Town of Salem Game Forums

( updated )

Aside from vampires, people might say, "You can't gamethrow as a neutral".

I think gamethrowing with neutrals happen all the time- especially with neutral killings.

I find this a problem because when an NK gamethrows (e.g. suicides, helps town) it benefits the town, greatly, because (at least in ranked) only has one more target: The Mafia. And in those games, I notice mafia is more likely to lose as well.

I think neutrals should be able to be reported for gamethrowing as well. Gamethrowing as a neutral should be defined as "going against your role's goal".

That is what it's defined as.

At the same time, it seems wrong to me that the Mafia is the victim here. When the NK (an anti-mafia player) leaves, the Mafia suffers? That does more to say the game is poorly balanced than to say the NK shouldn't leave, imo.

You can already report neutrals for gamethrowing, if they do it with the intention of losing.
No matter what people tell you, it is still quite clearly mentioned in the rules.

Brilliand wrote:That is what it's defined as.

At the same time, it seems wrong to me that the Mafia is the victim here. When the NK (an anti-mafia player) leaves, the Mafia suffers? That does more to say the game is poorly balanced than to say the NK shouldn't leave, imo.

Actually, if the NK leaves early and town is competent, mafia will be at a serious disadvantage, since there will only be one dead townie each night, giving town enough time to figure them out. Unless a vigi kills another town member, maf won't stand a chance. That's why serial killers are considered to be the best NK role and why arsos are considered the worst.

Also, there are other instances when neutrals gamethrow and no one cares. For example, if a jester decides to lynch a player in a 1 vs 1 vs 1 scenario, he is gamethrowing unless he has already asked for a lynch. Many people seem to forget that.

Ranked has a lot more room to talk when it comes to who should be reported, banned, and suspended.
I honestly think the system should ban more players from ranked than any other game mode. It is literally the only one that should be taken seriously.

Joacgroso wrote:Also, there are other instances when neutrals gamethrow and no one cares. For example, if a jester decides to lynch a player in a 1 vs 1 vs 1 scenario, he is gamethrowing unless he has already asked for a lynch. Many people seem to forget that.

I think most people don't understand how a jester is able to force the other players to lynch him in a 1v1v1 scenario, so they're off the hook for not using that strategy.

I think RP should also be trated seriously. But besides, punishing players even more in one gamemode would imply that breaking the rules in other modes is better, while doing that is equally bad no matter where you play. However, I think banning people only from ranked could serve as a pusnishment.

Brilliand wrote:I think most people don't understand how a jester is able to force the other players to lynch him in a 1v1v1 scenario, so they're off the hook for not using that strategy.

They should be reported anyway, just like leavers. If they are new players, then they should be innoed for being ignorant. But as they get more experienced, they should stop doing it, and repeating the offense should be punishable. It would be nice if they could get just a simple tip as a warning, though, because kingmaking doesn't seem as obviously bad as other kinds of gamethrowing.

I see where you're coming from. But supposedly, neutrals like NK can be reported for gamethrowing if they gamethrow.

The problem is that trials is really lenient towards gamethrowing. Most obvious gamethrows to players are considered as "Not - gamethrow, but just stupidity". So NKs usually leave most games during D1/N1? They won't get suspended because anyone who leaves (without explicitly showing their intent to leave), won't get suspended. Even though none of the intentional leavers will likely declare they're leaving.

Most passive gamethrowers will not be suspended.

It's not neutral gamethrowing that's ignored, it's just that the gamethrowing definition is really lenient.

Joacgroso wrote:But besides, punishing players even more in one gamemode would imply that breaking the rules in other modes is better, while doing that is equally bad no matter where you play.

I disagree. Depending on the rule, it is better in other modes, probably even not worth punishing.

Ranked and Ranked Practice feature the serious competitors whose wins and losses matter. Every other mode should be casual and relaxed and you should not have to worry about being banned (unless you gamethrow). It's just the way this game is set up.

In my opinion cheating, harrassing others, gamethrowing and impersonating a BMG employee are bad no matter what gamemode you play. It's not like people should get special privileges for playing ranked.
Casual modes are just for people who don't care that much about balance, want to use scrolls,play with friends or don't like the pressure or the queue time for ranked. I don't think they should have to tolerate people breaking the rules either.

All I can think of is the numerous jesters I have played with who refused to work with mafia because they wanted to be lynched, thus dooming them to not be lynched.

At least they tried to win...

This is the way I see it :

Neutral roles, like Jester and Executioner, but Even Serial Killer are Solo roles, atleast in classic gameplay.
This means that their purpose in the game is egoistic or egocentric. They do not need to care about the needs of other players, only themselves as they have no team.
They answer to no one and they serve no accountability to anyone.

And that's exactly what makes these roles so funny.

Should they "gamethrow", They are only throwing their selves as they have no team. If they throw the game for someone else by their actions, Why should they care ? They had Solo Roles from the start.
They can try and choose to team up with other players or factions, but in the end their goal remains the same if they want to win the game, they have to accomplish their own goal, Which can or cannot be helpfull to other players.

And since their role is solo/egocentric and they have no team, I think its up to these players themself how they wanna play the game.
For example, You almost got yourself lynched as a Jester untill an other player, say an invest, told the town that you were jester and suddenly everyone voted innocent and your game plan is gone.
Your odds of winning have decreased, you can choose to stay and hope for the best, to leave, or to exact revenge on that invest, Make him go down with you

So in my opinion, there is no such thing as gamethrowing for neutral roles.

Gamethrowing is intentionally going against your team's win condition, even if that team is just you. This means neutrals can also gamethrow.
It's true that NK roles are alone and must kill other teams to win, but that doesn't mean they have the right to give up, since they are affecting other teams without achieving their own goals.
Also, in the example Iluyan mentioned, the jester can't choose to leave because that's still gamethrowing. Just because they have less chances of winning it doesn't mean they have the right to leave and abandon the evils alone, who were counting on them to gain mayority (even if the jester could betray them later).

Also, in the example Iluyan mentioned, the jester can't choose to leave because that's still gamethrowing. Just because they have less chances of winning it doesn't mean they have the right to leave and abandon the evils alone, who were counting on them to gain mayority (even if the jester could betray them later).

But the Jester is Neutral, he can team up with who ever he wants to even if he is 100% revealed Jester. Same goes for Executioner, once he gets his target lynched he is allowed to leave the game if he wants, imo. It's not game throwing is it now? He completed his goal and doesn't need to help anyone. I'ts called Neutral for a reason.

Also why is this in Suggestions? You are allowed to report Neutrals for throwing if you give a good reason, but it's highly nonpunishable.

Joacgroso wrote:Gamethrowing is intentionally going against your team's win condition, even if that team is just you. This means neutrals can also gamethrow.
It's true that NK roles are alone and must kill other teams to win, but that doesn't mean they have the right to give up, since they are affecting other teams without achieving their own goals.

You are right, These are the rules and following them means that "neutral gamethrowing" is punishable. Its just my opinion that they shoudn't be.
I just like the idea of them being egocentric roles and that they don't have to care for other players needs if they don't want to. Remember they play only for themselves in this role.

Duckferno wrote:

Same goes for Executioner, once he gets his target lynched he is allowed to leave the game if he wants, imo. It's not game throwing is it now? He completed his goal and doesn't need to help anyone. I'ts called Neutral for a reason.

I woudn't do that, Even though you accomplished your goal, you need to stick untill the end of the game to "collect" your win.


As for the other matters, when these rolls win :

-Jester wins-
It can now only interact with the dead and kill one of the guilty voters, obviously Its only up to the Jester Who he/she wants to kill.

-Executioner wins-
It has already accomplished its goal, but that doesn't really change anything imo. The Executioner is still free to act as he likes. He can choose to side with Town/Evil or stay neutral.
I personally therefore love to win as EXE and making that clear to town after I got my target lynched. I love to then sit back, relax and enjoy my win, while i watch the other factions struggle for survival and victory, while i'l just keep an attitude up ingame that just doesn't give a **** to either faction. This becomes even more fun when your vote becomes a tie-breaker and you get to decide who wins.

I woudn't do that, Even though you accomplished your goal, you need to stick untill the end of the game to "collect" your win.


As for the other matters, when these rolls win :

-Jester wins-
It can now only interact with the dead and kill one of the guilty voters, obviously Its only up to the Jester Who he/she wants to kill.

-Executioner wins-
It has already accomplished its goal, but that doesn't really change anything imo. The Executioner is still free to act as he likes. He can choose to side with Town/Evil or stay neutral.
I personally therefore love to win as EXE and making that clear to town after I got my target lynched. I love to then sit back, relax and enjoy my win, while i watch the other factions struggle for survival and victory, while i'l just keep an attitude up ingame that just doesn't give a **** to either faction. This becomes even more fun when your vote becomes a tie-breaker and you get to decide who wins

I'm saying there is an option to leave the game as executioner once you've done your goal. I don't get how it's "game throwing" if I leave before executing my target. The executioner is doesn't need to have fun, if they don't like their role they should be able to leave. Who says he's gonna help evils, does it matter if he betrays them later?
It really doesn't imo. If I leave as Executioner would I get reported for Leaving or Game throwing, not the same things. So if you're saying we should be able to report executioners or jesters for leaving/game throwing, what if I was a survivor and left? Would that be game throwing?

Another thing is Neutral Evils aren't in some team. (Unless you create one) Therefore it's not game throwing if they leave nor help evils. As for Jester they don't need to stay in the game and try to win. It's their fault they left, they didn't want the win so it doesn't seem re-portable. But I do agree with you on Neutral Killing roles, they shouldn't leave as they have a significance to the game more then Neutral Evils/Benign.

Duckferno wrote:But the Jester is Neutral, he can team up with who ever he wants to even if he is 100% revealed Jester. Same goes for Executioner, once he gets his target lynched he is allowed to leave the game if he wants, imo. It's not game throwing is it now? He completed his goal and doesn't need to help anyone. I'ts called Neutral for a reason.

Jesters can team up with whoever they want, unless it makes them lose. In a 1 vs 1 vs 1 scenario, for example, they should always try to get lynched. Voting with another player would end the game, so it would be gamethrowing. If some player refused to vote the jester up, then he would have no chances of winning and then he would be able to vote with someone else. But before that happens, they should always help themselves over anybody else, or else it would be considered gamethrowing.

Duckferno wrote:I'm saying there is an option to leave the game as executioner once you've done your goal. I don't get how it's "game throwing" if I leave before executing my target.

If you leave before acomplishing your goal, then you lose. Therefore, it's gamethrowing, wheter you have a team or not. And since staying until the end of the game is a requirement for winning, leaving would still be gamethrowing. In the case of jesters, of course they should be able to leave after they won. But if we are talking about exe's, they shouldn't leave until they die because their vote still matters and it would screw everyone up. That's why I think they should wait until they die to get their win.

Duckferno wrote: The executioner is doesn't need to have fun, if they don't like their role they should be able to leave. Who says he's gonna help evils, does it matter if he betrays them later?
It really doesn't imo. If I leave as Executioner would I get reported for Leaving or Game throwing, not the same things. So if you're saying we should be able to report executioners or jesters for leaving/game throwing, what if I was a survivor and left? Would that be game throwing?

Yes, leaving as a survivor would be gamethrowing. It doesn't matter if they have a team or not. And of course, everyone should be reported for gamethrowing if they gamethrow, no matter what their role is.

Duckferno wrote:Another thing is Neutral Evils aren't in some team. (Unless you create one) Therefore it's not game throwing if they leave nor help evils. As for Jester they don't need to stay in the game and try to win. It's their fault they left, they didn't want the win so it doesn't seem re-portable.

As I said before, gamethrowing is intentionally going against your team's win condition, even if that team is just you, so exes or jesters who leave before winning would still be gamethrowers. Jesters do need to stay in the game because otherwise they lose, and therefore they would be gamethrowing. Saying that leaving shouldn't be reportable because they just chose not to win would imply that leaving as town, mafia, or any other faction shouldn't be reportable either, which it should.

Jesters can team up with whoever they want, unless it makes them lose. In a 1 vs 1 vs 1 scenario, for example, they should always try to get lynched. Voting with another player would end the game, so it would be gamethrowing. If some player refused to vote the jester up, then he would have no chances of winning and then he would be able to vote with someone else. But before that happens, they should always help themselves over anybody else, or else it would be considered gamethrowing.

How is this game throwing? This is called stupidity, if I do vote with someone (in a 1 v 1 v 1) it's not game throwing, it's called stupidity. I'm 99% sure that no one would report this. As for Executioner it's not game throwing if I leave once finishing my goal. I don't need to vote, or stay at the end of the game to receive what ever. Like I do sometimes, I leave as Executioner once finishing my goal. Do I need the win, no. Do others need the win,yes. Does it matter to me, No. Does it matter to them, sure. As long as you're not going against your goal it's not game throwing, even if you need to wait till the end of the game to receive the win, you still executed your target. Did I finish my goal, yes. Is that person ever coming back, can be if revived. Do I need to lynch them again, no. But you can for the Achievement but it's optional
.

Yes, leaving as a survivor would be game throwing. It doesn't matter if they have a team or not. And of course, everyone should be reported for gamethrowing if they gamethrow, no matter what their role is.

Okay so what if I was a 100% revealed jester and the only evil left is an Arsonist? Town wouldn't want to lynch me, as that would be game throwing unless it's in their best interest, they would want to kill me. Why should I wait a long time instead of being able to leave. Maybe, like I've said in other forums, instead of getting suspended/banned for leaving just have a reoccurring wait to play the game again, for say 1 hour or 30 minutes(Not an official suspension or ban.) I just don't agree I should be suspended/banned officially from the game for leaving as a certain type of Neutral. But in these types of scenario's the only one it hurts are the person themselves. Sure Mafia might need an extra person but that doesn't effect the game if the Neutral didn't exist.

As I said before, gamethrowing is intentionally going against your team's win condition, even if that team is just you, so exes or jesters who leave before winning would still be gamethrowers. Jesters do need to stay in the game because otherwise they lose, and therefore they would be gamethrowing. Saying that leaving shouldn't be reportable because they just chose not to win would imply that leaving as town, mafia, or any other faction shouldn't be reportable either, which it should.

That's different very different though. Town needs to live to see all the evils lose. Mafia needs to see other evils and the town lose. Neutral Killings need to see everyone else lose. Neutrals have a different goal. A unique goal. Does this goal effect town, sure. Does it effect other Evils, sure. Does it effect the Neutral person themselves, probably not. It seems justifiable to leave as a Neutral.

Leaving really is not that bad. There is a reason it takes a lot to get someone banned for leaving, as well it should. Most people are not going to waste their time reporting a Jester for leaving because the only person hurt in that scenario is the Jester.

Spoiler:

Duckferno wrote:How is this game throwing? This is called stupidity, if I do vote with someone (in a 1 v 1 v 1) it's not game throwing, it's called stupidity. I'm 99% sure that no one would report this.

It depends of the situation. If the jester just votes another player and loses, then it can be considered stupidity and shouldn't be reported. However, if the jester is told that he will lose if he does that and he still votes against someone else despite the other players having not refused to lynch him, then it IS gamethrowing because the jester knew he would lose and voted anyways.

Duckferno wrote:As for Executioner it's not game throwing if I leave once finishing my goal. I don't need to vote, or stay at the end of the game to receive what ever. Like I do sometimes, I leave as Executioner once finishing my goal. Do I need the win, no. Do others need the win,yes. Does it matter to me, No. Does it matter to them, sure. As long as you're not going against your goal it's not game throwing, even if you need to wait till the end of the game to receive the win, you still executed your target. Did I finish my goal, yes. Is that person ever coming back, can be if revived. Do I need to lynch them again, no. But you can for the Achievement but it's optional.

As far as I know, exes have to wait until the end of the game or until they die to get their win, even if they have already lynched their target. That means that lynching their target is not enough to win. They also have to stay. So if they leave while alive, it is gamethrowing. You may say it's not, but right now that is the truth. However, it's impossible to tell if they left intentionally or because their connection failed, so instead of being reported for gamethrowing, they should be reported for leaving, which is also an offense.

Duckferno wrote:Okay so what if I was a 100% revealed jester and the only evil left is an Arsonist? Town wouldn't want to lynch me, as that would be game throwing unless it's in their best interest, they would want to kill me. Why should I wait a long time instead of being able to leave.

If town knows you are a jester, then you only need to wait one more night until either a vigi or the jailor kills you. If town has none of this roles, it means they won't kill you in any way, so you can just wait until a 1 vs 1 vs 1 scenario with the arsonist and a town member. Your chances of winning might be slight, but not null.

Duckferno wrote:Maybe, like I've said in other forums, instead of getting suspended/banned for leaving just have a reoccurring wait to play the game again, for say 1 hour or 30 minutes(Not an official suspension or ban.)

Why would people prefer leaving and waiting an hour over staying in the game for 10 minutes?

Duckferno wrote: I just don't agree I should be suspended/banned officially from the game for leaving as a certain type of Neutral. But in these types of scenario's the only one it hurts are the person themselves. Sure Mafia might need an extra person but that doesn't effect the game if the Neutral didn't exist.

I think breaking a rule is equally bad no matter what role you have. Also, leaving as a neutral does affect mafia since they are one day further from getting mayority, which can make the difference between them losing and winning.

Duckferno wrote:That's different very different though. Town needs to live to see all the evils lose. Mafia needs to see other evils and the town lose. Neutral Killings need to see everyone else lose. Neutrals have a different goal. A unique goal. Does this goal effect town, sure. Does it effect other Evils, sure. Does it effect the Neutral person themselves, probably not. It seems justifiable to leave as a Neutral.

As I said, afaik NE have to stay until the end of the game or until they die to get their win, so if they refuse to do that they are still gamethrowing. Besides, as the Trial Sistems says, leaving as any role is breaking a rule.

MisterAnger wrote:Leaving really is not that bad. There is a reason it takes a lot to get someone banned for leaving, as well it should. Most people are not going to waste their time reporting a Jester for leaving because the only person hurt in that scenario is the Jester.

The reason why banning someone for leaving takes so long is that it's impossible to prove if they left on purpose or not, so leavers get the benefict of the doubt before being suspended. Personally I always report leavers, but anyway it doesn't matter if people report it or not. Leaving is still against the rules.

If town knows you are a jester, then you only need to wait one more night until either a vigi or the jailor kills you. If town has none of this roles, it means they won't kill you in any way, so you can just wait until a 1 vs 1 vs 1 scenario with the arsonist and a town member. Your chances of winning might be slight, but not null.

It's obviously not going to happen in this scenario if they know you're revealed. Like you just said?
So if Jester left after finishing his goal, is that game throwing? So then it's not fair if Jester can leave and not get reported while executioner can. It's the same thing. If a Jester finishes his goal and leave's, you consider that game throwing?

Why would people prefer leaving and waiting an hour over staying in the game for 10 minutes?

Exactly, they'll be forced to stay unless they prefer a wait. It's easier this way, as more people might actually stay and play the game.

Even a lot of people like mods or judges have said they can't tell if you really disconnected or not. They will use past reports to determine. 90% of the time people reported for leaving don't get a punishment while the other 10% do.

Duckferno wrote:It's obviously not going to happen in this scenario if they know you're revealed. Like you just said?

It's actually possible to win in that scenario. I said the chances of winning were small, but not null. The arsonist would ignite once he has doused everyone but you and another townie, because waiting one more day would be too risky. Then he could lynch you if the townie agrees and you would get your win.
Sure, there are many reasons why this could end up not happening, but this is still a possibility.

Duckferno wrote:So if Jester left after finishing his goal, is that game throwing? So then it's not fair if Jester can leave and not get reported while executioner can. It's the same thing. If a Jester finishes his goal and leave's, you consider that game throwing?

I think they don't have to wait because they are dead, so it isn't gamethrowing. However, if they did have to wait until the game is over, then it would be considered gamethrowing if they leave before getting their win. I would be against that because dead jesters can't influence the game at all after haunting, so they shouldn't be forced to wait until the game is over. Winning exes are a different case, because they are alive and can still influence the game.

False, the Jester can definitely influence the game when they die.

1. They will haunt someone(like you said).
2. They can speak with a medium or to another player that will be revived, if do so.

The only way they differ is that executioners influence more than a Jester. They have basic defense and can talk to people alive and vote.

Rivelle wrote:Aside from neutral benigns, I think neutrals should be able to be reported for gamethrowing as well. Gamethrowing as a neutral should be defined as "going against your role's goal".

You can gamethrow as a survivor/Amnesiac.

For Amne, you can just choose not to become any roles (or out as an amne, and then choose something that would directly harm the majority)
For Survivor, you would just have to get yourself killed.