Please remove the Survivor role.

[BorgOverlord001]

Hello players of Town of Salem,

Hereby i petition that the Survivor role must be removed out of the game for multiple reasons.

1: Players just don't trust Survivor claims anymore, even if they asked for Invest and/or Trackers.
2: It's a very boring role with no purpose and in most games other players will lynch you if you even vote once during a game.
3: As soon as a Medusa stones someone or Pestilence shows up people always point towards the Survivor claims.

I know that removing the Survivor role from the game has implications for the Guardian Angel role and a solution for that might not be easy to find.

With friendly greetings,

A very salty and way too many times lynched for no reason Survivor player
BorgOverlord001

[CrimsonKatana]

I'm finna say naaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

[BorgOverlord001]

I'm finna say naaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

Please back it up with some reasons, your naaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh is not enough to convince me that the Survivor role is useless and stupid.

[Flavorable]

/nosupport

Personally, Survivor is one of my favorite roles. It's also the one I have, by far, the most wins as.
I'd say, if you keep getting lynched as a Survivor, maybe re-think your strategy.

[BorgOverlord001]

/nosupport

Personally, Survivor is one of my favorite roles. It's also the one I have, by far, the most wins as.
I'd say, if you keep getting lynched as a Survivor, maybe re-think your strategy.

Okay nice to know that some people are actually liking the Survivor role,
re-thinking my strategy just does not work, i've tried it so many times and it always ended in the same way with me getting lynched one way or another.

[BorgOverlord001]

Hello players of Town of Salem,

Hereby i petition that the Survivor role must be removed out of the game for multiple reasons.

1: Players just don't trust Survivor claims anymore, even if they asked for Invest and/or Trackers. Then rethink your strat when playing survivor.
2: It's a very boring role with no purpose and in most games other players will lynch you if you even vote once during a game. Not a legitimate reason to remove a role from the game. I agree that it's a boring role, but that is just my personal opinion and I know some folks do love it and it does have a purpose in the overall game. See my note below.
3: As soon as a Medusa stones someone or Pestilence shows up people always point towards the Survivor claims. Then, again, rethink a different strat when it comes to being a survivor.

I know that removing the Survivor role from the game has implications for the Guardian Angel role and a solution for that might not be easy to find.

With friendly greetings,

A very salty and way too many times lynched for no reason Survivor player
BorgOverlord001

Responses in red.

Also to note, removing survivor as a role would eliminate a possible claim that evil roles could use to cover their tracks and hurts every evil faction in the game. It just would not work.

/nosupport.

1: I've rethought my strategy so many time, it just NEVER works.
2: You are right about that but it's still a very useless role
3: Again does not work.

[woahah]

no roles are being removed from the game.

[Superalex11]

Survivor is one of the most balanced roles in the game

What qualifies "balanced" in this statement?

[Superalex11]

@Kat my question was more along the lines of what you would define "balanced" as meaning (though yes, in context of the survivor role).

In my opinion, that choice to pick whatever side they want to win with, so long as they survive to the end, balances out their lack of a true ability besides vesting 4 times. There is nothing that is absolutely game breaking about Survivor in All Any, or Custom, or any other mode where it can spawn in, and I rarely, and I mean, RARELY have ever seen people in Role ideas or suggestions asking for changes to Survivor (like more things to do or a decrease in vests). I can't even think of one instance outside of this thread of it happening in the last year.

It seems, from this, that you're saying survivor is overall balanced is because
A) its kingmaker potential balances its fundamental mundaneness
B) it has no overpowering or unmatched strengths
C) nobody else says it's unbalanced (*this is just an argumentative fallacy btw)

My main issue with this is that it implies that the balance of a role is between the strengths and weaknesses of that individual role, or player with that role, in a closed environment, and does not consider that individual balance in comparison to or conjunction with other roles.

For example:
One might argue that, in this sense, the mayor is balanced because its core strength (confirmability and extra votes) is equal in weight to its core weakness (no doc heals post-reveal).
One might also argue that, in this sense, the medium is also balanced because its core strength (retaining info from the dead) is equal in weight to its core weakness (lack of trust and not always useful).
However it is still undeniable that comparing the two roles to each other, we can say that the mayor is stronger than the medium, and that the roles in tandem are not balanced.
Now, I do not believe (at least in this example) that this is an issue, as minor imbalances are what create the complexity and fun in games at all. But to counter that it's not an issue because the two roles are together balanced is simply invalid.

So taking it back to survivor, I similarly find it hard to make a legitimate case that it's balanced amongst the other roles in the game.

[Superalex11]

What I see as "balanced" may not be what you see as "balanced", it may not be what the next person who reads this sees as "balanced".

I agree. This concept is the basis for my wanting you to clarify what you think "balanced" means so that I can understand your intention when you say "survivor is balanced" beyond using my own interpretation of the word "balanced".
As you didn't, I resorted to pulling an implication from your reasoning of why survivor is your-kind-of-"balanced", stated as:

the balance of a role is between the strengths and weaknesses of that individual role, or player with that role, in a closed environment, and does not consider that individual balance in comparison to or conjunction with other roles.

Have I misjudged your interpretation/use of the word "balance" in this quote? If so, I'm all for your correction.

[Flavorable]

What I see as "balanced" may not be what you see as "balanced", it may not be what the next person who reads this sees as "balanced".

I agree. This concept is the basis for my wanting you to clarify what you think "balanced" means so that I can understand your intention when you say "survivor is balanced" beyond using my own interpretation of the word "balanced".
As you didn't, I resorted to pulling an implication from your reasoning of why survivor is your-kind-of-"balanced", stated as:

the balance of a role is between the strengths and weaknesses of that individual role, or player with that role, in a closed environment, and does not consider that individual balance in comparison to or conjunction with other roles.

Have I misjudged your interpretation/use of the word "balance" in this quote? If so, I'm all for your correction.

This is a suggestion for the Survivor role being removed, not an essay on how Katiya phrases things, or means things. She stated her opinion, let's leave it at that and not de-rail the topic.

[orangeandblack5]

Hot take

Rethinking strategy doesn't make the role suddenly have an actual purpose to the game

It's pretty awful overall and at best it's just a kingmaker

[Brilliand]

Survivor does have a major problem with creating kingmaker situations.

Strike that, Town of Salem has a major problem with creating kingmaker situations, because every Ranked game where three different factions (or two factions and a neutral role) survive to the 4-player endgame has a kingmaker ending. I'm not sure removing one kingmaker role will make much of a dent.

The Survivor is a somewhat interesting role precisely because surviving is hard (as Borg argued so eloquently).When the Survivor claims D1 and coasts to a win, yeah, it's a useless role then.

[orangeandblack5]

No but like

The role doesn't do anything positive for the state of the game

It doesn't exist in a vacuum

It's only interesting to the one player in its slot

To the rest of the game it's just a negative factor

[Brilliand]

No but like

The role doesn't do anything positive for the state of the game

It doesn't exist in a vacuum

It's only interesting to the one player in its slot

To the rest of the game it's just a negative factor

The player in that slot is engaging in the game of deception in order to survive. That means that other players are being deceived.

And that... is the game.

The Survivor is a drag on the game in the sense that it's one player the Town can be wrong about without suffering any consequences; but if there are enough other players in the game that the Town needs to be right about, the extra complexity it adds can turn into an upside.

(All this is assuming the Survivor actually lies. The Survivor D1 meta turns the Survivor role into crap.)

[kyuss420]

D1 survivor claimers usually still get lynched as soon as an NK shows up and town (if there is any) have no other leads. Ambushers like to camp on D1 surv claims too, as it usually attracts a TI (hence claiming surv as Medusa).

Hell, the number of times maf attack me n1 after claiming surv is also beyond belief, I mean I dont vest n1 as surv, but what are they planning to hit? an NK faking survivor, that has defence anyway? Maybe a townie that doesnt want visitors is the logic behind that? idk...

So claiming day 1, doesnt neccesarily make you immune to the big sus. But I find if I am actively seeking the NK, as survivor, I tend to live longer, as a dead NK is the only way to lose the sus.

[orangeandblack5]

No but like

The role doesn't do anything positive for the state of the game

It doesn't exist in a vacuum

It's only interesting to the one player in its slot

To the rest of the game it's just a negative factor

The player in that slot is engaging in the game of deception in order to survive. That means that other players are being deceived.

And that... is the game.

The Survivor is a drag on the game in the sense that it's one player the Town can be wrong about without suffering any consequences; but if there are enough other players in the game that the Town needs to be right about, the extra complexity it adds can turn into an upside.

(All this is assuming the Survivor actually lies. The Survivor D1 meta turns the Survivor role into crap.)

Except they can't afford to be wrong about it because a Survivor should always vote with scum if they want to win. Doing anything else will only ever increase the length of the game and decrease the odds you survive. Ergo, it's really hard to argue that it's really adding extra complexity or depth - and it was clearly removed from Ranked for just that reason.

[Brilliand]

Except they can't afford to be wrong about it because a Survivor should always vote with scum if they want to win.

Oh cool, then Survivor is better than I thought!

Except, no, that's wrong. As much as your helping my argument here, it isn't true that the Town has to find the Survivor, just like it isn't true that the Town has to find the Witch; if they simply lynch every other evil, the Town wins, and the Survivor or Witch sticking around won't matter.

The Survivor, unlike the Witch, can afford to actively work toward that ending, where all the "must lynch" evils are dead and the Town never got around to lynching the Surv.

[wozearly]

D1 survivor claimers usually still get lynched as soon as an NK shows up and town (if there is any) have no other leads. Ambushers like to camp on D1 surv claims too, as it usually attracts a TI (hence claiming surv as Medusa).

Hell, the number of times maf attack me n1 after claiming surv is also beyond belief, I mean I dont vest n1 as surv, but what are they planning to hit? an NK faking survivor, that has defence anyway? Maybe a townie that doesnt want visitors is the logic behind that? idk...

So claiming day 1, doesnt neccesarily make you immune to the big sus. But I find if I am actively seeking the NK, as survivor, I tend to live longer, as a dead NK is the only way to lose the sus.

Claiming D1 as survivor used to be a strong strategy in the original Ranked list, where there was guaranteed to be at least one survivor or amne per game. Revealing helped Town eliminate the NB slot on the rolelist, and Maf/NK typically had far more important issues to worry about than killing you for being town-sided. If the game was close, the Survivor would typically then have another benefit as potential kingmaker - again, with both sides not having any great incentive to target an uncontested NB claim.

In All Any, claiming Survivor D1 is pretty questionable. Unless an investigator, Consig or Witch confirms you for everyone's benefit, all you're doing is saying "Hi guys, I admit up front I have basic defence..." in a game mode where all the killers, and the Town, are going to be highly suspicious of anyone having defence of any kind, or claiming to have defence to discourage attacking visitors. It's a common fallback scum claim to explain immunity, and the go-to claim for the Arsonist.

You're often better to wait a day or two and judge your chances of claiming a role like Executioner or Veteran (if you're put on the stand). People often leave suspected Exe-Jesters alone both for voting and for attacking in favour of other targets, and almost no killer wants to openly visit the Vet - in both cases, you can slip under the radar until the evils get an unexpectedly early win thinking you were last Town, or Town pulls off a win thinking you were one of them all along.


#nosupport for removing Survivor

[James2]

Hello players of Town of Salem,

Hereby i petition that the Survivor role must be removed out of the game for multiple reasons.

1: Players just don't trust Survivor claims anymore, even if they asked for Invest and/or Trackers.
2: It's a very boring role with no purpose and in most games other players will lynch you if you even vote once during a game.
3: As soon as a Medusa stones someone or Pestilence shows up people always point towards the Survivor claims.

I know that removing the Survivor role from the game has implications for the Guardian Angel role and a solution for that might not be easy to find.

With friendly greetings,

A very salty and way too many times lynched for no reason Survivor player
BorgOverlord001

Lynching Survivors is the correct strategy for town. Being upset about losing is not a valid reason for removing a role from the game (though, incidentally, Survivor has the second highest winrate in the game last I checked, which was admittedly some time ago).

[PikamanUltra]

I think we shouldn't remove it, but give it a buff or something other than 4 bullet-proof vests. Not sure how though, maybe it could work like guardian angel, so if a survivor is attacked and vested, the chat is notified?
I agree surv is an untrusted claim, and it does need a distinguishable trait that allows the town to actually confirm it.

[PikamanUltra]

Hello players of Town of Salem,

Hereby i petition that the Survivor role must be removed out of the game for multiple reasons.

1: Players just don't trust Survivor claims anymore, even if they asked for Invest and/or Trackers.
2: It's a very boring role with no purpose and in most games other players will lynch you if you even vote once during a game.
3: As soon as a Medusa stones someone or Pestilence shows up people always point towards the Survivor claims.

I know that removing the Survivor role from the game has implications for the Guardian Angel role and a solution for that might not be easy to find.

With friendly greetings,

A very salty and way too many times lynched for no reason Survivor player
BorgOverlord001

Lynching Survivors is the correct strategy for town. Being upset about losing is not a valid reason for removing a role from the game (though, incidentally, Survivor has the second highest winrate in the game last I checked, which was admittedly some time ago).

Exactly, when the optimal strategy for town is to lynch that claim, it hurts the role, because you are instantly suspicious. We need a way to confirm survs because right now they're viewed by the meta as evil role's scapegoat and nothing more

[Flavorable]

Hello players of Town of Salem,

Hereby i petition that the Survivor role must be removed out of the game for multiple reasons.

1: Players just don't trust Survivor claims anymore, even if they asked for Invest and/or Trackers.
2: It's a very boring role with no purpose and in most games other players will lynch you if you even vote once during a game.
3: As soon as a Medusa stones someone or Pestilence shows up people always point towards the Survivor claims.

I know that removing the Survivor role from the game has implications for the Guardian Angel role and a solution for that might not be easy to find.

With friendly greetings,

A very salty and way too many times lynched for no reason Survivor player
BorgOverlord001

Lynching Survivors is the correct strategy for town. Being upset about losing is not a valid reason for removing a role from the game (though, incidentally, Survivor has the second highest winrate in the game last I checked, which was admittedly some time ago).

Exactly, when the optimal strategy for town is to lynch that claim, it hurts the role, because you are instantly suspicious. We need a way to confirm survs because right now they're viewed by the meta as evil role's scapegoat and nothing more

I disagree with the statement that lynching survivors is the correct strategy for town. There's a balance to everything, which is why you go for suspicious claims that are likely an evil faction member, before you go shooting in the dark and lynching random survivors because of the "what if"-reasoning.
Lynching survivors for the sake of just lynching survivors is a horrid play to make as town.

[Brilliand]

Exactly, when the optimal strategy for town is to lynch that claim, it hurts the role, because you are instantly suspicious. We need a way to confirm survs because right now they're viewed by the meta as evil role's scapegoat and nothing more

If the optimal strategy for Town is to lynch that claim, then don't claim it (unless you're Jester). It's perfectly fine for Survivor to be a "lesser evil" like the Jester or Exe that needs to lie to win, but doesn't necessarily need to make Town lose.

Depending on which way the meta goes, either evils can lie and say they're Survivor, or Survivors need to lie and say they're something else. Either way is fine.

[orangeandblack5]

Depending on which way the meta goes, either evils can lie and say they're Survivor, or Survivors need to lie and say they're something else. Either way is fine.

Not really though

When scum claim Survivor, Survivor claims get lynched

Thus Survivors claim non-Survivor roles