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.