Thread:Orecreeper/@comment-27398195-20180723195224/@comment-34403911-20180727232022

Akang22 wrote: HAWAIIANpikachu wrote:

Alright because at this point I'm giving up about the debating going to MSG walls I'll put them here.

Just because you think it's fun doesn't mean it won't be removed if it's boring for most people.

You can't claim that it's boring if you keep purposely doing the same strategy, mix it up. I don't find survivor boring, I find it to be one of the most interesting roles to play as in the game, and it's simply because I don't claim D1 and play the game trying to blend in as a townie.

'''Ok, I'm sticking with orecreeper's second point here which is that the fun part isn't built in. also, winning is more fun than losing. '''

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.

Once again, see above, if survivor isn't interesting if you do the meta strategy, then play a different way. Try it sometime.

'''Hey wait a second. So you're asking me to play maybe a survivor just like a maf role, except your INVEST RESULTS BASICALLY CLAIM WHAT YOU ARE, and that you don't have an actual night ability? Like isn't that just a less-fun sk without killing, by your standards and how you play the game? I don't want to change my gamestyle to make it fun. I want to win and while at it, have fun. Those aren't mutually exclusive, you know.'''

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.

The analogy of "fun" doesn't work in a video game, that's why we have different genres of games and different classes.

'''Explain more please? And a few comments back you were like "survivor is fun: and now you're saying that it doesn't work?'''

'''I'll give you a better analogy. '''

'''Most people think killing is bad. They might have controversially different opinions on certain types of killing such as murder. Therefore it is subjective. Some religions and cults even believe it is right. But should we legalize it JUST BECAUSE OF THAT? '''

'''To be blunt, what I'm saying is that you don't matter if you're overuled. '''

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.

The roles are carbon copies, you can see it's basically control C and control V with a few minor edits. (Ex: It's alignment).

'''So you admit there are differences? according to wikipedia (which isn't always right but good enough for our purposes) '''Nowadays "carbon copy" is often used metaphorically to refer simply to an exact copy. An exact copy does not have differences as big as its allignment (WHICH IS NOT A MINOR EDIT)

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?

The assumption of "it's intended for the consumers of the specific game" does not work either, I never played a deception game before Town of Salem and I got into it. Given the fact it's a free to play game makes it easily accessible, along with the fact the Steam game is only $5.

'''I think you just completely misunderstood my point. I meant that BMG should not care about the general public when making decisions that will only impact players of the game.'''

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.

People claim survivors as important town roles like mayor and retri to survivor the first few days, and it's not gamethrowing to claim survivor unless you are acting against the town. Because you know what's fun, killing the mafia by betraying them because you were a mayor and not actually a survivor.

This is a deception game kiddo, your goal is to trick people.

'''You do know what I mean, don't you... As a normal town with no reason to not claim survivor (and yes, survivor has no reason to claim town) other than for fun, that would be considered gamethrowing. Please don't cherrypick my answers to a specific example and answer the general question.'''

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!

If you get into a kingmaker situation it means there's either two opposite factions and one neutral (Non-killing) or three opposite factions where one is not going to win no matter what (GF, SK, WW). If you get into a kingmaker situation, as I said before, you didn't play well.

'''Just because you didn't play well doesn't mean you didn't play better than your opponent, chivalry of a failed knight isn't a great anime but it did better than asterisk war. See this from anywhere before? If you think this is is an incomplete answer then I guess you gotta revise your answer above (#1)'''

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.

If it's that easy to confirm yourself as survivor then you might as well just give it free MP for playing as this role. The entire POINT of survivor is trying to confirm yourself as being a survivor and not an evil so you can live until the end of the game. If a jailor or vigilante kills me it is so satisfying to rub it in their face when they lose and say "you know you COULD have killed that SK if you didn't waste one on me."

'''Is it really that hard to confirm yourself as survivor? '''

'''D1: I'm surv, invest can confirm. '''

N1: gets confirmed by invest while surv vests

'''D2: Invest posts will, if town believes then they are confirmed, if town doesn't then invest is lynched and the surv is confirmed. If the surv is lynched then it is BAD LUCK not bad skill on your part.'''