Investigator- Bring the back the old one

[Fuuton]

The 'new' investigator sucks.

At least have the option to re-use the older style investigator, or remove the current one.

I don't know of many people who enjoy this new investigator, it's extremely annoying to have to browse through the roles, or get "no crimes" for 5/6 of your checks.

The old structure allowed for better play and gave better hints.

I've had games where I have 2 invests and they just all "no crimes", which makes town utterly useless.

[cattack]

Could not agree more. Nowadays I just use the setting that they detect exact role. Which is overpowered really, though I balance it by making sure they are less likely to spawn. I really dislike how investigator was changed and how it forced me to let them detect exact role. Cause if I did not use that setting, they would just be not be usable. Might as well reduce the spawn chance to 0%.

[DarknessB]

Agreed on this as well. Most leads from the new Investigator are either "no crimes" or "trespassing" -- this tells you comparatively little vs. the old Investigator leads. The old leads often limited the target down to 2-3 possibilities which could then be examined in the context of what was happening in the game. This made an old Investigator with brains very helpful to the town; today, a new Investigator with brains often gets bogged down with too many "no crimes" and "trespassing" leads that reveal very little and do not allow him to contribute.

Going with the "detect exact role" option makes Investigator too strong, but otherwise, the role is underpowered. In my opinion, the old Investigator role was a happy medium that most players miss.

[Cryptonic]

Remove invest entirely lol
Old invest was impossible to balance and new invest sucks

[Lysergic]

Remove invest entirely lol
Old invest was impossible to balance and new invest sucks

+1

[Helz]

New invest buffs the framer in a nice way

[Slaol]

Remove invest entirely lol
Old invest was impossible to balance and new invest sucks

Its supposed to suck. Its still more confirmable than Sheriff if the user doesnt fuck ihimself over. Its just hard to use. I think more shit roles would be better for the game. Not every player should shatter the game. Lets be the XMen, not the Justice League

[Mentar]

I think the crimes just need to be reworked so it's more likely the invest finds something other than "no crimes" when they check someone. That's the main problem with invest, half the people you check (if your lucky) have no crimes.

Add some new crimes based on the "type" of role they are.
I.e: all roles with an invest ability get "invasion of privacy". Doesn't tell you straight up if they're a town invest or mafia invest role, but gives you some actual useful information.

You could also add 'kidnapping' to bus drivers. BD's always return no crimes atm, unless they've gotten a bus driver kill which is pretty rare. 'kidnapping' would mix them in with jailors/interrogators.

With more roles giving type-specific crimes, there will be fewer roles that just return 'tresspassing' or 'none' which will make those feedbacks more meaningful too.

[Slaol]

I think the crimes just need to be reworked so it's more likely the invest finds something other than "no crimes" when they check someone. That's the main problem with invest, half the people you check (if your lucky) have no crimes.

Add some new crimes based on the "type" of role they are.
I.e: all roles with an invest ability get "invasion of privacy". Doesn't tell you straight up if they're a town invest or mafia invest role, but gives you some actual useful information.

With more roles giving type-specific crimes, there will be fewer roles that just return 'tresspassing' or 'none' which will make those feedbacks more meaningful too.

We could hear that

[Lysergic]

Yeah, trespassing is basically no result the way things are now. It's like... "Well, he has trespassing, so he could be half of the roles in the damn game."

[Slaol]

Yeah, trespassing is basically no result the way things are now. It's like... "Well, he has trespassing, so he could be half of the roles in the damn game."

Ima see if i cant come up with something a bit cleaner

[Cryptonic]

New invest buffs the framer in a nice way

That has to be the worst way I've seen a role defended lol
"It helps the other team nicely, though" lolol

[Fuuton]

Yeah, trespassing is basically no result the way things are now. It's like... "Well, he has trespassing, so he could be half of the roles in the damn game."

+1.

The old investigator was fine IMO. NOt as good as sheriff but still handy.

[Cryptonic]

Old Investigator was 100x more powerful that Sheriff lol. Could find Evil Neutrals, Benign Neutrals, Detection Immunity, and people lying about their roles lol.
Too OP.

If more crimes were created to have a little bit more variety, I think it would be huge improvement.

[Slaol]

+1.

The old investigator was fine IMO. NOt as good as sheriff but still handy.

Old Investigator was the most powerful regular investigative role even without detecting exact role. Spy with PM reading was stronger, but not everyone considers that a regular investigative

[Lysergic]

Old Investigator was the most powerful regular investigative role even without detecting exact role. Spy with PM reading was stronger, but not everyone considers that a regular investigative

I miss OP PM reading Spy. Dx

[Cryptonic]

I miss OP PM reading Spy. Dx

Same here. Really opened the door for a lot of new plays. I actually remember when no one used to use the PM option; if someone had it turned on, people would always lynch you if you sent a PM lol.

[deathworlds]

Same here. Really opened the door for a lot of new plays. I actually remember when no one used to use the PM option; if someone had it turned on, people would always lynch you if you sent a PM lol.

The good ol' days.

[Slaol]

That has to be the worst way I've seen a role defended lol
"It helps the other team nicely, though" lolol

You are correct, but we should think of roles in their frame(r) of the game, and Framer; while one of my favorite roles, is fairly weak. So balancing something that is broken strong with something fairly weak in mind isnt a bd thing.

[Helz]

I still don't understand the hate for this role. It gets pairing of possible roles the same as it use to just now you have to look at the crime and match it to those roles. Or just write down the pairings / crimes and you pretty much have your old investigator but he detects past actions instead and is super countered by a framer.

Trespassing should be split up though

[Slaol]

Im working on a crime list that would be a little more exciting, and would have instances where investigator would effectively get an exact role

For example
- doctor crime: malpractice. Achieved when the doctor heals someone successfully, but they die anyway.
- bus driver: vehicular manslaughter. Achieved when a bus driver runs someone over.

Investigstor would then know for sure its a doctor or bus driver, etc.

I think crimes being progressive, from usless to helpful to concrete is best.

[Lysergic]

Im working on a crime list that would be a little more exciting, and would have instances where investigator would effectively get an exact role

For example
- doctor crime: malpractice. Achieved when the doctor heals someone successfully, but they die anyway.
- bus driver: vehicular manslaughter. Achieved when a bus driver runs someone over.

Investigstor would then know for sure its a doctor or bus driver, etc.

I think crimes being progressive, from usless to helpful to concrete is best.

I like this idea. Seems like Invest should have standard initial 'groupings' for roles (like in FM, where you get groups of 4-5 possible roles) but that can be made more accurate by looking for specific criteria. Like, checking a Doctor gets 'no crimes' initially, with pairings like Citizen / GF / Jester / Survivor / Sheriff. But later, that doctor says he healed Player X but they still died. Invest rechecks and recieves 'malpractice,' confirming the doc. Do this for each role and invest becomes very useful but only in the hands of a skilled enough player.

[Mentar]

I still don't understand the hate for this role. It gets pairing of possible roles the same as it use to just now you have to look at the crime and match it to those roles. Or just write down the pairings / crimes and you pretty much have your old investigator but he detects past actions instead and is super countered by a framer.

Trespassing should be split up though

I have no problem with the way the role works. I like the crime system. I just think more roles need to have crimes and there needs to be more variety in crimes. Too many roles either have no crimes, only have trespassing or have crimes but never actually show them because the event that triggers them is either hard to achieve (BD) or not performed (vigilante). The end result being that 3/4 people you check give no crimes/tresspass

I really don't think more crimes that only show up in very specific circumstances (doc healing but them dying anyway), is the answer. In 95% of games that's just going to be another no crimes result.

More roles need crimes that will commonly show up in regular gameplay. They don't need to be role-specific crimes that practically give away their exact role. Just things that narrow down the possible roles to half dozen or so or reveal what 'type' of role they are (like my suggestion for invest roles having "invasion of privacy")

[Slaol]

I have no problem with the way the role works. I like the crime system. I just think more roles need to have crimes and there needs to be more variety in crimes. Too many roles either have no crimes, only have trespassing or have crimes but never actually show them because the event that triggers them is either hard to achieve (BD) or not performed (vigilante). The end result being that 3/4 people you check give no crimes/tresspass

I really don't think more crimes that only show up in very specific circumstances (doc healing but them dying anyway), is the answer. In 95% of games that's just going to be another no crimes result.

More roles need crimes that will commonly show up in regular gameplay. They don't need to be role-specific crimes that practically give away their exact role. Just things that narrow down the possible roles to half dozen or so or reveal what 'type' of role they are (like my suggestion for invest roles having "invasion of privacy")

Can you read? Like everything instead of picking 1 word or sentence and assuming the rest of the post?

I said things would go from useless to helpful to concrete. There should be a progress, some crimes being finite but hard to get. Some nearly forced but somewhat useless. And lastly the main group that lines up roles into small groups through regular action.

[Fuuton]

I wouldn't even mind a restructure. I.e. you investigate a targets house and find a weapon. Instead of the old investigator where it was 3 possible roles, this could possibly be a vet, vigi, arsonist, sk, jailor, kidnapper.

More roles, more options.

Another example could be your target was found with strange devices, meaning they could be an informant, cultist, doctor, witch doctor or bus driver.

[Mentar]

Can you read? Like everything instead of picking 1 word or sentence and assuming the rest of the post?

Can you reply to posts without being snide and condescending?

You didn't explain what you meant by "I think crimes being progressive, from usless to helpful to concrete is best." in any way in your post so anything ANYONE read into it is assuming the rest of your post. you only part you actualy explained was about adding role-specific crimes like malpractice. so thats the only part i can actually respond to.

Now that you actualy said what you meant instead of leaving it to us to 'assume' the rest, it sounds like a big improvement on the current crimes stup.

[CoopaDoop]

The 'new' investigator sucks.

At least have the option to re-use the older style investigator, or remove the current one.

I don't know of many people who enjoy this new investigator, it's extremely annoying to have to browse through the roles, or get "no crimes" for 5/6 of your checks.

The old structure allowed for better play and gave better hints.

I've had games where I have 2 invests and they just all "no crimes", which makes town utterly useless.

I also enjoyed the older investigator. The mechanics required that the player understood the roles of the game much better and also how they interacted with each other. It was also more difficult for a bad guy to pretend to be something else, or at least had to be more intelligent. For example, if I were an Arsonist and the Invest found that I had cans of gasoline I could always claim I was a Bus Driver. But an in-experienced player would not know that....things like that made it more fun.

This same scenario would also make the Invest question themselves on whether or not they should go public with their new information. Like, if I found out someone had knives, should I publicly demand that person's role, possibly revealing a nice juicy doctor??

[Slaol]

Can you reply to posts without being snide and condescending?

You didn't explain what you meant by "I think crimes being progressive, from usless to helpful to concrete is best." in any way in your post so anything ANYONE read into it is assuming the rest of your post. you only part you actualy explained was about adding role-specific crimes like malpractice. so thats the only part i can actually respond to.

Now that you actualy said what you meant instead of leaving it to us to 'assume' the rest, it sounds like a big improvement on the current crimes stup.

I can, I choose not to. And if you quoted that before I edited it you would have had to sit there for over 30 minutes preparing that reply. Strong stuff.

I've just seen several threads where simple things are overlooked and it's annoying to explain things multiple times, especially to people who are mostly then going to disagree with the well explained final product. I even directly replied to you saying that your idea was going to be considered, yet then you can't seem to read the thread without being prodded. Nice 30 minute prep of a jab, but my snide comment isn't nearly as embarrassing man. Read a thread before you shoot down something that likes what you suggested and wanted to go further.

Also, regardless of if I explained it or not specifically, I said that it would have levels yet you only looked at an extreme. If something mentions levels, and all you can see is one then you're blind or wrong.

[Mentar]

edit - know what, forget it. not worth the effort. I had a pretty good idea from the last thread that you're someone that can't handle any kind of discussion that isn't simply agreeing with everything you say. Shoulda gone with my gut. You can reply with more condescending drivel if you like, won't be reading it.

Also, neither this nor the last took anywhere near 30 minutes. you think way too much of your importance .

[Slaol]

edit - know what, forget it. not worth the effort. I had a pretty good idea from the last thread that you're someone that can't handle any kind of discussion that isn't simply agreeing with everything you say. Shoulda gone with my gut. You can reply with more condescending drivel if you like, won't be reading it.

Also, neither this nor the last took anywhere near 30 minutes. you think way too much of your importance .

Option 1: You Quoted it without the edit, then submitted your post 30 minutes later. You then see the edited text and adjusted.
Option 2: You Quoted it with the edited text, but somehow managed to read 1 line then assume the rest once again.

And i'm not looking for people to just agree, Cryptonic and I disagree regularly. Fuuton said something I firmly disagree with, but he didn't come back looking like an idiot. I'm looking for people to not make fools of themselves by clearly not knowing what's going on but pretending they do. If you don't know, just acknowledge that you're out of your area and figure it out for next time. But the constant return of ignorance and then the defending not only the ignorance but the process by which it was attained is impressive. This isn't just you, btw. You just happen to be the one defending your own failure at the moment.

[Lysergic]

Having read both of your posts, I can't help but think that you're suggesting the same thing.

More roles need crimes that will commonly show up in regular gameplay. They don't need to be role-specific crimes that practically give away their exact role. Just things that narrow down the possible roles to half dozen or so or reveal what 'type' of role they are (like my suggestion for invest roles having "invasion of privacy")

Im working on a crime list that would be a little more exciting, and would have instances where investigator would effectively get an exact role

For example
- doctor crime: malpractice. Achieved when the doctor heals someone successfully, but they die anyway.
- bus driver: vehicular manslaughter. Achieved when a bus driver runs someone over.

Investigstor would then know for sure its a doctor or bus driver, etc.

I think crimes being progressive, from usless to helpful to concrete is best.

In other words, you WILL have clearly delineated crimes that separate the role list into groups, similar to how invest works now, but with manageable group sizes (instead of trespassing, which is practically every role, and then a few specific crimes for the rest).

What Slaol is suggesting on top of that is to add ways for the investigator to narrow it down even more under specific circumstances.

Basically, turn Investigator into something more akin to the Truthseer from the last FM - a role that can be used to find and counter specific lies (in addition to being a better investigative - but not as OP as exact roles or as broken as old invest).

I'unno; seems silly for you guys to be fighting when you both want the same change.

[CoopaDoop]

I wonder if we could just make the old attributes into a new role? Like...a PRIVATE Investigator?? Haha...or Private Eye? Sherlock Holmes stuff...

[Yukitaka Oni]

New invest buffs the framer in a nice way

I am not a town and i agree with this