Notification Reworks

Feedback/Suggestions
#1

Occupation:

  • If you have no immunity: Same as now.
  • If an occupation fails because you have immunity: Same as now.
  • If you are immune, but the occupation bypasses it: “You were occupied and it bypassed your immunity!”
  • Butler/Servant receives no feedback if they fail.

Redirection:

  • If you are redirected, you will be told: “Someone changed your target.”
  • If you are immune to the redirection, the notification will be the same.
  • Drunk/Alcoholic receives no feedback if they fail (Drunk is still notified of attackers).

Being Killed:

  • No need to know you were Reaped and Killed, or Possessed and Killed. If you get Reaped or Possessed, have it override the normal attack notification.

Mercenary:

  • Remove Guard notification
  • Contract should always succeed, and not show tell you that you were contracted.

Poison:

  • Make all poison notifications: "You were poisoned. You will die in one or two nights.

If anyone has any other notification that should be changed, just post them and I’ll add them.

1 Like
#2

Actually. We could just have a generic fail message.

Butler Occupys as immune: “You failed to Occupy [target]”

Butler Occupys Merc target: “You failed to Occupy [target]”

Drunk HH’s Butler: “You failed to Occupy [target]”

Ect

#4

Same for drunk and everyone else. Knight/assassin/whatever hitting an Immune and being occupied is the same deal.

#5

Wait, NVM. Better to receive no feedback.

Sure prevention can screw it up, but it’s still mostly accurate.

#6

More importantly it makes occupation itself harder to prove and makes it so that things like Alchaholics can mess up your results and not just deny them.

#7

Aka it is important to be told if your abilitys fail but it isn’t important to say WHY they failed.

1 Like
#8

Minor complaint - HH works on Butler (but Deb doesn’t)

I think HH still needs its special message - it removes immunities but technically does not bypass them.

#9

Nonono. Just because it removes your immunitys doesn’t mean it needs to tell you that it did.

3 Likes
#10

Eh. Not a big deal if you lose a nights results.

There is no reason to tell you it failed.

#11

I mean, it may as well. How else are you going to get occupied as an occupy immune class since we’re giving “you were occupied and it bypassed your immunities!” as a message.

Hiding the information that a drunk HH’d you just punishes new players for not memorizing the mechanics (at least until other things like HH exist)

#12

The point is to reduce information.

You don’t need to know if you got Happy Houred.

1 Like
#13

While we agree that there is too much information right now I still think that if it doesn’t say if you fail to do your action there would be to little information.

Also if you are occ immune and are redirected then it should be the same as if someone tried to occupy you.

“Someone tried to tamper with your action!”

#14

Hell if we want we can make the failure message on classes VERY broad.

Sheriff checks non-unseen? He failed to find unseen.

Princess isn’t visited while whisping? Failed to detect visits.

Observer target didn’t visit or get visited? Failed to detect visits.

Hunter bear doesn’t kill anyone? Failed to kill

Knight hits immune? Failed to kill

Physician target isn’t attacked? Failed to heal

CW target not converted/occupied? Failed to block with barrier

Mastermind target not convertible? Failed to convert/find convertible class.

Marshal target neutral? Failed to find BD class.

Ect.

#15

But you immediately know if you got happy hour’d if you’re occupy immune.

For example:

MM visits butler. Under this system, they get “You were occupied and it bypassed your immunities!” which lets them know they visited a butler (because butler is the only class that can bypass immunities with occupation).

MM gets occupied for the night - they know that it’s a drunk because drunk is the only class that can occupy them without giving the immunity message (because HH does not bypass immunities, it strips them).

Ditto for: Butler, Prince*, Hunter, Possessor, Sorcerer, Invoker and Drunk.

So (for those classes) you haven’t reduced the information they have. Instead, you’ve effectively punished newer players who don’t understand these interactions which is something I don’t think we want to do if we can help.

#16

If we go by my system of being a vague as possible then you just say that the ability failed no matter what.

#17

This would make Butler a risky but possible claim rather than an impossible one and make the whole thing less of an issue because suddenly a butler accusation is just like any other accusation from a sheriff or paladin.

#18

For example:

Sheriff targets player 2 who is BD

Result: You failed to find a member of the unseen.

Sheriff targets player 2 who is Unseen

Result: 2 is Unseen! (same as now)

Sheriff targets player 2 and is redirected by a drunk

Result: You failed to find a member of the unseen. (Even if 2 was unseen)

Sheriff targets player 2 and is redirected by 4 the alcoholic

Result: 4 is Unseen!

#19

This suggestion would make investigative abilities completely unreliable - especially when you remember that frame exists meaning you’d have both false positives and false negatives. It also just makes the investigative classes more reliant on Scout & Smite rather than their actual investigation skills.

Reducing information is not the same as giving bad information, and an investigative result returning (effectively) " is not unseen" when the target was unseen (as far as the player knows) is giving bad information. The decision to give bad information should be a deliberate one - e.g. frame or brotherhood/dark wisp.

You, at the very least, need to inform them that they were re-directed so they know that whatever result they have is for someone that isn’t who they intended it.

#20

In my mind any piece of information should be capable of being either misleading or false. Having false positives and false negatives are thus a good thing. And if thats too big of a deal on sheriff then we can make an exception for him (specified in a passive or something). However for Observer for example it just creates doubt without breaking the class which is my objective with this.

#21

This is good, particularly the Contract change. Who would turn down a contract? Ever?

I like.