Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
But what are they for, other than to artificially prolong the game?
Why give immunity to kill to the healer, the guardian, and the zombie paladin? They don't prolong the game, unlike a one-time defense:smile35:
Heroist
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Well, as I see it, the general opinion was already quite obvious. In any case, I will stick to my point of view: a couple of roles with percentages are perfectly acceptable in multiplayer, but one-time protection against kills or against some kinds of executions, I definitely don't like.
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Probably to prevent roles that are crucial to the game from being eliminated randomly at the beginning, which would lead to a loss.
The game should focus more on the players than on the roles. What's the downside to that? They already often struggle if they're not strong enough, and if they fail to eliminate their target, they might end up in block the next night, which is even worse. In that case, it's better without them, or maybe just don't make the roles too powerful, I don't know. And if you remember the saying that the strongest role is the one without an investigation, then there wouldn't be any problems at all.
Yashchur, I mentioned this at the beginning. And in that case, imagine if all the percentage-based roles also had protection.
kcfgogbfalgfl
10 years ago
Auto-translated
This feature, like any other, is an element of the setting, following the same rules as the rest and serving the same purposes. Compared to percentage-based protection, it is practically the same (including in terms of "stretching"), with the only difference being that the concept of "luck" is removed. Relying on percentages is absurd. Moreover, with rare exceptions (so-called specific actions), they all had a percentage chance for precisely that reason – because it was difficult to balance them.
They usually have a hard time anyway, if they aren't too strong, and if they don't kill the target, then they might block the next night, and so on, which is a real problem. In that case, it's better without them, or maybe don't make the roles too strong, I don't know.
If they don't kill the target due to "chance," the result will be exactly the same. Or they might fail twice in a row. Or you might even lose your role with protection because you were unlucky.
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
And all these percentages, or some abilities, are more of an important detail of the role than anything else. If you remember Juggernaut from the X-Men, who had 75% defense, then the percentages are based precisely on that. If he had a one-time defense, he would survive once, and then he would easily die from some weakling, although, according to his real abilities, it is very difficult to kill him, and therefore giving him a one-time defense is not very good. The same applies to maniacs, because it is often difficult for them to survive, so the paladin in the 73rd game also had 75%, and thanks to his weapons/abilities.
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
or maybe even ten times.
kcfgogbfalgfl
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Ah yes, the game is more focused on the players themselves, and their success depends on their actions rather than on random factors. I don't know how you came to the opposite conclusion.
Added 1 minute ago
although, based on his actual abilities, it's very difficult to kill him
Here, it's important to decide what you want from the setting - a beautiful and consistent design and plot, or a balanced game.
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Well, I'm saying that in that case, it's better to remove the defenses altogether. Leave only the non-damage defense and for the first turn.
One-time defenses can also change a lot in that case. Today, it didn't work, but tomorrow, the target was changed (as was the case with me, and there was specifically an ability involved) or it was blocked, or the target was already killed. Not much better than percentages.
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Here, it's important to decide what you want from the setting – a beautiful design that matches the concept and plot, or a balanced game.
It's possible to achieve both goals at once. In this game, almost everything was resolved due to the players' actions, rather than random chance.
Heroist
10 years ago
Auto-translated
I would also remove the immunities for the first night, by the way.
kcfgogbfalgfl
10 years ago
Auto-translated
You can achieve two goals at once.
How will you achieve balance with percentage-based protection? Even characters with a 75% chance of success, for whom this protection is necessary according to you, can be defeated after the first attack if they are unlucky (unlike regular protection, by the way). I don't see how this achieves the second goal. Unless the GM adjusts the numbers to "balance" the situation, but since we are playing based on mutual trust between the GM and the players, we can assume and hope that such situations do not occur.
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
If there are percentages involved, it doesn't necessarily mean that the game will be completely ruined. Players relying on percentages can be countered, or other strategies can be used against them. You could introduce a non-damage ability to remove protection. They didn't break or ruin the game that often, so it's hard to even remember a specific instance where they really messed things up.
Fragment
10 years ago
Auto-translated
I would also remove the immunities for the first night, by the way.
By the way, regarding the first-night immunities. In this game, for example, we started calculating negative effects based on a list of immunities because there was no protection against negative effects on the first night, and we would have killed the Mafia player based on that logic if they hadn't reached me first. Considering that the list of immunities, no matter how large it is, rapidly decreases, it turns out that first-night immunities can, to some extent, reveal a player's role. But this is tied to Mafia defenses; perhaps it's better to simply make them non-displayable.
kcfgogbfalgfl
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Percentage-based damage can be countered by execution, pierce, or other abilities. Non-deterministic damage reduction could be introduced.
The same can be said about one-time protection. I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I still don't see any arguments in favor of percentage-based protection.
And in that case, imagine if all percentage-based units also had defenses.
I imagined. Because of various immunities, as many as 5 kills were missed during the game. But all the "percentage-based" units, except for the last two, were killed by attackers. What would one-time defenses give instead of percentages? Well, basically nothing, except that the winner would be determined by a dialogue between the Heroist and Sivas and a decision by Koshi, and not by a coin or whatever you tossed when you were eliminating the Heroist... :smile51:
Added 2 minutes later Daoshi
Unless the GM tweaks the numbers to "balance" the situation.
The more I read Arandor, the more I suspect that this is exactly what is happening...
