A modification to Survivor.

[McKinley]

Right, as it stands now people just instantly lynch Survivor without much cause when they get revealed from invest, they have to claim it when they survive an attack, or they just straight out claim it to save town nights of checking. But right now, it seems every time town has no leads they just want to lynch off Survivor so they won't get "backstabber" later on by a Survivor covering his/her hide. So, to make it a bit more pressing when lynching off a Survivor for "safety", I honestly think adding a feature just like the Jester -- when guilty voters die the following night -- gets added as a selectable option for Survivor. Why should this be added? Simple:

This fixes the "Oh, he's a Survivor. Just lynch him, he's useless to us and us killing him does NOTHING to us! He'll just backstab when Mafia threaten him, anyways!" and develops a more secure standing for Survivor. This also would put in a little fallback for Witch or Executioner if an invest checks them out and reveals it to town the following day, removing the hot-headed impulsive nature everyone has toward Survivor and makes everyone pause and think before going through with a lynching, and also lets Witch in most part have a more useable fallback plan, since if they claim they're Survivor, as it is now. . . Well, refer back to the quote at the start of this paragraph.

And if this does get implemented. . . Make it where Mayor's additional votes gives him additional chances of killing himself at night. Why? Dumb Mayors should be rewarded for hasty reveals and impulsive decisions.

[WaWMoose]

The thing that is different between Jester's situation ans the Survivor's situation, is that when a Jester is lynched, you're helping him get a win, and you have a chance of dying because of that, while with a survivor, you're making him fail his goal, and i dont you should be punished for that. The other thing is, if he has vests at night (i know its limited but still), and a good excuse for not being lynched in the day (fear of death by other players), his goal would seem a bit too easy to achieve.

I think Survivor is fine as it is right now, but if you think it needs somewhat of a buff, it should not be in this way, maybe in some other way, but surely not in the way that you're suggesting right now.

[McKinley]

No, the issue right now is that every time I see a Survivor is claimed town just lynches them off instantly because they see survivor as a Mafia role. There's no reason for town to not lynch off a survivor early when they'd technically let a voting session go unused, just because they feel survivors turn on them late in the game. The kill a guilty voter would make people question early if they're sure this person is or isn't a survivor. There's no real other way to create it where town doesn't suffer for killing off a powerless role who's goal is to survive.

**EDIT: Well, instead of killing actually, due to the death of the Survivor the town feels too guilty to go through with voting the following day. This removes the OP'd aspect of the jester-death addition, but still makes town hesistant in lynching off a Survivor, since a day without being able to vote someone for lynching can really wreck havoc.

[Jailbar]

The solution is to not claim Survivor until later in the game. If people try to lynch you, try and cast doubt on him by calling Executioner or something, rather than claiming Survivor. It's a fairly powerful late-game role that people want to be friends with, I think being equal to other roles in the early game is fine. He's equal (or stronger) because most classes die if a Godfather targets him, but he doesn't, only if an Investigator does instead, and there are no known mafia roles.

[FalseTruth]

This is a purely psychological problem that people believe is true, when it is not actually true. Survivors, if fulfilling their win condition properly, will side with the majority. For most of the game, the majority is town. Later on, it may lead to a mafia majority.

Note how the survivor is more often lynched in pub games. The fact is that bad guys are likely to claim surv in most games, and therefore survivors are usually lynched. Pubs catch on to this basic idea without pausing to analyze the the benefits of saving a lynch and keeping a survivor alive(jailor gets jail, one extra vote, etc..).

Once people begin to realize that survivors shouldn't be killed even if backstabbing is possible, survivors will get lynched less often.

There is no point in fixing a psychological problem with a programming solution. If people aren't playing the game as it is meant to be played, blame the PEOPLE, not the game.

I personally feel survivor is too easy in channel games. One game I just claimed survivor, someone checked me, and since no one was every witched, I was never doubted or killed. I was AFK for most of the game.

[Krismighty]

ya know. Not all games happen this way. The players have to be smart and the survivor has to be smart. I havnt seen a survivor lynched very often if there is one. I usually win as a survivor

[Zack]

Being quiet or AFK, not voting ,etc. It may seem like the way to play Survivor, but its not. Its also quite boring to do that.

As Survivor I side with the town at the beginning, then when I get the feeling i'm talking too much and might be killed I use a vest, then say "vest > you" or something like that, heh.

If the town fails and mafia gains the majority with me then I just openly declare that i'm not helping town anymore.

Mafia isn't a game of going AFK or shutting up all game... Obviously you'd be lynched as "Survivor" if you do that, who would believe you?

[Nick]

I normally reveal the first day. Will either get lynched by jealous fail town (because they won't be surviving) or killed by stupid SK (jealous because my random neutral might win). Mafia normally leave me alone. Bus drivers may use me as fodder when protecting important town.

If I don't reveal, I might get killed by mafia. Or be accused as witch. By then, even if nobody has been witched and you claim survivor, you'll still be lynched.