orangeandblack5 wrote:Sounds like mine, so that'll be fine.
Can't wait to see it.
orangeandblack5 wrote:I'm noticing a slight problem in the reset poll:
Voting for a non-conversion Vampire idea and Mroz's Vampire Hunter doesn't really work.
Think about it. Mroz's VH's goal is to kill all of the Vampires, and if the Vampire is changed to not be a conversion role Mroz's idea fails.
They would work fine seperately, but together...? Not so much.
Just something to consider when you vote.
Mroz4k wrote:I dont think anyone is dumb enough to vote Vampire to be a non-conversion role, and then vote for Vamp Hunter that is focused on eradicating this particular, non-duplicating role.
orangeandblack5 wrote:Mroz4k wrote:I dont think anyone is dumb enough to vote Vampire to be a non-conversion role, and then vote for Vamp Hunter that is focused on eradicating this particular, non-duplicating role.
Somebody had actually done just that, but after reading my post they re-voted, I'd assume they're the one that chose to "Remove Vampire Hunter entirely".
Kiyosen wrote:DeathBell wrote:We can't ignore the wishes of the kickstarter donations who wanted a conversion role and a counter to it. That would only put BMG in a bad position and people would question their loyalty to their community entirely. This is why we can't just remove either of the roles or replace them with completely different roles aka shadowalker.
Agree with you here completely. Good thing the word "conversion" and "counter" can be interpreted differently.
Kiyosens suggestion is probably the worst one as it adds nothing and do nothing to cause any sort of chaos which is what people want from a neutral role and especially a Neutral Killing. Lets not ignore the fact that it lets people have a second chance of winning without any sort of consequence and it gives a chance for rival factions to win together which completely eliminates a core part of the game. I get it, you hate losing your role to a conversion because it makes the game less fun and a lot harder but leting the converted keep both their roles and their goal aint going to work.
Okay, the word "nothing" is a pretty strong word there. Gonna give a summary here on what my Vampire rework is. The role is basically an Arsonist that "douses" its targets and must "douse" everyone who opposes them(Town, Mafia, and other NK roles) in order to win. If it dies, everyone who was "doused" dies the next day. Has a very weak early game but a strong late game since as the game progresses, more people are "converted" and the town can potentially have a choice to keep the Vampire alive in order to prevent deaths or killing it in the risk of losing majority. But anything that hard-counters the current Arsonist also hard-counter my Vampire anyway. Idea is also only considered if Arsonists get silent douses. I'm not really sure if you got that part. Now the part that I 100% know you didn't understand and that I have to keep repeating is that ONLY the Vampire and those who meet their conditions when the game ends. So that's only Vampire, Survivor, Witch, Executioners who lynched their target, and lynched Jesters. Therefore, the red underlined part is false. Last sentence might also be false as well.
Every single role in the game requires luck and a strength in number concept doesn't increase that luck or make it an auto win unless you make it ridiculous. It's very easy to avoid any overbuffing of a conversion role if you pay attention to action and consequences. Increased power after a certain number with a weak start or Decreased power after a certain number with a stronger start is the best way if we want the vampire to become a lategame role like the other Neutral killing. There are plenty of ways to get creative ideas around that concept and keep it balanced if people do action and consequence.
I perceive the "strength in numbers concept" as an informed minority, which that itself is fine since Mafia games involve a faction with an informed minority. The terms "Mafia" and "Cult" are two different things so they're viewed differently. A "Mafia", like the Mafia faction we have now, is fine depending on how you balance the roles in its faction. A "Cult", like the current Vampire, is not as you get ethical controversy over the win conditions of the converted, play2win mentalities leading people to gamethrowing, etc. I'm also surprised that you're using luck as a focus here. Also need clarification on "action and consequences" because I feel that I may be interpreting it differently.
Responses in blue... :/
EDIT: I think Orange helped me find what I was missing. Thanks.
Kiyosen wrote:Well I now have a second Vampire concept. This one just utilizes possible lore loopholes. Your average delayed killer. I'll get to the response above eventually. (And don't sweat it.)
N2Power wrote:And you haven't given any reason at all.
orangeandblack5 wrote:N2Power wrote:And you haven't given any reason at all.
I could, but this would be me yet again repeating myself. Long story short, conversion roles are swingy as all hell, hardcounter roles are either useless or necessary, destroying game balance even further. These two types of roles are impossible to truly balance even while seperate and therefore should be reworked or removed to keep the integrity of game balance solid.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests