Thread:Orecreeper/@comment-27398195-20180723195224/@comment-34403911-20180728015254

HAWAIIANpikachu wrote: this is what i mean by maf.

clarification matters :3

Sorry :c

their day abilities usually make up for it.

None of those roles have day abilities except medium, and that only happens when dead.

'''Yes but ret and has a one time powerful ability, and med has a passive ability at nightime. Amne will have a fun ability soon if they are lucky and/or they are good'''

So you're saying a vig doesn't kill?

Vigilantes kill? (Jokes aside but I rarely see a vigilante shoot)

'''True, but they can, and that's what matters. For example, if a mafia claims vig and so does the vig, at day time proes will just let them "shoot it out" by night, and you trade a maf for a vig.'''

or they aren't supposed to be if the game's made right.

Games are never made right. Mind blown, I know

'''So you're saying that it's supposed to not have survivor? Or that survivor should be changed in order to make the game right?'''

So maybe they could make it so that you can't make it boring and win. Why are you defending this? I'm literally encouraging your play style. The fact that being boring and winning is bad because it's an option. Can it be better so it's being fun and also risk losing?

It's fine where it is, the reason why people keep claiming it's bad is the same reason as DbD survivors keep asking killers to be nerfed, they can't be bothered to think of a strategy that helps make it interesting for them. Survivor does not need to be buffed or changed.

'''Yes, but if you like that strategy in the first place then why are you arguing against the change that will allow it to be manditorily fun? I mean not to be condescending but this is sort of like a straight-A student arguing that teachers should be easier on D students, while the D students are enemies of the A student as well (well, we are just debating for fun right?)'''

And yes this whole point was a bait for this.

Ew bait get it away.

I like debaiting

What I meant by that is how I used your point against you again, so when you reply to that point I'll just use it against you again.

That's not using my point against me. I provided a counter point. If you teams didn't play well enough and reached a king maker then it's up to the survivor to pick the "better" of the two players.

'''And yes, you gave the exact same argument as me, saying that how sk could win via kingmaking if they played well. My argument was that if they didn't play well enough and didn't reach a kingmaker then it's up to the survivor, or just who would win via stalemate. '''

'''Why does the survivor have to pick the better player? Just because you doesn't mean a lot of survs don't. For example, if someone entrusts a whole group with plenty of exploitable information, and you don't exploit it, it doesn't mean that it won't be by others. Although you know it won't matter and it might be fun, others are not as moral. Btw I try to be as fair as possible every time. I usually vote against the person who has a way higher win chance, unless someone has been really pro (vet carry) or RAINBOW mode where I will vote with town'''

Jugg>Pest>Arso/WW>NK>Coven/maf>Town

Which means you 're saying they're good? didn't you just say how they should be removed? I'm confused.

'''I said they're exploitable, not good. And jailor is a broken killing role'''

'''What's the difference? Do you mean they are way too op? Well yes I guess jailor needs a nerf as well but we're sorta trailing from the main point now. The point before was that you said how Town Support and Town Protective were uneeded as they did not contribute to the objective of the town while they clearly do, and are interesting without doing anything harder.'''

(a few comments back)

You: Then at this point you might as well remove any role that's not killing or investigative.

'''Me: Ummmm how is this related? don't other roles also help complete the final objectives as well? They all help towards the objective. And some of these are fun as well. It's not like you go out of your way to make the game harder as a TS?'''

Ok i can see that

You have said this statement.

It's not difficult to defend your claim as town, once you are confirmed you are good for the rest of the game (Unless vampires exist) And also, you have admitted that this point is true: Vampires usually exist when survs exist. If we represent (It's not difficult to defend your claim as town, once you are confirmed you are good for the rest of the game) as point A, and (Vampires exist) as point B, your point can be expressed like this. If not point B, then point A. But we also have Point B is usually true. Therefore: Point A is usually false. Therefore your point is usually false, so you have to concede it or refute the fact that vamps usually do not exist in games with surv.​​​

However, point A was used to describe the town roles, along with point B being the fact that vampires have practically 0 reason to bite a survivor due to the survivor's win condition (Unless one or both of them are being a d--k). Meaning once a survivor is confirmed, they generally confirmed for the rest of the game.

'''Yes so you'res saying that if a surv is being a dick, and there is at least 1 vamp, there is reason to check them every now and then? Because if you say no, that's the contrapositive to your most recent statement, which means they're logically equivalent.'''