Lover Bug?

[OzyWho]

When Constable shoots the person loved by Lover, the Lover dies only the following night. That's definitely not intuitive so I assume it's not intended as such. Bug?

Also, what if game ends before Lover dies but his love target is dead? Does Lover get a win still?

Also, I know that Frinckles says Veteran dying N1 to the Lover that he kills is working as intended. But again - it's very unintuitive and anti-immersive.


To me at least, game feels messy once there is more and more counter intuitive game mechanics.

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Working as intended.
The lover would not win, their target is dead.
Working as intended.

It's not messy. The interactions are very clear.

[MrMostache]

Also, what if game ends before Lover dies but his love target is dead? Does Lover get a win still?


Lover loses still. I had this situation before. It 3v1v1, with three triads and 1 town and 1 lover. Lover loved town, and town was lynched. Game ended before lover died, and Lover didn't win.

[OzyWho]

It's not messy. The interactions are very clear.
I think it's safe to say that if the interactions weren't counterintuitive for me then I wouldn't have made a thread about it.
They are clear for you though, and that's cool, but I wish we could get some more feedback over here from other players. I don't mind being the only one who finds something to be counterintuitive, but in the case that I'm not - I do believe in the importance of having a game be intuitive and immersive and that it'd be better to change.

[MartinGG99]

I don't read every thread here but I decided to randomly this one and


anti-immersive

lol wat

if there's anything to complain about in terms of immersion-breaking

I bet 99 times out of 100 it could be more easily attributed to other players expressing their...individual autonomy

rather than game mechanics in a game about social deception that completes a whole run in ~30 minutes or less on the usual

[MartinGG99]

anyways, since I'm here I guess I should directly contribute to the discussion at hand:

I do feel like arguments on what's "intuitive" is kinda just...pointless?

I mean there's good points in making things clearer. However, beliefs about what would be "intuitive" for every imaginable role interaction may and/or will differ from person to person. I think a few examples of this have happened in forum mafia as well, but I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head at the moment.

[OzyWho]

anyways, since I'm here I guess I should directly contribute to the discussion at hand:

I do feel like arguments on what's "intuitive" is kinda just...pointless?

I mean there's good points in making things clearer. However, beliefs about what would be "intuitive" for every imaginable role interaction may and/or will differ from person to person. I think a few examples of this have happened in forum mafia as well, but I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head at the moment.
I'm not confident if this is entirely true, but in my head cannon - when a bus driver or escort or witch visit an alerting Veteran, they just die and the vet gets no additional message nor affect. I'd say it's not subjective to say that Lover being an exception to the rule is counterintuitive.

If I recall correctly, Lover's role card says that it dies when their love dies. I'd say it's not subjective to say Lover not dying, when their love dies, is counterintuitive.

Wrt immersion, perhaps you prefer the term 'flavor' instead? I know that in CCG's they use that word instead of 'immersive'. You know, like a card saying "get it out get it out" and a picture of them in pain and a spider appearing once they die - that's flavorful.
Probably both those words don't fully encompass what I mean, such is the problems of language. But I gotta say - I'd really rather have appreciated if you tried to understand what I meant, even if the literal is nonsense in your mind, instead of jumping for the mockery. It's my fault not being able to express myself well, but honestly idk if it's even possible when the other party doesn't even try to understand me.

[NotPaopan]

I would also like to report a bug

When I was loved on night 1.
My eyes started twitching on day 2 and what I saw previously was [Neutral] Lover has turned into [Triad] Swinger

This kind of play is forcing me to publicly reveal the swinger, which town would lynch on D2 and it would turn back onto being a Lover. W
I think this is a bug that needs to be addressed. This is hurting my town play

Thank you!

[MartinGG99]

I'm not confident if this is entirely true, but in my head cannon - when a bus driver or escort or witch visit an alerting Veteran, they just die and the vet gets no additional message nor affect. I'd say it's not subjective to say that Lover being an exception to the rule is counterintuitive.

If I recall correctly, Lover's role card says that it dies when their love dies. I'd say it's not subjective to say Lover not dying, when their love dies, is counterintuitive.

Wrt immersion, perhaps you prefer the term 'flavor' instead? I know that in CCG's they use that word instead of 'immersive'. You know, like a card saying "get it out get it out" and a picture of them in pain and a spider appearing once they die - that's flavorful.
Probably both those words don't fully encompass what I mean, such is the problems of language. But I gotta say - I'd really rather have appreciated if you tried to understand what I meant, even if the literal is nonsense in your mind, instead of jumping for the mockery. It's my fault not being able to express myself well, but honestly idk if it's even possible when the other party doesn't even try to understand me.

Sorry if you took personal offense.

I just thought it looked funny. Perhaps I should've made it clear that when I quoted a single word out of a whole post that I was making fun of a certain meaning/thought that wasn't represented or implied by the rest of the post for which it was quoted from.

Re: the subjectivity thing

I do think it's subjective to large degree. People who have prior experience of one thing meaning X or interacting like X will expect that on another site/game it will probably mean the same or interact the same way. Since no two power roles are the same (without having the same title/powers/interactions/ect) I would think its preety difficult to make things objectively unintuitive unless the reasoning for some interactions conflicted with others.

I'm not fully familiar with 2.0 stuff, but from what I understand here if a Vet kills a lover that tries to loverize them, they get a message about it that doesn't happen anywhere else and will die from the love affect. The only issue I can imagine with this really is just the comparison how veteran can kill bodyguards (of the visitors) without risk, while the same cant be said for this vet/lover interaction.

Witch doesn't kill, unless its a self-target on some roles but that just forces an alert on Vet.
Escort doesn't kill.
Bus driver doesn't kill.
Bodyguard supposedly kills the attackers of whomever they're guarding (even if configured to ignore immunity), except when the attackers are veterans for some reason.
Mafia/Triad/vigilante attacks do kill but they're obviously what the Veteran guards against.

Lovers do kill whoever they loverize upon their own death. It's a special means of killing in-of-itself distinguished by any other typical means of death or killing. Its a closer relative of the Jester than it is of the mafia or any other night-killing roles.

Now if, in my ignorance, Veteran does die upon Lover visit but does not kill the lover then I would find that rather quite odd & kinda unintuitive but not entirely inexplicable flavor-wise.

[OzyWho]

Sorry if you took personal offense.
*Activision Blizzard flashbacks*

Not every day you see one of these outside of public statements by large companies. :laugh: