Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Suggest new roles or changes to current roles for the game here.

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Boredfan1 » Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:28 pm

JacksonVirgo wrote:
Boredfan1 wrote:Excuse me, people are saying things that are NOT true! The whole point is STILL to survive, that is the main thing of the damn role and yet these guys are saying that this rework goes away from that when it makes no sense to say that! If people would stop saying things that are blatently false, maybe it wouldn't appear that way.

1-The only way you could fail to get supplies is by being jailed or roleblocked.

2-The fact that the game is very often one sided means that if their existence can make it more balanced, it's good so long as it's fun to play as.

3- It doesn't really increase the likelihood of losing, the role is pretty much the same.


1. What's the strategy in it then?
2. What?
3. Then why add the change?


The two main problems the role has is that is almost impossible to confirm and it people are paranoid about being betrayed by the survivor. So if you can visit yourself without putting yourself in harm, the town can confirm your survivor with lookout, tracker or spy. That means they are less likely to lynch you though some towns will still lynch you because you're not town. If the town is losing and needs an extra vote and the survivor needs more time to get supplies, the town can protect the survivor in exchange for a vote. Likewise, if the mafia is losing, they can do the same. There is a lot that can be done with this role if people just think and don't act tribally.
Boredfan1
Vigilante
Vigilante
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Boredfan1 » Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:40 pm

NefariousDjinn wrote:
Boredfan1 wrote:Excuse me, people are saying things that are NOT true! The whole point is STILL to survive, that is the main thing of the damn role and yet these guys are saying that this rework goes away from that when it makes no sense to say that! If people would stop saying things that are blatently false, maybe it wouldn't appear that way.

1-The only way you could fail to get supplies is by being jailed or roleblocked.

2-The fact that the game is very often one sided means that if their existence can make it more balanced, it's good so long as it's fun to play as.

3- It doesn't really increase the likelihood of losing, the role is pretty much the same.



But what isn't true? You're not making an argument here of how the objections are false.

You're saying that there's no way to fail to get supplies... aside from you know.. choosing to vest to protect yourself over gather supplies. Which is a mechanic in your role. They can vest or gather supplies.

Let's make this clear:

If you can win just by gathering supplies even if you die- It is not a survivor.

If you lose because you are unable to gather supplies even if you live - It is not survivor

If neither of the above is true - There is no reason to add the supply gathering mechanic

That is the objection people are making. That is why they are saying it principally goes against the idea of the survivor.

2. To your second point.. this change does nothing to balance the game if it turns one sided. The basic strategy as survivor now is simply to do nothing until your vote is needed to give one side majority or the other. This change of needing to gather supplies only forces you to not side with one side or the other until you gather your supplies so you can win even if your vote would give them majority. Now imagine you're mafia. You have a survivor refusing to vote with you, thus preventing you from winning because you're stuck in a bg-doc combo with three mafia and a survivor. Who would you kill so you can vote the last townies and win? Precisely. Which leads us to the last point

3. By the very nature of the role change you're introducing a lose option to a role that has nothing to do with their ability to "Survive" which means that yes, very much you're increasing the likelihood of losing as the role because there's now two ways of losing, failing to gather supplies or dying.

If you really like this concept, allow me to make it better for you. With one change

During the night you may choose to gather supplies for your Bunker or wear a bullet proof vest

You have 1 bullet proof vest
When you gather supplies three time, you will enter your Bunker.
Inside your bunker, you have Invincible defense.

This means that once you have gathered your supplies you cannot be killed except by hanging and forces you to engage in day chat. It forces you to be selective about role claiming survivor because you can side with anyone and no side can kill you except by gaining the majority to vote you out. This makes survivor more of a strategic role to play. And forces you to play the role. You can't just claim day 1 and afk and hope no one kills you. You have to talk to chat and convince them you're on their side.

I mean that's obviously a bare bones idea that needs refining but it answers literally all of the current objections to your role idea.


1-No, it is false, I have made arguments against it but no one is bothering to read it, they simple are too damn stubborn.

2-You can ONLY win if you survive so obviously, you can't get supplies if you die. NOWHERE did I say you could get supplies after you died, it clearly stated you have to survive to win.

3-It IS still survivor because a survivor is about well, surviving. This also means surviving post game's end. So it fits with the theme.

4-Don't make assumptions.

5-Like I said in my reply to the other guy, there is a lot you can do with survivor but you can't act tribalistic. A good example is the game needs to be extended for surv to win, the maf needs the bg-doc combo to end to win so the mafia teams up with the surv to lynch either doc or bg. They both get a better chance to win and it builds up trust in each other which has many benefits.

6-See point three. Also, the MOST common reasons for survs to lose is because they don't have anyone who is willing to trust them so they get lynched or killed at night. I personally try to work with executioners and survivors as much as possible and even won with surv the other day as mafia. Thus, it is possible for them to be a benefit to town or evil. And by building the trust of a faction, you get their protection and get a better chance to survive.

7-If once you've gathered your supplies, you become immune, it could justify having less vests but it could also be what condemns you since people love to lynch immunes. You'd need to be confirmed early or mid game with the gathering ability so at least two vests or the defense message should be something other than just they are immune like "You couldn't even reach them, their house is a fortress!".
Boredfan1
Vigilante
Vigilante
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby JacksonVirgo » Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:46 pm

Boredfan1 wrote:
JacksonVirgo wrote:
Boredfan1 wrote:Excuse me, people are saying things that are NOT true! The whole point is STILL to survive, that is the main thing of the damn role and yet these guys are saying that this rework goes away from that when it makes no sense to say that! If people would stop saying things that are blatently false, maybe it wouldn't appear that way.

1-The only way you could fail to get supplies is by being jailed or roleblocked.

2-The fact that the game is very often one sided means that if their existence can make it more balanced, it's good so long as it's fun to play as.

3- It doesn't really increase the likelihood of losing, the role is pretty much the same.


1. What's the strategy in it then?
2. What?
3. Then why add the change?


The two main problems the role has is that is almost impossible to confirm and it people are paranoid about being betrayed by the survivor. So if you can visit yourself without putting yourself in harm, the town can confirm your survivor with lookout, tracker or spy. That means they are less likely to lynch you though some towns will still lynch you because you're not town. If the town is losing and needs an extra vote and the survivor needs more time to get supplies, the town can protect the survivor in exchange for a vote. Likewise, if the mafia is losing, they can do the same. There is a lot that can be done with this role if people just think and don't act tribally.


Why not just give the Survivor a single vigi shot and three vests? That way they can confirm themselves but also if they choose to do so they might be a target to evils so it isn't necessarily a 'claim, confirm then stroll your way through the game' kind of role.
Global FM Record Spreadsheet
On-site Record: 3-0-3
Latest Town Game: Episode XX1 - Parity Cop - Loss
Latest Scum Game: 19F - Consort - Loss
Current Game/s: SFM67
All Games Spoiler: SFM65 - Nora Valkyrie (Neighbourhood) - Win
VFM60 - Sol (Citizen) - Win
19E - Cordelia (Janitor) - Win
19F - Consort - Loss
VFM62 - Citizen - Loss
Episode XX1 - Parity Cop - Loss
Last updated 24.01.20 AEST
User avatar
JacksonVirgo
Retributionist
Retributionist
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:00 am
Location: Australia (AEST)

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Brilliand » Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:20 pm

JacksonVirgo wrote:Why not just give the Survivor a single vigi shot and three vests?


And make the other players even more paranoid about being betrayed?
My best role ideas:
Conqueror
Apocalypse Survivor
Brilliand
Retributionist
Retributionist
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 8:34 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby JacksonVirgo » Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:00 pm

Brilliand wrote:
JacksonVirgo wrote:Why not just give the Survivor a single vigi shot and three vests?


And make the other players even more paranoid about being betrayed?

Indeed, why not give it 4 vigi shots and no vests?
Global FM Record Spreadsheet
On-site Record: 3-0-3
Latest Town Game: Episode XX1 - Parity Cop - Loss
Latest Scum Game: 19F - Consort - Loss
Current Game/s: SFM67
All Games Spoiler: SFM65 - Nora Valkyrie (Neighbourhood) - Win
VFM60 - Sol (Citizen) - Win
19E - Cordelia (Janitor) - Win
19F - Consort - Loss
VFM62 - Citizen - Loss
Episode XX1 - Parity Cop - Loss
Last updated 24.01.20 AEST
User avatar
JacksonVirgo
Retributionist
Retributionist
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:00 am
Location: Australia (AEST)

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Boredfan1 » Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:21 pm

Brilliand wrote:
JacksonVirgo wrote:Why not just give the Survivor a single vigi shot and three vests?


And make the other players even more paranoid about being betrayed?


JacksonVirgo wrote:
Brilliand wrote:
JacksonVirgo wrote:Why not just give the Survivor a single vigi shot and three vests?


And make the other players even more paranoid about being betrayed?

Indeed, why not give it 4 vigi shots and no vests?


Then it wouldn't be survivor not to mention, town and all evils would want them dead immediately. It's highly doubtful most people would even try to work with them.
Boredfan1
Vigilante
Vigilante
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby JacksonVirgo » Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:58 pm

Boredfan1 wrote:
Brilliand wrote:
JacksonVirgo wrote:Why not just give the Survivor a single vigi shot and three vests?


And make the other players even more paranoid about being betrayed?


JacksonVirgo wrote:
Brilliand wrote:
JacksonVirgo wrote:Why not just give the Survivor a single vigi shot and three vests?


And make the other players even more paranoid about being betrayed?

Indeed, why not give it 4 vigi shots and no vests?


Then it wouldn't be survivor not to mention, town and all evils would want them dead immediately. It's highly doubtful most people would even try to work with them.

It was a joke, they should have 8 vigi shots
Global FM Record Spreadsheet
On-site Record: 3-0-3
Latest Town Game: Episode XX1 - Parity Cop - Loss
Latest Scum Game: 19F - Consort - Loss
Current Game/s: SFM67
All Games Spoiler: SFM65 - Nora Valkyrie (Neighbourhood) - Win
VFM60 - Sol (Citizen) - Win
19E - Cordelia (Janitor) - Win
19F - Consort - Loss
VFM62 - Citizen - Loss
Episode XX1 - Parity Cop - Loss
Last updated 24.01.20 AEST
User avatar
JacksonVirgo
Retributionist
Retributionist
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:00 am
Location: Australia (AEST)

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Boredfan1 » Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:03 pm

Nowhere did you telegraph that......and only eight shot vigis if mayor is removed and godfather can attack the same night the mafioso attacks, lol.
Boredfan1
Vigilante
Vigilante
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Kirize12 » Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:21 pm

being honest, a role that has to kill four people and live until the end of the game would be really cool
Factional balance - understanding that whisper games are bad because they cause Town to win a disproportionate amount

Strategical balance - understanding that whisper games are bad because there's no reason to use any other strategy

Structural balance - understanding that disabling the Mayor's whispers, despite it fixing whisper games, means that a player can't use a core mechanic of the game and is still bad

This matters - educate yourself.
User avatar
Kirize12
Sponsor
Sponsor
 
Posts: 8968
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:50 am
Location: Getting pagegets

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Boredfan1 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:25 am

Kirize12 wrote:being honest, a role that has to kill four people and live until the end of the game would be really cool


That would be an interesting neutral.
Boredfan1
Vigilante
Vigilante
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby NefariousDjinn » Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:20 pm

Boredfan1 wrote:
1-No, it is false, I have made arguments against it but no one is bothering to read it, they simple are too damn stubborn.

2-You can ONLY win if you survive so obviously, you can't get supplies if you die. NOWHERE did I say you could get supplies after you died, it clearly stated you have to survive to win.

3-It IS still survivor because a survivor is about well, surviving. This also means surviving post game's end. So it fits with the theme.

4-Don't make assumptions.

5-Like I said in my reply to the other guy, there is a lot you can do with survivor but you can't act tribalistic. A good example is the game needs to be extended for surv to win, the maf needs the bg-doc combo to end to win so the mafia teams up with the surv to lynch either doc or bg. They both get a better chance to win and it builds up trust in each other which has many benefits.

6-See point three. Also, the MOST common reasons for survs to lose is because they don't have anyone who is willing to trust them so they get lynched or killed at night. I personally try to work with executioners and survivors as much as possible and even won with surv the other day as mafia. Thus, it is possible for them to be a benefit to town or evil. And by building the trust of a faction, you get their protection and get a better chance to survive.

7-If once you've gathered your supplies, you become immune, it could justify having less vests but it could also be what condemns you since people love to lynch immunes. You'd need to be confirmed early or mid game with the gathering ability so at least two vests or the defense message should be something other than just they are immune like "You couldn't even reach them, their house is a fortress!".


1. Clarify what is false. I have outlined the three points as concisely as I can but it seems you don't understand the point

I laid out three points. One of which most be true. There is no alternative

A. You win when you gather supplies, regardless of living to the end (You have confirmed this is not the case. So we are getting somewhere.)

B. You can lose because you fail to gather supplies (You have not confirmed that this is not the case.)

C. If you can win without gathering the supplies then this change is pointless. (If the above statement is not the case then by default this statement applies.)

One of those three things must be true. If you can lose despite surviving the game because you fail to gather supplies, this fundamentally violates the idea of the survivor which is literally to survive to the end of the game So if A or B is true, you are not a survivor. And if A or B is not true then the change is meaningless. Your argument thus far has been "But its unlikely that you'll be unable to gather the supplies." Which... isn't a valid argument The fact that its unlikely to happen doesn't make the flaw any less glaring and more directly there's no evidence that it is unlikely to happen.

Your original model of needing to gather supplies 5 times then you need the game to last at least 5 days to win. It's quite possible for a game to end in 4 nights so there's every chance you fail to gather supplies just because the game ends too early. And that's if you gather supplies every night without vesting and don't get killed in those 5 days at night because it necessitates you not use the one means you have of protection.

So it is quite possible to fail to gather supplies. And that's not including the possibility of a roleblocking or jailor. So I think the likelihood of you trying to prolong the game to gain time to get your supplies. Now admittedly the idea was suggested to knock that down to three which increases your odds slightly to gather the supplies but you still run into the same problem.

2. I never made this argument. The point A. is that if your goal is to gather supplies and you successfully gathered those supplies then you can win without surviving. Unless surviving is part of your win condition as well then Point B applies, To clarify in a handy chart so there is absolutely no confusion.

If win condition is :Gather Supplies: but not :Survive to End of game: then Point A applies and the role is not a survivor.

If win condition is :Gather Supplies: and :Survive to End of game: then Point B applies and the role is not a survivor.

If win condition is :Survive to End of Game: but not :Gather Supplies: then Point C applies and the change is meaningless.

Never did I suggest that you suggested anything. Only clarified a point you seemed to not be understanding that was argued by others about how this fundamentally breaks the idea behind survivor. Either it shifts the goal of survivor to gathering supplies or it takes on an additional goal beyond surviving.

3. See above. I can clarify nothing further. The point is well and truly made. If you disagree with the point then you have to falsify the above point. To whit: If you wish to claim that the role fits the role of survivor if you must complete a secondary task to win, can you lose by not completing the task and surviving? Then the role violates the idea of a survivor. Can you win by surviving and failing to complete the secondary task? Then the secondary task is meaningless. Please explain how being able to lose in spite of surviving is in alignment with survivor?

4.You would have to clarify what the assumption was as I do not recall an assumption.

5. In the scenario I outlined the mafia could win without the survivor. The survivor is actively getting in the way of mafia winning. The mafia can win without survivor. The Survivor needs a night possibly two to win. They must drag the game out to win. Do you think the mafia is going to sit idly by for two days to grant the survivor the win? Or do you think they'll kill you so they can end the game tomorrow? And lose nothing of value.

Or what about a scenario where there is an arso and two town left. Now the normal survivor would likely lynch the arso and win.. but say you need another night to gather supplies.. but what if you're doused? If you don't vote you lose by being incinerate if you do vote you lose by failing to gather supplies.

Or as a tie breaker between a SK and a GF. yes maybe the gf won't kill you but the sk certainly might just to guarantee you don't side against them and give the gf the win

Or say the game comes down to a survivor and a ww and sk.. do you think the sk who you denied the win to by not voting isn't going to stab you in the night just to be petty and deny you the win?

In each of these scenarios maybe you have a vest, but by vesting you change nothing.These are situations where your only choice is to vote or die. and regardless of which choice you make you lose. Either you lose because you vote and don't have the supplies you need to win.. or you lose because the other side decides killing you is more effective then waiting on you to meet your arbitrary win condition.

6. I'm not sure what this is an argument to. I think its in response to increasing the likelihood of losing? If it is then this is just undeniably true. With this change you are introducing a third way to lose beyond simply getting killed at night or hung.. Which is failing to gather supplies. And you are adding the possibility of making yourself a bigger target by necessitating a mechanic that might cause you to frustrate possible allies by delaying the game to gather supplies.

This also doesn't answer the problem of the likelihood of people not trusting you, if anything it exacerbates by creating a need for the survivor to serve their personal interests over any other faction.

7. I don't agree with any role that would confirm itself so readily if it were attacked to begin with, plus such a notice would remove the possibility of an evil role ever claiming as survivor and remove one of the view claim spaces for immune roles. It forces the survivor to play strategically and engage with town. They have to convince town that they're willing to side with them first since town is the ones that can lynch them with being the largest faction in most games. They can make alliance with jesters, since they would be immune to haunting once they get the "Bunker". So you'd be more willing to lynch jesters as they couldn't hurt you.

The change I offered, as I said isn't perfect. But it prevents spiteful killing of the survivor of night, increases the odds of winning slightly by making the role slightly more engaging, and necessitates some focus on playing to the day chat to keep from being hung. One could argue that it makes Survivor to easy win as giving them an active immunity for the game but.. as a reward for accomplishing a task it seems to make sense.

Side point- You also need to address how this effects Amnesiacs and GAs.
NefariousDjinn
Civilian
Civilian
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Boredfan1 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:06 pm

Your entire argument is "I didn't closely read anything on this thread and I don't like what I did read so no."

Seriously, you don't get an opinion if you didn't actually read anything properly!

1- I NEVER said you ONLY win by getting supplies, you win by gathering supplies AND surviving to the end of the game. Therefore, if you die, you lose.

2-JUST because YOU don't like this added mechanic DOESN'T mean it isn't survivor. Your personal feelings ARE NOT RELEVANT. If you can argue with facts and reason that it isn't survivor then I'll back off but the very idea of gathering supplies is a survivor thing, inspired somewhat but the apocalypse idea.

3-Saying if I don't agree, I have to falsafy the above is NOT how you argue, that's a strawman and it doesn't work, NO ONE will let you get away with that shit so stop it.

4-It was "That is the objection people are making. That is why they are saying it principally goes against the idea of the survivor."

5-There are MANY situations where the survivor would be benefitial to the mafia and the NK. You are using the worse case scenario which isn't how arguing works. And ya, they wouldn't sit around but that doesn't mean they have to kill the survivor, there can be other options depending on their situation.

6-No, THAT'S an assumption. Ya, it CAN frustrate allies but it doesn't have to but it doesn't have to be selfish in order to win every time, games are very different from one another so many things can happen that allow the survivor to win by other means.

7-It SHOULD be able to confirm itself though otherwise it's not a good role since people will get mad they got it and leave or suspect they are evil and hang them or exe them. There has to be something they can do to prove they are survivor while leaving it open as claimspace. You keep denying this, you just want surv to not change and that doesn't help the game or the community.

8-I honestly disagree, people would still have all the reason to spitefully kill them at night. My change would require them to be more active in the chat and would at least slightly increase their odds. The problem is that your idea doesn't fix the problem of seeing them as unnecessary and lynching them since they aren't town.

9-Fuck Guardian Angels, they are a bad role. My dislike for them aside, I'm not entirely sure, probably they can't get the survivor as their target.

10-Survivor could still be remembered but I don't think it would affect them all that much though they could remember survivor when told to and it would definitely shake things up, allowing a losing side to win or a winning side to win easier.
Boredfan1
Vigilante
Vigilante
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Superalex11 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:42 pm

Boredfan1 wrote:1- I NEVER said you ONLY win by getting supplies, you win by gathering supplies AND surviving to the end of the game. Therefore, if you die, you lose.

NefariousDjinn wrote:If win condition is :Gather Supplies: and :Survive to End of game: then Point B applies and the role is not a survivor.
After-Unity™

The compilation begins:
Spoiler: Image
Image
Image
Image
Superalex11
Escort
Escort
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:11 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby NefariousDjinn » Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:35 am

Boredfan1 wrote:Your entire argument is "I didn't closely read anything on this thread and I don't like what I did read so no."

Seriously, you don't get an opinion if you didn't actually read anything properly!


Incorrect, my argument is that the role doesn't fit in alignment with a survivor by adding in a mechanic that allows it to lose or win in spite of surviving to the end of the game.

1- I NEVER said you ONLY win by getting supplies, you win by gathering supplies AND surviving to the end of the game. Therefore, if you die, you lose.

2-JUST because YOU don't like this added mechanic DOESN'T mean it isn't survivor. If you can argue with facts and reason that it isn't survivor then I'll back off but the very idea of gathering supplies is a survivor thing, inspired somewhat but the apocalypse idea.


1. I never claimed that you did. I laid out three scenarios. A, B. or C. You have confirmed that B applies as the person below you shows.

2. There is a simple point here. If you can survive to the end game and still lose, then you are fundamentally violating the function of a survivor. That is not an opinion. That is not a feeling. That is simply observable reality. To demonstrate. A witch is not a survivor. A witch has two goals. Ensure town loses and survive to the end game. Even if witch survives to the end game but town does not lose then they still lose. By the logic you are using, a witch would still be a survivor because one of their game conditions is surviving to the end of the game. That is not logical.


3-Saying if I don't agree, I have to falsafy the above is NOT how you argue, that's a strawman and it doesn't work, NO ONE will let you get away with that shit so stop it.

4-It was "That is the objection people are making. That is why they are saying it principally goes against the idea of the survivor."


3. I made an argument. I then stated that if you disagree with the argument to argue the point via a counterargument. That is literally what debate is. B. No it isn't a strawman. What you are doing in this in this statement is a strawman. Because it is not what I said but your interpretation of it.

3. See above. I can clarify nothing further. The point is well and truly made. If you disagree with the point then you have to falsify the above point. To whit: If you wish to claim that the role fits the role of survivor if you must complete a secondary task to win, can you lose by not completing the task and surviving? Then the role violates the idea of a survivor. Can you win by surviving and failing to complete the secondary task? Then the secondary task is meaningless. Please explain how being able to lose in spite of surviving is in alignment with survivor?


You see the point that is in bold at the end of that statement? That is the argument I made and the argument you have to falsify. That is the argument that you have to counter. That is not a strawman. Taking the first part of that and saying you have to falsify a point, which is true for the record, and acting as if nothing else was present in the argument is a strawman. I didn't weaken your argument and defeat that caricature of an argument. You attempted to weaken argument and defeat its caricature.



4. Arguable. The difference between assumption and assessment is small. This is a conclusion I arrived upon reading the various arguments against your concept and assessing the point they were making. This is not a random guess, just a deductive inference that I will grant may be incorrect.


5-There are MANY situations where the survivor would be benefitial to the mafia and the NK. You are using the worse case scenario which isn't how arguing works. And ya, they wouldn't sit around but that doesn't mean they have to kill the survivor, there can be other options depending on their situation.

6-No, THAT'S an assumption. Ya, it CAN frustrate allies but it doesn't have to but it doesn't have to be selfish in order to win every time, games are very different from one another so many things can happen that allow the survivor to win by other means.


5. Arguing that there are scenarios where it can be beneficial does not negate all of the scenarios where it is a hinderance. The survivor role as it is now can be beneficial to mafia and NKs but that doesn't stop people from killing them because they think they might be a hinderance later.

6, This is not an assumption. It's a fact. If you have to gather supplies and survive to the end of the game then that is two tasks that you have to win. And you can lose by failing to complete either. That means you have a third way to lose beyond just being hung or killed at night and that is failing to gather supplies. You have confirmed this is the mechanic that you are arguing for. How does introducing another method for a role to lose not increase the possibility of losing?

It is also not an assumption that if a particular role is consistently preventing a win for one faction or another to complete an arbitrary task that it increases the likelihood of spiteful targeting of that role to eliminate that nuisance.

7-It SHOULD be able to confirm itself though otherwise it's not a good role since people will get mad they got it and leave or suspect they are evil and hang them or exe them. There has to be something they can do to prove they are survivor while leaving it open as claimspace. You keep denying this, you just want surv to not change and that doesn't help the game or the community.


No role should really be able to self-confirm itself. GA and Amnesiac can though I disagree with the Amnesiac being able to there is at least some consequence for it as if you confirm yourself as amnesiac and then choose to take an evil role then town will immediately hang you and if you take a town role you immediately become a target of evils. GA is necessary as their ability prevents voting but I still dislike it.

If they are able to prove themselves it means that evils who could claim survivor by virtue of being immune would no longer be able to claim survivor because they would instantly be called out. It's basically the same as getting an immune message when a target is healed.. you know they weren't healed because they are immune so they can't claim healed.

And people who are going to leave because they got survivor are going to do so no matter what changes you make because they dislike the fundamental nature of the role. Making the role self-confirmable won't prevent this. Giving the role a secondary objective that makes it easier to lose definitely won't prevent this. And even giving the role an ability that increases its odd of winning won't prevent this. Now.. this is an assumption... but most people who dislike survivor probably believe it to be a boring role where you stand around and wait for the game to end hoping no one decides to kill you along the way. None of the changes mentioned thus far would change that beyond the change I offered which would eliminate the possibility of dying at night.. but that wouldn't make people enjoy the role more if they find it boring.

8-I honestly disagree, people would still have all the reason to spitefully kill them at night. My change would require them to be more active in the chat and would at least slightly increase their odds. The problem is that your idea doesn't fix the problem of seeing them as unnecessary and lynching them since they aren't town.


Aside from the fact that the change I offered would make them immune at night by killing of any kind (the same immunity that pestilence has) and thus spiteful night killing is impossible once they get to the Bunker.

And no. Your ability wouldn't increase the need for them to be more active in the day chat. Nor does your ability prevent town from viewing them as unnecessary and lynching them. And no ability would prevent them from being lynched because they aren't aligned to a particular faction. The only ability that would prevent that is by giving them an ability to ally with a particular faction like an amnesiac, which would essentially just turn the survivor role to an an amnesiac that has to survive to the end of the game as well as win with their allied faction to win. Which would make them redundant to the amnesiac

9-Fuck Guardian Angels, they are a bad role. My dislike for them aside, I'm not entirely sure, probably they can't get the survivor as their target.

10-Survivor could still be remembered but I don't think it would affect them all that much though they could remember survivor when told to and it would definitely shake things up, allowing a losing side to win or a winning side to win easier.


9.
Your personal feelings ARE NOT RELEVANT.
Regardless of how you feel GA is a role in the game.

9-10. The point I was making with these is that GA becomes a survivor when their target is dead and Amnesiac can become survivor. In both cases these roles would then need at least three night cycles for them to win after becoming survivor to gather their supplies. Meaning the odds of an amnesiac taking survivor over a town role is null as that would only increase their odds of losing. And makes GA a nearly unplayable role because the chance of winning as survivor after your target is dead has become almost null.

Oh and i wanted to address this point directly.

You keep denying this, you just want surv to not change and that doesn't help the game or the community.


This is a strawman. It is not an argument I made. In point of fact the very first post I made introduced an alternative to your mechanic that would change survivor for the better in my opinion.

I do deny that a role needs to be able to self-confirm itself. I do deny that there has to be a way to confirm themselves and leave the claimspace open... because this is a literal impossibility. Anything that confirms them as survivor removes the ability to claim it. But I will point out that there are three methods of confirming yourself once you've "Bunkered Down' which is a jalor trying to execute you, a werewolf/arso attacking you, and a jester haunting you. As the only role that has the same defense as you is a pestilence so in any game that doesn't have a pestilence you are confirmed through this method.

I also deny that there should be some method to preventing a survivor from getting hung beyond their ability to talk themselves out of hanging by making cogent arguments for why it is important to keep them in game.
NefariousDjinn
Civilian
Civilian
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Boredfan1 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:51 pm

Superalex11 wrote:
Boredfan1 wrote:1- I NEVER said you ONLY win by getting supplies, you win by gathering supplies AND surviving to the end of the game. Therefore, if you die, you lose.

NefariousDjinn wrote:If win condition is :Gather Supplies: and :Survive to End of game: then Point B applies and the role is not a survivor.


Clearly you misread.
Boredfan1
Vigilante
Vigilante
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby Boredfan1 » Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:53 pm

I give up, you just don't have the ability to understand. I spelled everything out and you STILL argue things that don't need arguing......
Boredfan1
Vigilante
Vigilante
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

Postby NefariousDjinn » Thu Dec 12, 2019 7:28 pm

Boredfan1 wrote:I give up, you just don't have the ability to understand. I spelled everything out and you STILL argue things that don't need arguing......


Saying "I give up because you don't get it is a concession of your ability to make a valid argument. Of which none is present. You have not

1. Explained how the role fits into the concept of Survivor when they can lose despite surviving to the end of the game.

2. Answered how doubling the methods for the Survivor role to lose does not double the odds for the role to lose.

3. Explained how this improves the function or playability of the role in any meaningful.

These are all valid arguments. We have explained them. We have made arguments. Several times. Many of us have repeated the argument. I have been patient and concise. I can quote you everything you have said. Counter it point by point and not once have you been able to answer a single point I have made. Not a single time.

The person who seems to lack the ability to understand would seem to be you. So let me be as basic and simple as humanly possible

Can you SURVIVE and STILL LOSE?

If you answered YES, then in what way does the role fit the category of SURVIVOR?

If you answered NO, then what is the purpose of the change?
NefariousDjinn
Civilian
Civilian
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:18 pm

Previous

Return to Role Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests