Board Thread:Role Ideas (Rework)/@comment-33167183-20180719162754/@comment-34403911-20180727200134

Jallybwan wrote: Akang22 wrote: Jallybwan wrote: Orecreeper wrote: This role was created because there pretty much HAS to be a role like Surv in a game like ToS.

But I agree that this role is sh*t and should be removed. I disagree. Let's dance. Hey I personally think surv should be replaced but ima try to dance as well.

Here's why:

1. They can see your actual name from the end screen, and I think that should be removed as well. That's only after the game, and if you pick a different name every time, it'd be pretty damn hard to pick you out before the game ends. Oops wasn't thinking clearly

2.  Just because you think it's fun doesn't mean it won't be removed if it's boring for most people. Did I say that? No. I said fun is subjective. '''Saying that then doesn't refute the original point, so it isn't "invalid". My response was a response to that, and if you want to back out of refuting that then sure.'''

3. "serial killer just kills" yes and ofc mayor just votes. Um do you find sk boring? Serial Killer DOES just kill. If you make the argument that it can talk and vote, that applies to Survivor as well. Mayor doesn't even have a night ability. And the point was the lack of creativity - no, SK isn't creative, but you don't see anybody complaining about that. Creativity is not a valid point when discussing roles already in-game. '''The reason people are complaining about survivor is because of other reasons as well. It's not creative because you don't need to do anything at all. I'm not saying the role idea, I'm saying how for sk you gotta trick the entire town and be decieving, but for surv you just claim and let the masses decide. It's not like you can convince them not to vote you, unless you say you'll help them, which most survs do before end-game.'''

"Escort and consort are carbon copies" well there's going to be some similarities, "Some"? No, they're carbon copies. and although they have are the same obviously consort is more fun bc it's a maf role and they have different strategies. Once again, fun is subjective. You cannot claim that one role is more fun than the other. '''Yes I can claim one role is more fun than another, see #2. If the majority agrees that is true, then that info is useful enough to decide if it's more fun. Perhaps I cannot claim universally and philosophically it is true but we do not need these higher realms of truths to decide the benefits for the community. An analogy would be if a country would follow a healthcare plan if the plan, applied to the AVERAGE country does not work, but applied to the specific country works quite fine.'''

'''Escort is town and consort is mafia, they have different objectives and play style is different. I didn't mean the mechanics were different. But they are for sure not carbon copies.'''

4. I respectfully disagree in the point that surv has become a "go-to" point for a claim instead of actually trying and making a more believable claim, accompanied with a will. Don't you find trying to catch evils, or trying to hide from the town in a game with no survs more fun than all any? I do. Fun is subjective, and the strategy used depends on the player rather than the role. It's not a major imbalance, like the Jailor meta. '''Again, you make the mistake of assuming that everything depends on the unique player. This is not for the average human, instead it's for the consumers of the specific game. And at least in all the games I have played the above happens, which is a good enough sample size to eliminate luck. And also again with the "fun is subjective". Do I need to go on?'''

5. Actually I do agree it is way to easy to win in ranked as town, and I believe that it's the skill of the players, not the actual role list. If it was based entirely on skill (as it should be), Town wouldn't win nearly as much as it does. The wins would be far more evenly spread. Each player, no matter their skill level, has the same chance (minus scrolls) of getting any role. What i think ore means here is that how for surv you don't even need to vote, or do anything, because there's literally no point in anyone asking you for a will if they already know that you're a "surv". Of course you don't NEED to do anything. But if you don't do anything, you can't then go and say Survivor isn't fun. You just need to adapt your playstyle to make it fun for you. Claim a Town role if you want to spice things up. If you die I guess the people who killed you are stupid, or you made an enemy of them. So if you don't vote or vote with the town but also making it sorta clear to the evils that you are chill, no one will kill you. Then, as I said, don't claim. Fun is subjective. Make it fun for yourself.

'''Winning is usually more fun than taking a risk and losing (well I do sometimes like trolling so ye). That is not exactly a fact but I'm betting that you can do a study and find that it's true. Sure, go ahead and make it harder for yourself if you think you can win still.The challenge is fun but it's not so fun when you get lynched d2 even when you had an airtight claim. I mean you already got surv. Do you claim survivor when you're town to "make it interesting"? That would be considered gamethrowing.''' Along with these points, I'd like to add some points of my own (it's a tad hard to argue for orecreeper nofense.

Point 1: Survivor does not have to kill any other faction.

Are there any other roles that do not have to kill anyone or plot against anyone to win? Even jester needs to lynch themselves. Their only objective is to survive (hence the name). Also, in a perfect game no one would be stupid enough to kill them (unless they have not proved they are surv which is actually hard). The only way to die is if someone doesn't trust you, and you can't really convince someone you're surv without a TI.

Point 2: Kingmaking, the horror!

Kingmaking is when there are 2 opposing factions that need to kill the other in order to win, but there is a kingmaker such as a survivor that gets to decide who wins. This is not only rage-inducing for the losing team, but depends completely on the attitude of the survivor or luck. It's not even your skill that explains it!

Point 3: Playing as surv.

I'm not going to say it's boring (since ore already pointeed that out) but instead that your life balances on a very thin thread. Most people can kill you without anyone else caring, and what can you do to defend against the jailor other than "I'll help you i promise pls no kill"? If there was a rework so survivor can actually prove they're survivor without the need of another faction, and I would possibly support survivor.

Summary:

Although fun is subjective, it doesn't matter here. What matters is the majority of TOS players' opinion. A politician is not supposed to make laws and bills for the purpose of morality, he/she does it for the people and the people's opinions, because that defines morality.

The above is getting a little philosophical so I'd be happy if you'd let that point slide, else I'd might actually get some books out about philosophy.

I appreciate your opinion and sincerely am finding this a fun mental challenge. Thank you for engaging me in a friendly conversation on why survivor should be scrapped or not.