributionist is one of the most useless roles there is in the game. I find myself waiting most of the game for someone to die and not immediately leave the game so I can revive them, then I just sit and wait to die. Then when I can revive someone, they usually die the next night anyway. Maybe make them a neutral role capable of reviving anyone who dies or revive multiple people. That way we're not just one and done.

[mdb1023]

Spoiler:

I only like the trial limit change. Where did BMG get the other ideas from? Mroz's Disguiser rework has been supported by >90% of people who voted, yet they are planning to make a change that nobody has even suggested. just because its popular doesn't mean it's good/ right for the game. Changes for the game should be based on what we want. Almost every forumer supports this change, and BMG should take the hint that it is what we want and what will help the game do better, regardless of whether or not it is right for the game. Additionally, although a role that can make people appear as the wrong roles after they die would be cool, it should not replace a role that can potentially add a lot to the game and should not be coupled with a role that can change investigative results. There already is a role called Framer. If this change was because of the trials, BMG could have just made it say "Samuel Parris (Disguised as Edward Bishop): xxx." It would have been much easier and better. Furthermore, BMG is making Witch into a buffed Neutral Consigliere. Orange's thread about roles not to post says that no Neutral role should be able to directly investigate; having to indirectly find their teammates is a core aspect of Neutral Evil roles. A scum autovest would have been much easier and is almost universally supported on the forums. orange isn't the boss. You're literally using his word as gospel. Just because he says a neutral role shouldn't be able to investigate doesn't mean they can't do what they want with it. It's the dev's game, not Orangeandblack's. It is just one example of people disliking Neutral roles that investigate people. In general, as I mentioned previously, Neutral Evil roles should have to try to find their teammates indirectly. If you ask everyone on the forums who has a decent understanding on balanced, nine out of ten would agree that Neutral roles should not be able to directly investigate. The game would do better if BMG did what we want for the reasons that I mentioned before. Here is the second major example (the first being the Mayor change) of BMG taking core mechanics from a role when there is an obvious alternative. please explain what the "obvious" alternative was for removing mayor games? There are a lot- Town Power, removing whispering entirely, lowering Mayors vote count, and even removing Mayor entirely would be better. Mayor is not the only role that can start whisper games; in fact, the majority of other Town roles can almost as easily. Finally, there is the Transporter change. Almost all forumers agree that Town roles should not be able to self confirm. Most, such as myself, think that any change that does not involve core mechanics should be implemented if it removes the confirmability of a Town role too. Transporter is overpowered mostly because of its confirmability, and now it is nearly impossible for it to hide its existence. i agree. This is the one change they're making that shouldn't be added. Although some people say that silent transports would not be the ideal solution because they would be too chaotic, nobody has ever even thought of making it more confirmable. One of Town's core mechanics is that they can use their abilities incorrectly and get punished for it. Transporter used to do this very well; if they transported someone who got investigated, the investigative role would get the wrong results, often causing a mislynch. This change would be like if BMG made Vigilantes unable to shoot Townies.

BMG, in the future, please make the changes that have been suggested by us forumers. if they took the word of is forumers as gospel and only added things we suggest, that would be a problem. We are NOT programmers, they are. Why would it be a problem? Their goal is to make as much money as possible from the game, and they do this by making us satisfied. Alternate changes that are supported by almost everyone on the forums have been suggested for all of the roles that you are going to change. I have never seen anyone suggest any of the changes that you are planning on makingagain, our word doesn't matter in the long run. Some people think that you should be able to drink at age 18 in the USA, that doesn't mean congress is going to change that law. The people who support that support it because they do not understand the consequences that that law would cause. The U.S. Government knows that if that were made into a law, some of the people who previously supported it would want it to be repealed. There is no reason that I could see that BMG's proposed changes are the best ones. Like 1.5, many people, including those who support the update now, will not like it once it is implemented.

Gonna break free from the quote tree here. In response to Alex1234321:

Point number 1 counter: so you're saying that they should add something to the game "regardless of whether or not its right for the game"? Do you realize how fucking stupid that is!? Say that everyone wanted to add a role that would completely break the game, by your logic, they should add that role even though they KNOW it will break the game, simply because it's something we want? Right, that makes perfect sense!

Point number 2: "the game would do better if they did what we want"? Do you realize how entitled that makes you sound!? A lot of people really want to own machine guns, but that doesn't mean they should. In regards to the neutral thing, pease provide evidence that nine out of ten forumers agree with you. Because statistics can easily be pulled out of your ass and it's hardly evidence for your reasoning. In fact, that's a boarder line logical fallacy.

Point number 3: town power doesn't stop mayor games from happening, all it does is decrease the likelihood of mayor spawning. Removing whispers has it's own problems. No roles should be removed under any circumstances, they can always be changed or reworked of necessary. Decreasing the mayor's vote also does nothing to stop mayor games. As I have said MANY times before, there's a difference between mayor games and whisper games. It's true that any town can confirm themselves and do a whisper game, but it's not NEARLY as effective as a mayor game, and it simply doesn't happen as often. Nine of these so called obvious solutions stop mayor games from happening and also keep the mayor in the game. You can preach town power all you want but it just doesn't stop a mayor from revealing day one and demanding whispers from everyone.

Point number 4: again, you sound extremely entitled when you say that their goal is to make us happy. No. The goal is to provide a free to play game. It's not like ignoring requests that may or may not be good is going to lose them thousands. They could literally do whatever the fuck they want and just pay Youtubers to play the game and get more players when we all quit if they wanted to. Our happiness doesn't constitute us being the boss behind every decision they make.
That being said, they SHOULD listen to our feedback (especially regarding the transporter change), but not take our word as law.

Point number 5: you literally proved my point in the way you responded to this. Yes, the people who support the law being changed DONT understand the consequences of that change. In the same way, we the people of Salem don't understand how the changes suggested on the forums would actually work in game the way that the developers do. Considering they MADE the game in the first place, I think it's more than fair to say that they know A LOT more about what's good for this game than we do.

In sum, just because you want something doesn't mean you should/ are going to get it. I want our next president to be some one that isn't a complete piece of shit, that doesn't mean It's going to happen. And I would REALLY like to be a naturally perfect performer that gets a good role in every show I'm in, but then I wouldn't have to work for it and it wouldn't be as satisfying when I do get my chance to shine. Kind of a stretch in comparison, but it gets my point across: what people want isn't always what's best.

[NeighborhoodKidz]

i like the changes for transporter and disguiser. i dont like witch.

my thought for witch changes is at night, it at most tells you if you found a killing role or not in your controlled target and if you did find a killing role if your other target is night immune and leave it at that. letting witch know the exact roles of the one they control takes it a bit too far and gives witch too much power

[JazzMusicStops]

You could make it so disguiser makes Mafia kill targets appear as different roles, rather than itself
Just a suggestion

[randomguyhavingfun]

Spoiler:

[spoiler]

I only like the trial limit change. Where did BMG get the other ideas from? Mroz's Disguiser rework has been supported by >90% of people who voted, yet they are planning to make a change that nobody has even suggested. just because its popular doesn't mean it's good/ right for the game. Changes for the game should be based on what we want. Almost every forumer supports this change, and BMG should take the hint that it is what we want and what will help the game do better, regardless of whether or not it is right for the game. Additionally, although a role that can make people appear as the wrong roles after they die would be cool, it should not replace a role that can potentially add a lot to the game and should not be coupled with a role that can change investigative results. There already is a role called Framer. If this change was because of the trials, BMG could have just made it say "Samuel Parris (Disguised as Edward Bishop): xxx." It would have been much easier and better. Furthermore, BMG is making Witch into a buffed Neutral Consigliere. Orange's thread about roles not to post says that no Neutral role should be able to directly investigate; having to indirectly find their teammates is a core aspect of Neutral Evil roles. A scum autovest would have been much easier and is almost universally supported on the forums. orange isn't the boss. You're literally using his word as gospel. Just because he says a neutral role shouldn't be able to investigate doesn't mean they can't do what they want with it. It's the dev's game, not Orangeandblack's. It is just one example of people disliking Neutral roles that investigate people. In general, as I mentioned previously, Neutral Evil roles should have to try to find their teammates indirectly. If you ask everyone on the forums who has a decent understanding on balanced, nine out of ten would agree that Neutral roles should not be able to directly investigate. The game would do better if BMG did what we want for the reasons that I mentioned before. Here is the second major example (the first being the Mayor change) of BMG taking core mechanics from a role when there is an obvious alternative. please explain what the "obvious" alternative was for removing mayor games? There are a lot- Town Power, removing whispering entirely, lowering Mayors vote count, and even removing Mayor entirely would be better. Mayor is not the only role that can start whisper games; in fact, the majority of other Town roles can almost as easily. Finally, there is the Transporter change. Almost all forumers agree that Town roles should not be able to self confirm. Most, such as myself, think that any change that does not involve core mechanics should be implemented if it removes the confirmability of a Town role too. Transporter is overpowered mostly because of its confirmability, and now it is nearly impossible for it to hide its existence. i agree. This is the one change they're making that shouldn't be added. Although some people say that silent transports would not be the ideal solution because they would be too chaotic, nobody has ever even thought of making it more confirmable. One of Town's core mechanics is that they can use their abilities incorrectly and get punished for it. Transporter used to do this very well; if they transported someone who got investigated, the investigative role would get the wrong results, often causing a mislynch. This change would be like if BMG made Vigilantes unable to shoot Townies.

BMG, in the future, please make the changes that have been suggested by us forumers. if they took the word of is forumers as gospel and only added things we suggest, that would be a problem. We are NOT programmers, they are. Why would it be a problem? Their goal is to make as much money as possible from the game, and they do this by making us satisfied. Alternate changes that are supported by almost everyone on the forums have been suggested for all of the roles that you are going to change. I have never seen anyone suggest any of the changes that you are planning on makingagain, our word doesn't matter in the long run. Some people think that you should be able to drink at age 18 in the USA, that doesn't mean congress is going to change that law. The people who support that support it because they do not understand the consequences that that law would cause. The U.S. Government knows that if that were made into a law, some of the people who previously supported it would want it to be repealed. There is no reason that I could see that BMG's proposed changes are the best ones. Like 1.5, many people, including those who support the update now, will not like it once it is implemented.

Gonna break free from the quote tree here. In response to Alex1234321:

Point number 1 counter: so you're saying that they should add something to the game "regardless of whether or not its right for the game"? Do you realize how fucking stupid that is!? Say that everyone wanted to add a role that would completely break the game, by your logic, they should add that role even though they KNOW it will break the game, simply because it's something we want? Right, that makes perfect sense!

Point number 2: "the game would do better if they did what we want"? Do you realize how entitled that makes you sound!? A lot of people really want to own machine guns, but that doesn't mean they should. In regards to the neutral thing, pease provide evidence that nine out of ten forumers agree with you. Because statistics can easily be pulled out of your ass and it's hardly evidence for your reasoning. In fact, that's a boarder line logical fallacy.

Point number 3: town power doesn't stop mayor games from happening, all it does is decrease the likelihood of mayor spawning. Removing whispers has it's own problems. No roles should be removed under any circumstances, they can always be changed or reworked of necessary. Decreasing the mayor's vote also does nothing to stop mayor games. As I have said MANY times before, there's a difference between mayor games and whisper games. It's true that any town can confirm themselves and do a whisper game, but it's not NEARLY as effective as a mayor game, and it simply doesn't happen as often. Nine of these so called obvious solutions stop mayor games from happening and also keep the mayor in the game. You can preach town power all you want but it just doesn't stop a mayor from revealing day one and demanding whispers from everyone.

Point number 4: again, you sound extremely entitled when you say that their goal is to make us happy. No. The goal is to provide a free to play game. It's not like ignoring requests that may or may not be good is going to lose them thousands. They could literally do whatever the fuck they want and just pay Youtubers to play the game and get more players when we all quit if they wanted to. Our happiness doesn't constitute us being the boss behind every decision they make.
That being said, they SHOULD listen to our feedback (especially regarding the transporter change), but not take our word as law.

Point number 5: you literally proved my point in the way you responded to this. Yes, the people who support the law being changed DONT understand the consequences of that change. In the same way, we the people of Salem don't understand how the changes suggested on the forums would actually work in game the way that the developers do. Considering they MADE the game in the first place, I think it's more than fair to say that they know A LOT more about what's good for this game than we do.

In sum, just because you want something doesn't mean you should/ are going to get it. I want our next president to be some one that isn't a complete piece of shit, that doesn't mean It's going to happen. And I would REALLY like to be a naturally perfect performer that gets a good role in every show I'm in, but then I wouldn't have to work for it and it wouldn't be as satisfying when I do get my chance to shine. Kind of a stretch in comparison, but it gets my point across: what people want isn't always what's best.

[/spoiler]

Mdb how much more do you think the programmers know? A lot of forumers have been here for a long time and can see what would hurt balanche. I can imagine that the programmers devote less time in playing the game because of their job. And it's a small team too meaning they do not have too much of a variety in opinions which could easily lead to mistakes. Mistakes have already been made by the programmmers you know , adding the original disguiser as was is one of them. And who understands the games balanche better is also pretty subjective since without testing nobody can really predict the consenquences of a change. it is the developers game but it's a game meant for people meaning they should have a word over it. Sure they don't need us, they can start another paid promotion to bring newbies who will also be fed up and rage quit forcing them to do more paid promotions which will be increasingly ineffective because of the games bad rep. I think it's clear why no mod team would want to risk that. Anyways I do agree that not all stuff the players say should be added but the forumers cannot implament anything they want just like that.

Alex removing whispers entirely is pretty much removing core mechanics with the additions of hurting more roles and making the game more straightforward but it is better because salt? Town power is a needless whisper games booster that adds swing and op roles as common game mechanics. Having the mayor alongside some other roles nerfed mayor is now is better for not having whisper games. Removing mayor entirely would work but most people do not want to go that far. And lowering the vote count to 2 or even 1 is really doing nothing at all.

For now I will be happy if the transporter change isn't implamemnted and the other changes are tested thoroughly and fixed If needed

[holydwing]

I really wish they'd do something with the Retributionist. To me, the retributionist is one of the most useless roles there is in the game. I find myself waiting most of the game for someone to die and not immediately leave the game so I can revive them, then I just sit and wait to die. Then when I can revive someone, they usually die the next night anyway. Maybe make them a neutral role capable of reviving anyone who dies or revive multiple people. That way we're not just one and done.

not true. its just the most boring role. wait for someone important to die, revive them and then start acting important to lure evils to target you since youre useless. uselesseness is useful for giving more important people another night hehe.

trust me, i hate retri too but its not a bad role. in fact, its pretty op since it provides town with a confirmed role that can be whispered (maybe remove that like the mayor? maybe even prevent the revived guy from talking? as if hes a zombie?)

powerful, just boring.

[yonks012]

Can't seem to find this info, so how are rets and amnes going to work with a dead disguiser? It would kinda feel counter-productive to disguise as, say a Doc, and have an amne remember they were one after you die and now have 2 real docs alive. Are a ret and amne just going to be able to revive/become a dead disguiser and have it shown it chat that it was a town role?

[shelboo]

Can't seem to find this info, so how are rets and amnes going to work with a dead disguiser? It would kinda feel counter-productive to disguise as, say a Doc, and have an amne remember they were one after you die and now have 2 real docs alive. Are a ret and amne just going to be able to revive/become a dead disguiser and have it shown it chat that it was a town role?

Here's what currently happens.

Retributionists: If the Disguiser dies while appearing as a town role, a Retributionist will see an option to revive the Disguiser. If the Retributionist attempts to revive the Disguiser, the Disguiser will not be brought back to life. The Disguiser will receive no notification about someone attempting to revive him. The Retributionist will receive no notification about the revival failing but the Retributionist should be able to notice that the target wasn't revived. The Retributionist will not lose his "1 resurrection".

Amnesiacs: If an Amnesiac selects to remember as a Disguiser who had died as a disguised role, the Amnesiac will remember that he is a Disguiser. It is publicly announced to the town.

[Trollermo]

Dont change the transporters .. The TI will know who has visit ,

[Ogeezalo]

Really, for me, the only buff that witch needed was to make witch immune to killing. In my experience, 90% of witches die from being killed by mafia or the neutral killing role.

[Galaktik]

Transporter change is absolutely horrible in my opinion. I truly hope this doesn't go through. Not much else I can add that the last few hundred users haven't already reiterated many times over, but it seems to be almost universal disdain in reaction to this change.

Also, three trials is too few in my opinion. If you are using it just to prevent mayor from trolling, then you shouldn't also punish a valid strategy at the same time.

[Greenpandalover]

Its worrying me that the devs havent responded to the backlash of the transporter change yet..
(The disg and witch seem 50/50, so those arentbas important to the 50+% who dontblike the trans.)

[BlazinIce]

Its worrying me that the devs havent responded to the backlash of the transporter change yet..
(The disg and witch seem 50/50, so those arentbas important to the 50+% who dontblike the trans.)

Oh, this is normal to the devs. Ignoring community feedback and adding stuff that people mostly don't like.

[Greenpandalover]

Its worrying me that the devs havent responded to the backlash of the transporter change yet..
(The disg and witch seem 50/50, so those arentbas important to the 50+% who dontblike the trans.)

Oh, this is normal to the devs. Ignoring community feedback and adding stuff that people mostly don't like.

They at least replied on why theyre ignoring the community for changes

Plus the devs did have the community patch with 1.5 when invest finally changed.

[RosalinasGalaxy]

Its worrying me that the devs havent responded to the backlash of the transporter change yet..
(The disg and witch seem 50/50, so those arentbas important to the 50+% who dontblike the trans.)

Oh, this is normal to the devs. Ignoring community feedback and adding stuff that people mostly don't like.

They at least replied on why theyre ignoring the community for changes

Plus the devs did have the community patch with 1.5 when invest finally changed.

But did you see the rest of that attempted balance list?
They only took a few attributes, and mainly the investigative results.

They ended up leaving the other 97% of that 1.5 change list out.

I'm assuming the Devs try to be original with their content, and that's a big reason as to why they don't take a lot of the community suggestions.
But at the same time, they don't appear to know what they're doing themselves...

[MaskedPokerFace]

And please change arsonist's douse attack like werewolf attack.Arsos can douse 2 people at same house

[SpongeBoobies]

Oh cool, changing the disguiser to a framer. We totally need another one of those. What is the point of disguising if you are going to show up as another persons role when you die? That is so pointless. Also you should probably fire the person who came up with the trans idea. See, I have a better one. Why not make it Neutral Evil, instead?

[randomguyhavingfun]

NE transporter blatantly overshadows witch.

Not if she remains a consig

[alphadevilll]

Revoke the transporter changes. Because game is already hard for the Neutral Killings to win.
If everybody sees who was transed, an immune evil role who got attacked will not be able to bluff being transed.
Arso and Werewolves will never win games now. Cuz they are going to get attacked at some point during the game.. Mafia or other Evil roles will rat them out.They can claim jailed but then jailor will exec them
It will completely ruin the game.. About transporter, the role itself is OP. so if it has some disadvantages, SO BE IT.