Talk:Mayor/@comment-99.92.81.203-20150507041502/@comment-25876622-20150507210844

A Mayor can reveal themself to the Town, which leaves zero doubt to their role. (A Spy can reveal by passing multiple spytests; a Town Killing can reveal by signing their death note etc.)

If the revealed [Mayor] is not attempting to throw the game, all players now know that they will make choices which will hopefully lead the Town to win. Therefore, if every player whispers their role (or fake role, in case of evils) to the revealed [Mayor], they can now minimize the number of suspects and lead the Town to lynch them.

If the majority of players participate in this strategy, suspects may be found very quickly. E.g. if the Framer claims Escort, they will be unable to roleblock anyone to prove their role and thusly get hanged.

1. This makes it very easy for Town to win, if the revealed [Mayor] is experienced enough to analyse the flood of whispers.

2. This makes it too easy for Town to win, therefore some/many players will refuse to participate even if they are Town.

"1-people" may regard viewpoint 2 as gamethrowing, because you are refusing to apply a strategy directly leading to your win. On the other hand, "2-people" might say Mayor-games "are boring", "take away the challenge of playing Town", "are overpowered/imbalanced/unfair/broken, so I am not exploiting it".

Now that we have an ELO system (in a game largely reliant on luck, what the hell devs?), people will become [even] more competitive [than before]. This will raise the awareness that yes, Mayor-games are overpowered/unfair/imbalanced/etc., and will soon split the playerbase into groups of "I play to win and will report gamethrowers" and "I don't want to play Mayor-games, report me I don't care".

The question is now, have the devs commented on this yet?