Strategic Survivor (Survivor Rework)

[Boredfan1]

Alignment: Neutral Benign
Abilities: You can scavenge to find supplies or put on a vest to protect yourself.

Attributes:
-You can either scavenge or put on a vest each night.
-You can use the bullproof vest four times.
-You can trade in a vest for supplies.

Special Attributes:
-Attack: None
-Defense: None (Basic with vest)

Goal: Gather enough supplies (five times) to survive the apocalypse and survive until the end of the game.

Win Condition: You can win with everyone.

[JacksonVirgo]

So is the goal here to get x amount of supplies and survive or is it to just survive and the supplies with get you vests?

[Boredfan1]

So is the goal here to get x amount of supplies and survive or is it to just survive and the supplies with get you vests?

First off, your English is a bit broken here. Secondly, you have to survive and get the needed supplies.

[JacksonVirgo]

So is the goal here to get x amount of supplies and survive or is it to just survive and the supplies with get you vests?

First off, your English is a bit broken here. Secondly, you have to survive and get the needed supplies.

Don't worry about my Englush lol
And how many would you need to get to win?

[Boredfan1]

So is the goal here to get x amount of supplies and survive or is it to just survive and the supplies with get you vests?

First off, your English is a bit broken here. Secondly, you have to survive and get the needed supplies.

Don't worry about my Englush lol
And how many would you need to get to win?

Just five sets of supplies.

[Kirize12]

While it makes it more strategic, the issue is that the Survivor's night action doesn't interact with anyone other than itself.

[Boredfan1]

Not all roles should, especially not surv since being able to visit would make it even harder to not get lynched or killed at night.

[Kirize12]

Not all roles should, especially not surv since being able to visit would make it even harder to not get lynched or killed at night.

The only roles whose night actions shouldn't have any affect on players other than itself are roles who do not have night actions.

[Boredfan1]

Not all roles should, especially not surv since being able to visit would make it even harder to not get lynched or killed at night.

The only roles whose night actions shouldn't have any affect on players other than itself are roles who do not have night actions.

That makes no sense from any perspective. Reread what I said.

[Brilliand]

The only difference between this and the regular surv is that this one only wins if the game goes on long enough; short games cause it to lose. That seems like a bad change to me.

[Boredfan1]

The only difference between this and the regular surv is that this one only wins if the game goes on long enough; short games cause it to lose. That seems like a bad change to me.

Most all any games aren't going to last less than five days. So ya, a small percentage of games become unwinnable for survs but it's a trade off for having a more engaging role.

[SparkingJay]

The only difference between this and the regular surv is that this one only wins if the game goes on long enough; short games cause it to lose. That seems like a bad change to me.

Most all any games aren't going to last less than five days. So ya, a small percentage of games become unwinnable for survs but it's a trade off for having a more engaging role.

There are better ways to rework the Survivor, maybe if you limited it to 3 then it is fine. 5 is crazy hard.

[Boredfan1]

The only difference between this and the regular surv is that this one only wins if the game goes on long enough; short games cause it to lose. That seems like a bad change to me.

Most all any games aren't going to last less than five days. So ya, a small percentage of games become unwinnable for survs but it's a trade off for having a more engaging role.

There are better ways to rework the Survivor, maybe if you limited it to 3 then it is fine. 5 is crazy hard.

Pretty sure there are no better ways but if you come with a rework, let me know. As for the number, maybe three.

[Brilliand]

The only difference between this and the regular surv is that this one only wins if the game goes on long enough; short games cause it to lose. That seems like a bad change to me.

Most all any games aren't going to last less than five days. So ya, a small percentage of games become unwinnable for survs but it's a trade off for having a more engaging role.

As Kirize said, though, this isn't even a more engaging role. This is just a Survivor that plays a minigame on the side that doesn't involve the other players. As far as other players are concerned, it's just a Survivor that might make a nuisance of himself by demanding that the game be stretched out longer.

[Boredfan1]

The only difference between this and the regular surv is that this one only wins if the game goes on long enough; short games cause it to lose. That seems like a bad change to me.

Most all any games aren't going to last less than five days. So ya, a small percentage of games become unwinnable for survs but it's a trade off for having a more engaging role.

As Kirize said, though, this isn't even a more engaging role. This is just a Survivor that plays a minigame on the side that doesn't involve the other players. As far as other players are concerned, it's just a Survivor that might make a nuisance of himself by demanding that the game be stretched out longer.

Ya, no. First off, EVERY role is involved with other players by default, it's impossible for any role not to be. Secondly, they don't even need the game to be extended to win except in the rare circumstances where games are super short. Thirdly, survivor is a very boring role as it is, there needs to be something more for it to do in order for it to not be boring and that is what this rework is about.

[Brilliand]

First off, EVERY role is involved with other players by default, it's impossible for any role not to be.

Yes, but this role is only as engaged with other players as the regular Survivor is. It isn't any more engaging. (Except for the part where it tries to get the other players to stall, if that counts.)

Secondly, they don't even need the game to be extended to win except in the rare circumstances where games are super short.

No, but you can be sure it's going to come up, especially if the Survivor uses some vests. Some individual people, due to the decisions they've made that game, are going to need the game extended, and this will be seen occasionally for any gamelength under 9.

Thirdly, survivor is a very boring role as it is, there needs to be something more for it to do in order for it to not be boring and that is what this rework is about.

Hey look, I have a Survivor variant in my signature!

But I didn't propose that variant as a replacement, because, well, the Survivor is a fundamentally boring role. The concept makes it boring. By adding features, you're moving away from the role's concept, so can that really be considered improving it?

[Boredfan1]

1: If they could visit, it would only INCREASE their chances of getting killed which no one wants.

2: It IS more engaging because you actually have something to do than maybe or maybe not use your vest.

3: Because it would be seen occasionally does not make it bad.

4: Adding features doesn't necessarily take it away from the role's concept, that's not how it works, it really depends on what is being added.

5: I won't address what I don't like about your version of the survivor here but frankly, I feel it is not good.

[Kirize12]

Survivor is a role whose goal is to live until the end of the game, and (because this is rolemadness) has some way to increase those odds. Those are the fundamentals of survivor - anything else is ours to change if we decide that's what's best for the role, game, and meta.

Survivor is not necessarily a boring role.

[Boredfan1]

Survivor is a role whose goal is to live until the end of the game, and (because this is rolemadness) has some way to increase those odds. Those are the fundamentals of survivor - anything else is ours to change if we decide that's what's best for the role, game, and meta.

Survivor is not necessarily a boring role.

This rework doesn't go against the core of what a survivor is.

[SparkingJay]

survivor is a very boring role as it is, there needs to be something more for it to do in order for it to not be boring and that is what this rework is about.

Personally, I think your idea itself is still boring. Having to visit continuously for the over and over with hardly any excitement doesn't make it remotely enjoyable. Survivor should get a fully different rework which doesn't lead off from their original abilities, either that or scrap the role.

[Boredfan1]

survivor is a very boring role as it is, there needs to be something more for it to do in order for it to not be boring and that is what this rework is about.

Personally, I think your idea itself is still boring. Having to visit continuously for the over and over with hardly any excitement doesn't make it remotely enjoyable. Survivor should get a fully different rework which doesn't lead off from their original abilities, either that or scrap the role.

It DOESN'T lead off from the original abilities..it's almost the same........and it's not about visiting anyone else, just yourself.

[NefariousDjinn]

I feel that you aren't taking criticism well at all. You've been dismissive of anything that suggests that your role suggestion is flawed.

To whit: The arguments against your suggestions are briefly as followed

1. There is no reason to add a meaningless "task" to the survivor role just to make it feel as if you are doing something in game. This doesn't increase excitement for the role or in its playablity in the least. In fact it only adds a further frustration if you fail to get the 'supplies" because then you lose for no real purpose beyond a failure to complete an arbitrary ritual of clicking a button each night.

2. This could create a need for the survivor to frustrate the game to complete this entirely pointless ritual by prolonging the game thus increasing the likelihood of becoming a target for hanging or killing to end the game directly.

3. This does not increase interactivity and is functionally no different then then the current survivor beyond adding the frustration of a greater likelihood of losing to a role that is already frustrating to play due to the fact that it essentially necessitates you to do nothing lest you make yourself a target of the evils or town until one side is determined to have majority.


So /No support from me dawg.

Feel free to dismiss this criticism as well, but I would suggest looking at the criticisms offered and evaluating why they are critical of your role and answer them rather then denying them as valid from the off.

[Boredfan1]

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.

[JacksonVirgo]

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?

[NefariousDjinn]

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.