I’m sure they’d work if we didn’t have a game full of fucking retards
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not but I don’t think “Can’t change lynch vote” is a very unique twist.
The roulette thing if you don’t vote is just never going to happen.
I have an idea for a game. We do reverse lynches.
Say we have 13 people, town wins if they lynch 5(?) can be altered for balance)) town, scum wins if they all get successfully lynched.
Yeah IAAFR and I were discussing this a while ago. Would be interesting.
I’m not. I think not being able to change your vote adds in a new wrinkle in how you put pressure on someone else. It makes it so those that hold their votes control the game narrative (as seen on d2 when masons piled on jdance at eod).
And the only case the roulette would reasonably come into play was in late game where, if there were multiple scum alive and a town player was afk but scum could hammer before they joined, they could possibly get an extra kill and flat out win. Prior to that it was just to avoid people not voting multiple days in a row, which was something I found really annoying about the past few games
I don't think this is true as - I always said in previous games that lynch votes are worthless until the end of day anyway, not being able to change your vote is just an inconvenience that changes nothing really imo.
The roulette could just be a "Don't AFK or you'll get zeued" rule but whatever - you end up with people barely posting and just lynching at eod like ersu or osmething.
I see how you feel as someone who popped their vote down early on d1 and ended up getting lynched. I still disagree though.
And zeusing for not lynch voting is different from zeusing for being afk. The former is way too heavy handed
This has nothing to do with my criticism and opinions on the mechanic. It's not like I didn't know that I couldn't change.
I thought you had a problem with people not voting because theyre afk - is there something wrong with just Not Voting in your opinion?
I don’t mean it as anything other than you didn’t have multiple days to see how the mechanic would pan out.
It felt low effort and was annoying to me is all. And it seemed to be the same posters doing it over and over.
I watched the whole game and it just didn’t seem to have any effect. Maybe the players felt differently but it’s still just an artificial restriction
What’s the difference between Not lynching and just putting your vote on someone that has 0 votes and won’t be lynched? Just feels like another Bandaid solution that doesn’t work.
This is mafia, arguing that something is an artificial restriction is like the name of the game. “Oh why do I only get 1 shot instead of perma vigi shots? Seems like an artificial restriction” that’s just how setups go
And I don’t like no lynches until mylo situations. Sure it’s a Bandaid but hosts get the privilege of putting the way they think the game should be played into their setups
I meant “Not Voting” not “No Lynching”, sorry about that.
Also that’s not what I mean by “Artificial restriction” - an artificial restriction is something that is not a game mechanic but just an inconvenience. Like a rule that says “You can’t claim your role” or something like “You have to let the lynch-voted player talk while nobody else talks for 30 seconds”, not actual Game Mechanics.
Lbj just host
I played the best
Easy MVP from me