Board Thread:Role Ideas (Rework)/@comment-37421692-20190125015934/@comment-36963837-20190128001217

NapstablookInfinity wrote: TheInterestedDoge wrote: The major issue with this proposed mechanic is the ability to vote.

This version of Seancing turns this into a Self-Day-, or partial.

It should not be able to vote in Seance.

It should also not be able to be voted. It should in no way interfere with the voting system in the day when temp-revived.

Also:

se·ance

Dictionary result for seance [via Google]

/ˈsāˌäns/

noun

a meeting at which people attempt to make contact with the dead, especially through the agency of a medium.

Yet it would be an interesting twist for the to have a Seance that speaks to the entire.

idktho Ok first of all was that an actual serious response or are you joking    imustbeacomicallegendifyoufindmyseriousnessfunny     ._.

This isn't the Role Ideas (Jokes) Board, you know that right? Please don't derail thanks :D   idontseewherebutokiguess            unlessthatwastotemptmefurther

Now, the ability to vote for one goddamn day isn't exactly huge compared Retributionist and it honestly just evens out with the useless normal ability that medium has (for the most part). 'It is [exorbitantly]'' overpowered. Say on day 9, when the and  are in a standoff. Suddenly, a pops in and says "woAH WoAH you can't have your well-deserved win. Cya!" This one extra vote grants the a 'uge chance to fucc a 's day (since it is most often that 1v1s include a role with at least a basic defense, or anything without a large faction to support it, in my unorthodox intuition), or potentially the  (etc.; it fuccs with everything, in fact)– you could have a, , and  (random characters) trio against , , and  (random characters that cannot easily overtake the , like  or ;  as well) and a  swoops in from left field and the  has an extra vote/the majority (forgive me if the setup is inaccurate; my point is that if a faction suddenly has majority vote this can be broken with a surprise ). And, with your comparison to, the way I see it is that you're just adding to the powerfulness of a surprise revive.'''

[cont. from 1st argument:]  'The major incident that has occurred here is when the surprise revive'' scenario occurs, and there is a small difference between the  Seance 2.0 and the  Revive 1.0. In the case of a 1v1 standoff, the last minute revive is identical to the occurrence of the proposed Seance (unless the 1v1 is a vs, of course). In a faction-majority standoff, there is, granted, the prolonged revive, yet it is indifferent if:'''

*the /anyone else dies whilst this occurs; a replacement figure

*there was no powerful figure to be revived

[cont. from 1st argument addition:]    In fact, the severe limitation to the 's ability of perma-proposed-Seancing is the chance of a player exiting the game (preventing a, , , or anyone), whilst the  stays throughout; a guaranteed revive.

[etc.:]       '''In the early game, there is little to no observed difference between the revive and the new seance; the Seance is originally credited to present the living with information from the dead for one last time; this is just widespread (which is the buff I agree with) and for some raisin with the option to vote (which I disagree with). The revive is similar; you add whatever the dead (if any; this is an early revive setting) might've said and you have your latest information. There is just a prolonged lifespan-- this may even be a negative effect, as revives for a non-,, etc. may drag away and/or  onto the familiar face, opening a chance for the , , etc. to attack the  or. Then again, it may work vice versa, with the player living life and visiting death twice.'''

Also, the medium themselves are voting. They can't bring in others. That's the difference between a seancing medium and Ret. '''idk what you mean, maybe it's because you didn't capitalize but idk your point here. Who's the "others"'''

so my point is this extra vote is gonna fucc with the chances of evil roles, especially those with a low win rate, to win. It's like a revealing against.

also I included the definition to make sure you know what "seance" means and how it is not applicable in your proposed buff