Board Thread:Debate of The Week/@comment-28112409-20171101070508/@comment-32881402-20171107195405

Addfire wrote: ProfessorArceus wrote: Addfire wrote: ProfessorArceus wrote: Addfire wrote: But the thing is, my calculations were for simple random chance. The fact that, just by closing your eyes and clicking a random button, on night two, you would be more likely to find an NK then to die from Typhus, is sorta bad. That may be an issue, but your own probability can be used against you here. It's like saying Vig is bad because it can kill 3/4 of the Mafia in 3 nights. It can, but probability says that it is unlikely. Therefore, the Vigilante is not considered overpowered; in fact it is the opposite because of this major drawback in killing the Town. With no drawback, however, it has this huge ability with no risk whatsoever. And that's the problem - the role is very difficult to balance without a complete rework.

Anyway, unfortunately, your own math doesn't prove your point. It really is a shame and, once again, kudos to you for doing it. It isn't like saying that at all, though. 1/10 isn't unlikely- it's fairly likely, actually. If a plague kills 1 out of 10 people, you are likely to die. (IDK why my mind is on plagues right now. Freudian slip?) And then the second half of your paragraph negates the first half- so what was your point? The mafia are still likely to find the werewolf/sk. Uhm, not at all. If there are 1/10 people in a room and a gun will fire at someone, it's very unlikely that you'll be shot.... You're assuming this plague catches on to everyone, but chances are it won't. It might affect the whole of Europe, Asia and the Americas, but there are still places that will most likely remina unaffected.

How does it cancel out the 1st paragraph? At all? In the first, I'm saying that probability is a huge factor in balancing potential. In my second, I'm saying that your math proves yourself wrong. Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the second half of this paragraph (in bold):

That may be an issue, but your own probability can be used against you here. It's like saying Vig is bad because it can kill 3/4 of the Mafia in 3 nights. It  can,  but probability says that it is unlikely. Therefore, the Vigilante is not considered overpowered; '''in fact it is the opposite because of this major drawback in killing the Town. With no drawback, however, it has this huge ability with no risk whatsoever. And that's the problem - the role is very difficult to balance without a complete rework.'''

Negates the first half (in bold):

'That may be an issue, but your own probability can be used against you here. It's like saying Vig is bad because it can kill 3/4 of the Mafia in 3 nights. It can, but probability says that it is unlikely. Therefore, the Vigilante is not considered overpowered;''' in fact it is the opposite because of this major drawback in killing the Town. With no drawback, however, it has this huge ability with no risk whatsoever. And that's the problem - the role is very difficult to balance without a complete rework.''

You also straight-up misread my statement about 1/10 dying. But I'll restate it:

Let's say everyone in the world is infected with Typhus. Typhus has a 1/10 chance (to 4/10 but let's just be optomistic here) of killing its victims. You are very likely to die. 1/10 is not extremely unlikely. I'm saying that they made an attempt to limit its potential which wouldn't be enough if it guaranteed 3 scum kills anyway. This drawback + this limited probability = a more balanced role.

It's not extremely unlikely, but it's still very unlikely. Look, you did maths, you proved yourself wrong. If I had a 1/10 chance of living tomorrow, I'd be preparing a funeral. If I had a 1/10 chance of dying tomorrow, I'd be going on as normal. Look. Sure, it might be a math website for 12 year olds doing probability, but it's saying that 1/6 is less likely than 'unlikely'. 1/10 would be much closer to 'impossible'. It just shows that I'm not alone when I think that 1/10 is not probable at all.