JacksonVirgo wrote: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 wrote:JacksonVirgo wrote: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 wrote:Boredfan1 wrote:JacksonVirgo wrote: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?
Kirize12 wrote:Boredfan1 wrote: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.
Brilliand wrote: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 wrote:Brilliand wrote: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.
SparkingJayYT wrote:Boredfan1 wrote:Brilliand wrote: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 wrote:Brilliand wrote: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.
Brilliand wrote:Boredfan1 wrote:Brilliand wrote: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 wrote:First off, EVERY role is involved with other players by default, it's impossible for any role not to be.
Boredfan1 wrote:Secondly, they don't even need the game to be extended to win except in the rare circumstances where games are super short.
Boredfan1 wrote: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.
Kirize12 wrote: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 wrote: 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.
SparkingJayYT wrote:Boredfan1 wrote: 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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests