Quote:
Originally Posted by the sun fan
ok, I think I'm understanding why you feel this way
you never, ever want a scenario where the last wolf (or threat to town, really) is in a suspended modkill state, you want town to immediately win
|
Yes, and it works the other way too. If the modkill is a town that lowers villagers to be equal to threats then the game should end there as well
I don't know why you're refusing to acknowledge the wording that I want the game to end when a win condition is achieve. This seems extremely straight forward to me; an obvious course of action for a game with any win condition
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SunFan
I'd like modkills to always wait until EOD.
|
I don't. We've played that way enough times to know that this community will keep subverting to expectation of engagement and abuse coming in at the last second to stay I the game without any real engagement.
How many EODs have we played where no real discussion can happen because of inactive players, waiting to see if a vote in there slot will matter, only to see people it both alignments pop in 10 before cutoff with a series of 5 one-line posts that contribute nothing but enable their slot to continue to exist for another 78 hours?
Countless.
It isn't fun. It isn't engaging. It doesn't allow the majority of players to actually deduce the game and instead forces established best practices of dealing with those players----gameplay by reaction, not gameplay by engaging. It's ass, it makes it to where I don't want to play the game. I don't care what's technically more balanced at that point because the community at large is literally supporting players abusing the game to lock out the core spirit of it all by refusing to engage.
Wolves got so many free wins for this, where was the outcry then that the balance needed adjusting?
Killing inactives an hour out at least preserves EoD to the people willing to play it. I don't think it skews the balance too far one way or another (especially compared to certain roles and rules we've used over the years) and it's only been used twice, so until we start seeing wolves auto-losing to it repeatedly I don't see why this can't be the standard.
What it seems to me us that you don't want one player's action to completely change the game in an instant, but you fail to realize that's been happening the entire time---it was just a slow, unfun, agonizing ordeal before and now it's actually something people can play around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe
"is it still fair to allow town a lynch when the inactive is a wolf? doesn't that compound their advantage after wolves already took a massive hit?"
|
Yeah.
Wolves don't want town to get two lunches? Play the game
Town doesn't want to lose two people and possibly lose before Lylo? Play the game
Both sides want to avoid that third fraction from taking out crucial targets?
play the game
You don't play the game then you lose. Again, this seems pretty straight forward to me