tl;dr - in decently competitive game, what defines who wins will mostly be the winners' skill eclipsing the losers', but if a setup is too [anything]sided, it's a lot more likely that being the correct alignment will what wins you the game instead of your own skill
deletedover 9 years
dumb obfuscation. u don't even have a semblance of a point anymore
pranay, all you've done ITT by revealing my alt is let me celebrate outwardly that i won a trophy last round because i didn't get to do it despite being excited when i did
deletedover 9 years
At no point have I argued A&D is a good setup, Sirius.
deletedover 9 years
A&D is a fun setup if say you wanna sit back and face desk for 30 straight minutes
Most of a&ds town wins come from the town getting lucky with night actions, so it's not really a stretch to say that it's determined by rng. But that just makes it a bad setup
what i should have articulated that in order for a game to be skill-based (which is what should define competitive) then a large degree of the outcome needs to be controlled by the players, where that control stems from the player's skill. (the outcome in this case being the PLAYERS, not alignment, who wins)
connors argument is wrong because he's just using the % in his argument, A&D is a bad setup and I agree, the only reason is because 58% of the time an idiot will roll BP and single handedly lose the game for town.
That's why A&D sucks, because 58% of the time the BP is bad.
sds - a setup with pretty much the same payout is a far better setup because it's not really in the hands of one idiot, it's in the hands of multiple idiots who can't scum hunt or find mafia
deletedover 9 years
ur dumb as heck if u don't think this makes for a broken setup
