Is it gamethrowing for a merc to intentionally get their first target killed?

#1

I realized something interesting while playing Mercenary recently:

If your first target dies, you can pick a new one… unless their death ends the game. If their death ends the game, you lose because you don’t get a chance to pick a new target.

This means that in some situations (when you think your target is doomed in the long run, in particular), it can be to a Mercenary’s advantage to get their target to die earlier rather than later so they can pick someone safer for their second contract - because if you wait, your target might die after the rest of their side has, causing you to lose.

Is bussing your first target like this gamethrowing, as a mercenary? Or is it acceptable because you only lose if your second target dies?

#2

I have done this before and have asked the same exact answer the answer is Yes.While your first target is alive you must try to keep them alive.Once they’re dead however you do not need to side with them and can move on with you life.

#3

yes its against the rules you have to keep your contract alive at all costs!

1 Like
#4

I don’t see why it would be, but then again, the fact that completely legitimate tactics that happen to involve getting an ally killed (bussing) are banned was baffling to me to begin with.

#5

Wait, bussing an ally as Cult or Unseen is banned? I wasn’t aware of that.

Granted, I would say that since night discussions are safe, there’s no excuse not to talk it over with them first at night.

#6

It’s considered fine if you talk it out with them beforehand, but if I understand correctly you HAVE to talk it out beforehand and they have to agree to it. If it’s a decision you have to make on the fly because people started piling onto your ally, or if you couldn’t discuss it with them beforehand because they were imprisoned, etc, tough luck.

#7

Its banned if you didnt get their permission if a merc outs their contract said player threw

#8

There are scenarios where you can’t talk to them.

Convert a guy. Can’t talk to him right then.
He gets jailed that night. Still can’t talk to him.
MM get’s lynched for not providing leads as a “Sheriff.”

That said most people are fine with being bused in my experience. I know I am. I always try to tell them, but sometimes you can’t because of how the chat works. It would be nice to be able to send a note when converting people. “I have to bus you to protect my Sheriff claim, vote for 5 if you’re okay with it.”

I mean I’ve never encountered anyone who had an issue with it. They want to win and usually it’s a good move.

#9

The Unseen/Cult does not have the objective of keeping any given member alive

Merc DOES have the objective of keeping any give contract alive. Technically his contract doesn’t even have to win with him.

#10

Even if it is technically considered throwing, it’s extremely unlikely anybody will even notice. Nobody usually knows who your mark is, so if you come out against them in chat nobody will know you’re breaking the rules unless you have already outed yourself or are being really obvious.

To be honest with you guys, I always try to get my first mark killed when I roll merc. Staying with that first mark is too damn risky. You never know whether they are completely incompetent. And if you try to whisper them on day 1 or 2 it is pretty easy for other players to guess who you are. Further, it’s just boring to stick with that first mark. You only have the single binary choice to guard him each night, and you have to be extremely careful about being outted since merc is an easy target for conversion.

There is a lot of strategic potential in the ablility to choose a new mark. Especially if you can get the court to believe you are a merc for hire. And being able to choose a competent player as your mark makes the game much more enjoyable.

I really think that merc should be reworked down the line at some point. Not because it’s gamebreaking or anything. But it’s pretty boring to play as and the best strat for the class (having your first mark killed so you can choose a better one), is technically against the rules.

#11

Okay, would you like it if your bodyguard that you hired shoved you down the stairs and breaking your neck because he thought “He is gonna die anyways”

YOU CANNOT GO AGAINST YOUR WIN CONDITION IN ANY FUCKING WAY EVEN IF IT HELPS YOU.

1 Like
#12

I’m not suggesting that the Mercenary get the option to literally kill their own client at night.

But I think that outing your client as evil if you think they’ve screwed up to the point where they’re endangering both of you or voting against them when you think they’re already clearly doomed are both thematically-appropriate things for the Mercenary to do, and I think it’d be good to reword their goal to allow that (ie. make it “reach the end of the game with a living contract” or the like.)

#13

Isn’t just your win condition to have one of your targets survive the game?

If you can win by killing your first target, it isn’t going against your win condition, since you literally just won.

Personally I think mercenary should have incentive to keep their first target alive, but right now they don’t need to. It shouldn’t be against the rules to take actions that further your victory. I think the mercenary mechanics should be tweaked to deal with this, but right now it feels like it should be fair game.

#14

The Mercenary is a “Support” class that belongs to a Neutral faction with the objective to make sure its target survives until the end of the game.

Yes, that means all of the targets, you are supposed to keep them alive. No matter what, throw yourself on a sword for them. KEEP THEM FUCKING ALIVE AT ALL COSTS

#15

If you want to stay true to exactly that goal, then Mercenary shouldn’t have second contract. But of course that sucks if your target is randomly killed or executed.

I would personally just have some big disadvantage for getting their first target killed (ex. Lose rebound and have only one stand guard), but we do need to balance both. And if you do have a second contract that you know you’ll have, then it does further your goals.

But you can’t just have situations where it would be advantageous for players to ditch their first contract and expect them not to do it.

It would be nice if we could have that second chance while also making it suck to go on your second contract, but it’s not like I have any ideas.

#16

It is there to prevent a merc from losing N1 because of a random N1 target kill

#17

Than for example, we could make Offer Contract unavailable after a certain time has passed, like day 3 for example. That would make it not beneficial for the Mercenary to ditch their target, while also not completely screwing them.

#18

Wouldn’t it mean you would want to just ditch them even more because if you don’t you are stuck with them?

#20

I just never ever guard my first target and hope they die. Maybe start a cheeky wagon with noone noticing. It is dumb af that a strategy which is pretty much always benefial to do is constituted as gamethrowing. Throwing the game implies you are trying to lose, when in fact you are doing the opposite. It’s something they need to address mechanically with the mercenary.

BTW noz, far be it from me to criticise your discussion manners, but im not sure going into caps and swearing is a reliable way of convincing people. :blush:

1 Like
#21

Mreh, I couldn’t care less. They have no right to my respect and vice versa.