Devs/Mods have got the wrong idea about Neutrals (but mostly Alchemists)

[Neclord]

@Yattien

I never assumed the worst.

@Yattien

You are basically just angry that the alch made you lose and want to be able to report them for that. It’s salt.

---

@Yattien

Like I said above, if you were the NK, would this topic have been made? Would you have complained about your win because the alch didn’t play optimally?

No, why would I complain as a beneficiary in that scenario? Doesn’t change my point that both victim and spectators have their game experience worsened as a result of this ‘strategic choice’.

@Yattien

I read your topic and gave my opinion based on the scenario you gave, you lost cos an alch never played how you wanted him to, an opinion that you are failing to deny is true or even address.

You don’t open your first post with an opinion. You open it with a statement.
I’d ask you to consider my perspective for a moment. I’ve clocked about 500 hours into ToL, so I’ve played a good number of games. I’ve taken time to carefully write this post to have a serious discussion about the impact that “survive” neutrals are having on the quality of games, and this…

@Yattien

You are basically just angry that the alch made you lose and want to be able to report them for that. It’s salt.

…is the first thing I read in your response. If you are just expressing your opinion, perhaps word it in a less concrete manner.

[Yattien]

@Yattien

I read this. Answer is still the same. Alch can side with whomever he pleases. If he decided to try and help the NK, without Stoneskin available, then so be it. He took the chance and lost. Was it throwing against his win condition? Perhaps, problem is, neuts are only throwing against themselves, not dragging others down with them. They make the choice, good or bad.

I know I saw you in a game earlier, problem is, I’ve seen so many bad plays today that I am unsure which game it was. Regardless, I remember you making a terrible play. Were you the king who tried to get us to exe the inq claim D3-4, so we assumed evil and exe’d you as GK?

Either way, point is, you’ve made bad choices too. And I am 90% sure, if that king was you, that this topic is designed to try and have rules changed so you can report alchs who made you lose when “you could have won with me” as you said you hated neuts.

Read my actual first post please. So:

@Neclord

You are basically just angry that the alch made you lose and want to be able to report them for that. It’s salt.

…is the first thing I read in your response. If you are just expressing your opinion, perhaps word it in a less concrete manner.

is untrue. You’re just cherry picking from my posts now to suit yourself.

[Neclord]

@Yattien

Read my actual first post please. So:

I’ve already read, directly quoted and responded to your first reply, as evidenced in this thread. Stressed clearly that the denying of a faction/player’s win is not the root of the issue and try to differentiate strategy from deliberate prolonging of the game’s length.

Despite that, your opening (i.e: the first) remark in your next response is:

@Yattien

You are basically just angry that the alch made you lose and want to be able to report them for that. It’s salt.

I’m not trying to score points here, I’m just pointing out how it came across to me.

Bottom line is I just want to discuss what I have set out to discuss. I don’t really want the thread to be derailed further either.

[Shrimpy]

This thread is what I intended mine to be, except you worded it way better and I did a horrible job. That’s a nice new term,

Pseudo-Kingmaker Alchemist: An alchemist who sacrifices his own victory in order to make sure the faction of his choice wins.

Personally I don’t care about the extra time it draws the match out for, it’s the Alchemist going against his win condition that bugs me.

Amazingly almost every single response in this thread has entirely missed the point, with some accusing you of saltiness even though you’ve made it clear you don’t like it even when it guarantees your own victory.

To be honest I said I was satisfied with the responses from the Devs in my other thread when I actually wasn’t completely satisfied, I just kind of gave up because nobody was understanding what I was trying to say.

@Kirefitten An Alchemist not voting out Possessor in the scenario described is not making a “bad play,” he’s losing on purpose in order to ensure Possessor wins. This is by definition gamethrowing. In some situations it’s possible the Alchemist failed to correctly conclude that he would lose. But that’s not the Alchemists this thread is about. I believe this thread is about Alchemists who refuse to vote out Possessor despite the fact that they expect to be killed and lose for it.

[Firekitten]

If you really want to go deep the assassin was gamethrowing for killing the alch.

Since the possessor would kill the assassin that means the assassin lost due to a 1 v 1

When he had a chance other wise

[Neclord]

@Firelitten1

Since the possessor would kill the assassin that means the assassin lost due to a 1 v 1

Correct. But the Alch has no reason to delay the game by a day to side with unseen anyway.

Therefore it is highly likely that the Alch seeks to side with the Possessor, they have declared themselves an enemy and should be removed from play.

[Shrimpy]

That is true. So I will describe another scenario that actually happened (to the best of my memory).

• Good King without guards or finger, dying to poison tonight.
• Alchemist without stoneskin.
• Assassin.
• Herbalist dying to wolf tonight.

Assassin and Herbalist vote King, but Alchemist refuses. There is no reason for Unseen not to kill Alchemist in this scenario, since they lost because of him regardless of what they do, and the Alchemist is the only target worth attacking (King will either die to poison or be healed). So Alchemist drawing out the game to save Blue Dragon is making himself lose.

In this game the Alchemist admitted to sacrificing his own victory so that BD could win.

I don’t believe you can find a way to deny this is an Alchemist admitting to gamethrowing.

[Firekitten]

Objection! Herbalist is immune to bleeding!

[Shrimpy]

Lol, this was before the patch. Change the Herbalist to Marshal then

[Firekitten]

What if the alch healed the marshal.

Oh shoot

[Shrimpy]

Unseen is going to kill the Alchemist regardless what he does, since if he heals Good King he is to blame for their loss, but if he doesn’t heal Good King then Unseen can win without him. So of course Unseen is going to kill him, it’s win-win. They get revenge on him in either case and it doesn’t affect their chances of victory. And don’t forget every single player in the game has perfect knowledge of everyone’s classes and abilities. So for Alchemist not to vote out Good King would be guaranteeing his defeat.

[Firekitten]

How did king lose finger?

[Shrimpy]

That’s a good question, someone must have been voted up then pardoned.

[Firekitten]

But then the alch wanted BD to win yet pardoned…

[Shrimpy]

Yeah, the Alchemist had trouble making up his mind I guess. Whoever’s in charge of handling reports could find this case since I reported it a long time ago. The way I describe it here might be idealized though to make sure there aren’t any loopholes like you found in the OP

But the scenario begins after the pardon so please, try and find a loophole!

[Firekitten]

Misread

[Firekitten]

Wait a min. Alch bombs the assassin.

No one wins.

[Shrimpy]

But that doesn’t change the fact that Alchemist is suiciding. Going for a draw is against Alchemist’s win condition.

[Moleland]

As @Kirefitten said, in the OP example, the Unseen threw as much as the alch did

[Moleland]

Alch doesn’t suicide. Unseen kill him. There is a difference.