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.
Someone clearly isn't taking into account the players, most of whom clearly aren't very good at the game.
Are you talking about inactive players? Wouldn't the solution of "making sets for a smaller number of players" be obvious in this case? It won't be possible to completely remove inactive players, but their percentage will decrease.
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
And not a single example with percentage-based protection. Maybe just avoid adding useless redirects or random kill effects to the set?
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Isn't the decision to "create maps for a smaller number of players" obvious in this case?
If there are people who create maps just to entertain ten people, then let them do it.
And not a single example with percentage-based protection. Maybe just don't add garbage redirects or random kills to the set?
First, the second example was exactly with my percentage-based protection. And second, what the hell difference does it make, kills, defenses, or who knows what else? Random is random. And it shouldn't determine the winner.:smile16:
Added 6 minutes later By the way, here are my arguments against percentages:Evil Lizard
One-time protection provides: a) one with a guarantee that he will survive at least one hit; b) the other with a guarantee that he will kill the first one, if not today, then tomorrow. But percentages guarantee nothing to anyone.
I would like to hear similar arguments from the supporters of these very percentages.:smile08: Otherwise, they just press a button, but they don't know why...:mad:
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
and what complaints do you have about me regarding redirects and other things when I only use percentages in defense? not counting the mana ability I gave them so they wouldn't get bored
b) give the other one a guarantee that he will kill the first one, if not today, then tomorrow.
a very questionable guarantee, considering that external defenses, blocks, other assassins, or something else might prevent this.
I caught myself thinking that my latest build doesn't have any disposable defenses, but Sifa has two percentage-based abilities. But again, one is a guaranteed block with a "either you steal a turn, or they steal yours" effect, and the other is a disposable "either you kill, or you die." This is exactly what I was talking about – an addition to the usual ability and to the role that relies on luck.
I've been thinking about this... At the end of the game, this could lead to the winner being determined by pure chance.:smile32: I think it would be better to implement something like "you give yourself a one-time protection from death for today, but you lose a turn" or "you do something useful, but you get poisoned and die in a couple of nights if you aren't healed." :smile26:
Added 3 minutes later Arandor
So, what are your complaints about me regarding redirects and other things when I only use percentages in defense?
The complaints are not about redirects or "other things," but about randomness in general.:pArandor
It's a very questionable guarantee, considering that external defenses, blocks, other killers, or something else could interfere with it.
OK. And how are percentages better?
Happy Life
10 years ago
Auto-translated
I would like to hear similar arguments from the supporters of these percentages. Otherwise, they just click a button without understanding why...
Percentages leave room for maneuver. If necessary, you can rely on chance rather than having to act in a specific way. And the game shouldn't be built around defense; it's just a situational bonus that is always taken into account. You shouldn't feel at home in a mafia game; they'll rip your guts out here.
Percentages leave room for maneuver. If necessary, you can rely on chance rather than having no other option.
*Let's note: "Morning prefers to rely on chance rather than himself."*
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
And? I'm not responsible for all the randomness, if you want to get down to it.
I already explained what the issue is.
Have you played as Mafia when some roles have one-time-use protections? When the Mafia knows for sure that there's a protection and it needs to be removed, they simply don't want to do it; they ignore it and choose another target, guided by the same randomness or some assumptions. They don't want to spend a precious night, which might be ruined anyway by a block/protection/heal, on trying to eliminate someone, so they usually leave those players, hoping that others will take care of them, and by the end, they don't have time to remove the protections anymore. The same applies to immunity to execution. The town drags it out, and then it's too late.
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
What does it mean to rely on oneself? When a role has a one-time protection, the player relies on it and on the role itself, which the GM has generously endowed, rather than on themselves. One can rely on oneself during a daytime game and when using one's own intellect, but not when randomly drawing a favorable role.
Have you played Mafia where some roles have one-time use protection?
Of course. In the last game, for example:)Arandor
When the Mafia knows for sure that there is protection and it needs to be removed, they simply don't want to do it; they ignore it and choose another target, guided by the same randomness or some assumptions.
You're welcome. In the last game, the entire chat was racking their brains about how to remove Verfal's protection, and I immediately said, "Leave him alone; we'll get a majority of votes and hang him." Kill another target, and you'll be happy.:)Arandor
There is no desire to spend a precious night, which can also fail due to a block/protection/healing, on trying to break through.
Yeah, but there is a desire to spend a night that might fail due to percentages, right?;)
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
Indeed. Take the previous game, for example.
A game where the Mages themselves had a ton of defenses against everything, right?
A game where the Mafia themselves had a ton of defenses against everything, huh.
Attention, ladies and gentlemen! His Majesty Nonsense is about to begin, performed by Arandor himself!!!:D:D:D What kind of defense against everything are you talking about??? Only Sesame had a defense. Red had no defense, Alex only got it after Ment was revealed. And I had to work hard every night to get protection, and work effectively (blocks, isolations, yes, defenses, haha:smile08:)...:smile32: And Master was hanged on his own doorstep on the third
Arandor
10 years ago
Auto-translated
So, you think that's not enough and more should have been added? Considering the number of different non-player characters (NPCs) available, including redirects.
Злобный Ящур
10 years ago
Auto-translated
There was no need to add anything. Everything was fine, and the defenses and bite immunities didn't hinder us in any way. Although, yes, Alex should have had a proper sword if he was left alone. Otherwise, Zesma, if she was left alone, could only use the special ability "Peek from the Thicket" against Verfalions, Simairons, and Tesarons...:D
