No need to talk, yes maybe the jailing part but how much resources will you devote to the Lich is the question? And giving them a vote just raises the amount of power it has
People are kicked for inactivity.
I said my thoughts, not going to waste my time arguing with you when you clearly understand my point and yet not want to do anything.
People replace out for inactivity too
Itās literally rng whether to find the Lich or not and as the lich the best play is to choose the right targets and not say anything, literally be inactive the whole time and kill people
People replace out because they arenāt able to fulfil the game. Council is discussing ways of ensuring only those who prove themselves capable of fulfilling game commitments actually take slots in multiple games.
Right now they canāt even choose their targets though
lich targets should be random, no arguments.
The polls want it to be chosen though, anyways all the person needs is 1 target to survive and they win. A 1 v 1 with your target means you win
It either needs to have phylacteries be discoverable in some way, shape or form, or have the additional weight of losing if both of them dying imo
They need both targets to keep their resurrection gambit though, so itās not as though you could coast through a game with only 1 target, especially not if you open wolfed.
Maybe some sort of bleed affect triggering if they both die?
Oh that gives me an idea for another poll
Should there be a message notifying the court that a dead player was one of the Lichās Phylactery Holders if they were?
- Totally
- No way
0 voters
^ Keep in mind of Deathās Curtains and the fact that it would tell the court which of the three killed that night was the Phylactery, btw.
Why lich and not Count? This seems like just unnecessary RNG
You mean like this? :^)
That makes him severely UP
How about killing one of his targets every time he revives himself
I did mention the fact that I said āif it needs changingā which I reckon it wonāt (but Iāve been dead wrong before so :p)
That could also work.
That makes him weaker?
Not severely weaker.