killing neuts is like pringles
i said it was unhealthy and can be anti-wincon
i said nothing about whether or not itās fun
1 Like
you meanā¦
consume them and they disappear, but leave them for too long and theyāre no longer yours? lol
The problem is Iām neuts in because I like to benefit the both of us.
If you play and help a neut theyāre likely going to return the favour
While you may think having a extra vote is useless early game late game it can save you especially applies to bd because neuts cannot be converted so if you have them fully on board with you then it can carry you to victory.
Neuts out players are weak minded and normally waste time on neutrals when there wasnāt any reason to sometimes sadly yes its better to kill a neutral in rare situations like late game if neutrals likely are siding nk and your unseen/cult. But Iād still try to peacefully win with the neuts over screwing them over when they really didnāt deserve it.
the issue is this approach assumes all neutrals side with those who helped them the most and/or deserve the win more
but a lot of the time neuts act with no logic whatsoever
what iām trying to do is remove the neuts in and neuts out dichotomy
The strategical merits of killing neuts is typically decided in the moment
But itās so addicting
wrong. neuts consistently team up with Nk and evil just for the fun of it. I will not suffer a neutral to live, unless we really need a healer.
And thatās the other half of the equation.
Not every neutral is truly neutral. Scorned, Inquisitor, Sellsword are primarily aligned with Evil win conditions. One screws with invest results (the BDās best source of information), one has a disproportionately higher chance to kill BD than evils and the Sellsword literally wins with the evil alignments, so their job is just to cause as much havoc as they possibly can.
Neutrals arenāt made neutral.
Alchemist and Mercenary are the only true neutrals.
And if thereās a bombing alchemist N1, then I see it as fair game to kill them like you would an Inquisitor. Random killing early in the game is a lot more likely to kill BD than evils. Letting that alchemist live is more likely going to cost you another BD. And because Prince usually doesnāt reveal themselves in the first couple of days, thereās just a much higher risk that he dies to a random alch bomb if thereās a bomb crazy alchemist who attacks on N1.
I am not a neuts out kinda guy. But whenever I see neutrals who are playing aggressively, I usually want to get rid of them as BD.
Scorned isā¦ debatably evilā¦ cause what it tries and wants to do is to actively push suspectsā¦ which is generally beneficial for BD.
I meanā¦ thatāsā¦ sorta true but not really? These two Neutrals are sorta BD Neutralsā¦ they work much better in BDās favor most of the time.
evils should always be neuts out
no reason to keep them alive, and merc/alch always find you easier to betray
uh
no?
why would evils kill inq, scorned, sellsword and fool
plus thereās often more important people to kill besides alchs/mercs although these two are ~justifiable kills in most situations
this is like
exactly the type of mindset that is causing problems
problems both in terms of you actually advancing your wincondition and also the experience of the player
i didnāt really want to revive the thread when this message was sent, but since everyone is talking anyway i may as well
this is like exactly what needs to stop
people deciding how they are going to treat neutrals on the basis of previous games
it just means you arenāt viewing the current round with objectivity and so youāre less likely to be able to determine what the best way of winning is in regards to treating the neut
although iām pretty sure this guy was trolling anyway
Evils sometimes might want to kill Scorneds on the basis that Scorned will be actively pushing PoE (probably where most of the evils are).
They also might go for Inquisitor because they have converted a Heretic.