03-25-2011, 03:19 AM
The unfortunate circumstances are annoying, but that's to be expected. I don't necessarily have an issue with that.
My annoyance stems entirely from the voting rules and the "assassin" role. I was informed that having this opinion was greatly insulting, but it wasn't meant to be. I think the interaction between these two rules was not as ideal as I would have hoped. I get what the role wanted to accomplish, but I think the limitation of "if no majority was reached", something of which I had guessed, was not combining "No Lynch" votes and "Lacking a vote" into the same category of not counting. In its current form, it guarantees a Town kill every day, whether through lynching or through "rabble rousing".
The town members, instead of having times of being coordinated to get a better feel, will get a kill every single day without question. They will not have a doctor position to need to take into account, so they will absolutely get it. The balance is that they do not know for certain the alignment of who they are killing. The upside is that they only have to be right four times, whether through majority vote or "rabble rousing". An actual "No Lynch" vote is not possible at all until the trigger happy town member is killed, so there is nothing the mafia can say or do to buy themselves time, only hope that the townie is wrong.
The part that annoys me is that this role is supposed to be limited by the fact that it "only works when a majority has not been reached", but if I ask 18 people which movie they want to go see, and 12 of them say "I don't want to see a movie", then I'm going to assume that "The majority DOES NOT WANT TO SEE A MOVIE". Not that "the majority doesn't care, so we'll go to the one that 2 people (of the 6 that named a movie) wanted to see and take all 18 to see it." In this game if 9 people out of 18 declare that they do not want to lynch, without including the nonvoters (who are rightfully an apathy vote of "don't care" as they didn't state a preference), then a hung jury is assumed and yet an execution is guaranteed regardless, which left me feeling that the votes the townsfolk were placing were absolutely and totally meaningless until a single person was actively named 51% of the time.
I'm not going to say to change it, however, since its just a personal preference that I don't like. Anyone can run the game how they like, but I highly dislike that interaction between those two rules, as I feel that it effectively DOES NOT limit the "gunner's" power at all, in actual execution, no pun intended.
My annoyance stems entirely from the voting rules and the "assassin" role. I was informed that having this opinion was greatly insulting, but it wasn't meant to be. I think the interaction between these two rules was not as ideal as I would have hoped. I get what the role wanted to accomplish, but I think the limitation of "if no majority was reached", something of which I had guessed, was not combining "No Lynch" votes and "Lacking a vote" into the same category of not counting. In its current form, it guarantees a Town kill every day, whether through lynching or through "rabble rousing".
The town members, instead of having times of being coordinated to get a better feel, will get a kill every single day without question. They will not have a doctor position to need to take into account, so they will absolutely get it. The balance is that they do not know for certain the alignment of who they are killing. The upside is that they only have to be right four times, whether through majority vote or "rabble rousing". An actual "No Lynch" vote is not possible at all until the trigger happy town member is killed, so there is nothing the mafia can say or do to buy themselves time, only hope that the townie is wrong.
The part that annoys me is that this role is supposed to be limited by the fact that it "only works when a majority has not been reached", but if I ask 18 people which movie they want to go see, and 12 of them say "I don't want to see a movie", then I'm going to assume that "The majority DOES NOT WANT TO SEE A MOVIE". Not that "the majority doesn't care, so we'll go to the one that 2 people (of the 6 that named a movie) wanted to see and take all 18 to see it." In this game if 9 people out of 18 declare that they do not want to lynch, without including the nonvoters (who are rightfully an apathy vote of "don't care" as they didn't state a preference), then a hung jury is assumed and yet an execution is guaranteed regardless, which left me feeling that the votes the townsfolk were placing were absolutely and totally meaningless until a single person was actively named 51% of the time.
I'm not going to say to change it, however, since its just a personal preference that I don't like. Anyone can run the game how they like, but I highly dislike that interaction between those two rules, as I feel that it effectively DOES NOT limit the "gunner's" power at all, in actual execution, no pun intended.
![[Image: Ashe.jpg]](http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af298/symbiosychotic/Ashe.jpg)