Scorned targets die N1!

Feedback/Suggestions
#21

That way you avoid this issue

But it creates the additional problem of not being able to do anything n1.

#22

Thatā€™s a problem that could easily be solved, either make scorned an ability with 1 use designed for n1 or just leave it not a big deal if scorned has nothing to do for one night.

1 Like
#23

Then if both your targets die n2 you are left with the same problem you had before. So the proposed solution is not really solving anything.

#24

But it is different because you HAD an opportunity to get your target lynched, on d1 there is no opportunity, so if your targets die N1 then you automatically lose with nothing you could do about it.

#25

Scorned doesnā€™t need powers anyways.

In my opinion it shouldnā€™t even have Frame, so thereā€™s no harm making it unusable n2

#26

I agree itā€™s unfortunate, but itā€™s such an unlikely event and it occurs after such little investment of time that I donā€™t think it warrants special attention. Most people who die n1 move on, no reason a scorned canā€™t as well.

#27

So we need to take action.

1 Like
#28

But scorned does not die N1 they die N2

#29

Ok, youā€™re commissioned to prepare a report, investigate and test solutions, and raise money to fund a fix. Good luck.

#30

ok

1 Like
#31

I am sorry but here we yell stupid ideas and @Ellie makes stuff happen

#32

I considered that, but honestly, this isnā€™t complexity that matters. Letā€™s say we change it so ā€œif both your targets die N1, you get two new targets.ā€

Aside from occasionally keeping the Scorned from randomly vanishing D1, does this actually affect anything else? That is, are there any situations at all where anyone, ever, would need to know this rule? Usually Iā€™m against unwritten rules, but in this case Iā€™m not sure why it would even need to be written down - realistically I canā€™t picture a single situation where anyoneā€™s gameplay would be informed by it; it doesnā€™t affect strategy at all, it just prevents a random edge-case.

Realisticallyā€¦ nobody but the Scorned is going to know their targets N1. And the Scorned isnā€™t ever going to be well-advised to do anything that would identify them N1 (the chance of this happening is too low to justify playing around it.) So it doesnā€™t affect gameplay beyond removing a bit of unlikely randomness.

Basically, complexity is only increased by a rule if people have to think about it. Nobody, as far as I can tell, would ever have to think about an N1 Scorned target replacement clause. If it were N2 or N3, sure, the Scorned would have to think about it because it might affect their decision on what to do D2 or D3 - thatā€™s why I suggested that it just be N1.

But I think an N1 replacement is ā€œsafeā€ in that it doesnā€™t impact anything outside of removing an unlikely but undesirable edge-case.

1 Like
#33

I agree with your point, however I just think randomly restoring the scornedā€™s objective is too much of a convenient cop-out for the Scorned. Iā€™d prefer a solution like this:

Night Ability - Forsake: Prevent everyone from visiting your target. Can only be used on Scornedā€™s targets. (3 uses)

This parallels it with the Foolā€™s Hide and buffs that dynamic too at the same time, since Fool/Scorned target are typically identified in the same way through obvious TBā€™s. This also makes the Scorned have to think about survival of their targets at night, but simultaneously not making it obvious that they are Scorned targets, as to execute them at day. Itā€™s an interesting tradeoff that the Fool currently has, but Fool has a large disincentive to use it, because it is such a red flag that he is a Fool. Making this change would mitigate that problem. If Mercenaryā€™s messages were removed, the Scorned could also pose as a Mercenary (and possibly through that learn their targetā€™s class), as they now have the same class. This change would shift around a lot of neutrals though and be more of an impact on the meta. I wonder what you guys think about this alternative solution. The Fool can also just die N1 and lose the game, so it is definitely a fair comparison to this scenario that is even more unlikely.

#34

Iā€™m good with Forsake as long as it replaced Frame.

#35

Why would it need to replace frame? The Fool also has both at his disposal.

#36

NightX believes that scorned and fools do not need frame, to complete his or her objective; therefore, he wants to replace frame with this new ability.

#37

Feels bad when you frame yourself and someone doesnā€™t notice you holding a knife

#38

Frame is important because there needs to be reasons to doubt investigative results (especially Sheriff / Paladin results, which are otherwise way too decisive.)

Why, though? The Scorned canā€™t realistically do anything to influence what happens N1, not without basically ruining the rest of their game (and itā€™s completely unrealistic to expect Scorned to do this every time, so itā€™s still just random.)

Beyond that, why do you care about whether itā€™s a ā€œconvenient cop-out for the Scorned?ā€ Seriously, this is something I see in a lot of suggestions, and it annoys me - this sense of vague, aimless ā€œfairnessā€. Focus on the gameplay, not on whatā€™s ā€œfairā€. Hereā€™s the situation and the options as I see them.

The Scornedā€™s targets die N1. This is essentially random and thereā€™s no reasonable way to influence it. The options are therefore:

  1. The Scorned gets new targets. This silently corrects the issue with no further impact on the game.

  2. The Scorned dies / leaves. This removes the Scorned as a factor, totally at random.

Itā€™s obvious which we should go with.

#39

Um number 2?

Donā€™t hurt me I big fan

#40

Donā€™t kill me Ik itā€™s number 1 D: