Moderators: MisterPerson, Code Maintainers
Cobby wrote:only if we timegate by hours as maintainer
oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.
Vaina wrote:oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.
It's easy to see how flat any argument falls when replacing just a single word.
somerandomguy wrote:Vaina wrote:oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.
It's easy to see how flat any argument falls when replacing just a single word.
lol
MMMiracles wrote:ghost roles aren't there to be the main driving force of a round, so your point is invalid
MMMiracles wrote:why do you think you're entitled to competent players in a role that isn't a major driving force unless literally no other roundstart threat exists? they exist to give players non-vital positions to be part of the round again, you aren't entitled to a 'good show'.
oranges wrote:Ghost roles are mostly to ensure people can get a chance to come back into the round so we can make rounds last longer, not for any other purpose, the fact that some of those roles are direct side event antagonists is a byproduct.
Making new players have less of a chance to return to the round is not something I'm willing to add.
oranges wrote:The mechanics of the game overall sure,but people who don't figure out how to switch hands barely last past one round, but then outside of that, there's nothing that can prepare you for these roles other than playing them. Pretending like they'll somehow become competent because they played the normal game for 7 days is unrealistic.
MisterPerson wrote:The game lasted for years just fine without any ghost roles at all. So even if the player sucks, it's not like they ruined the round or anything.
Vaina wrote:What good is a shadowling that doesn't know lightswitches or APCs are a thing? Or a revenant that can't find the morgue?
Vaina wrote:Overall, there's been no compelling argument for why restricting special roles from incompetents is a bad thing. There's been even less argument for why incompetents in special roles is a good thing.
Vaina wrote:somerandomguy wrote:Vaina wrote:oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.
It's easy to see how flat any argument falls when replacing just a single word.
lol
Discrediting that tactic only works if there's false equivalence--which there is. Head roles and antagonist roles are the two primary driving forces of conflict (plus security). If you're not going to contribute anything more than a "lol", go away.
somerandomguy wrote:I'm saying that "lol ur argument is bad becuz i can change a word and it falls apart" is really dumb and any (short) argument can have a word changed and change the whole meaning. (Case in point: your quoted posts.) Try re-reading the quote in my "lol" post.
Vaina wrote:By replacing just a single word, it's easy to see how flat your argument falls.
Also heads are not the driving force, security is, and it can be as bad as it likes as long as it doesnt break rule 1.
The only head roles that do much in terms of conflict (excluding rev rounds) are the captain and the hos.
Why? Because they're part of security.
Cobby wrote:You not factoring that possibility is your fault.
Cobby wrote:The cost of the item is based exactly upon the risk of the item: a good holopara or demon can dominate the playing field and adding other items upon that just tip the scales further.
They are both extremely high risk high reward items and you know that before even purchasing them. If you want a safety net, choose items/spells that don’t have that inherent risk.
Taking the risk away would most certainly mean these items would need to be balanced around more reliably getting good players.
terranaut wrote:i saw this video before it was posted here
you too can be cool like me if you just subscribe to imsxz youtube channel
Arianya wrote:no, not the snails, shut up imsxz
Nervore wrote:I am going to will you out of existence, Imsxz.
One day, you will just cease to exist.
somerandomguy wrote:Vaina wrote:oranges wrote:You don't deserve the head role and you don't deserve a competent player, no matter how frustrating that is sorry.
It's easy to see how flat any argument falls when replacing just a single word.
lol
iksyp wrote:imagine banning incompetence
Qbmax32 wrote:seriously though watching new players try something then fuck up spectacularly is hilarious and a lot of the time is a lot more fun then powergaming to the max and getting all the valids
in other words: losing is fun!
adamkad1 wrote:So whats wrong with the wiki quiz idea?
datorangebottle wrote:epic
also how the fuck am i supposed to learn how to play a role if i can't play the role without knowing how to play it you retard
SaveVatznick wrote:We don't have a points system or a win loss record because the point of the game isn't to strive to win, but to enjoy your time playing it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users