Town of Salem has ISO Now

Feedback/Suggestions
#601

bigger problem for me is reactive king poison

#602

It makes the difference between having a butler and not having a butler when ek tries to make a play vastly different
aka swing

2 Likes
#603

Yep. That’s intended.
EK job is to mislynch people.
Butler’s job is to kill EK for mislynching people.

#604

The swing is definitely not intended

1 Like
#605

EK can or cannot happen.
Butler can or cannot happen.
It is obviously intended.
If you don’t want swing, introduce a role list to tol.
Swing is a feature of ToL. It’s not bad, it’s intended.

#606

It’s not that swing is intended. But that swing is a byproduct of the games randomness, and that randomness is required for the game to function.

If in theory we could have 0 swing without impacting the rest of the games systems then it would be a straight improvement. However such a method has yet to be proposed.

1 Like
#607

In the meantime, we try to reduce swing as much as is practical. Which means things like making sure only 1 NK can spawn, guaranteeing a healer and a sheriff/paladin, limiting when BD Killing abilities can be used ect ect ect.

3 Likes
#608

I think it’s the other way around.
If we could remove guaranteed healer and guaranteed sheriff/paladin without damaging the game too hard, I think we should do it. Since the whole “he’s the only sheriff claim, so he’s (starting) BD” is kinda lame.

#609

I don’t think we disagree it would be better if we could

But we can’t because it’s swingy

As you yourself acknowledge

1 Like
#610

Swing is NOT damaging the game.
But yea go ahead.

#611

Then why do we consistently take steps to reduce it

#612

Literally the entire spawning algorithm tries to manage swing

1 Like
#613

Damaging the game would be “if removing Sheriff/Pala/Healers would change the winrates”
Since ToL is a turbo and non-ranked, swing is good for the game variety.

#614

I think you two are using different definitions of swing

This conversation will probably be more productive if you both clarify what you mean

1 Like
#615

No

Variety is good for variety

1 Like
#616

swing is a problem because nobody likes the actual balance of the game being hugely decided by the rand beyond a 5point swing either way. variety is good, but things changing hugely based on seemingly random things is… questionable

4 Likes
#617

swing and variety are seperate concepts here, by the way

2 Likes
#618

Any kind of swing makes the game more interesting. As more different the games are, as better it is.

#619

I think your “better” needs some clarification here

#620

Especially given increasing swing just leads to a coin toss

Which I doubt you’d argue is “better”