Official Site | Discord | Steam | Twitter | Reddit | Twitch | FB | YouTube | Wikia

We probably should address the scorned outing d1 play


#21

Literally a free golden ticket to a win

And everybody pretty much agreed to go for it too


#22

I won’t ever get the logic of having a neutral king compared to a BD king


#23

Because often the BD are literally less trustworthy than the NK taking a risk to out himself

Conversions and idiots do exist lol


#24

You can basically get rid of the NK without even wasting an execution/Prince’s night here.


#25

Plus they had huge incentives to townside


#26

except then we have another problem, he’s a neutral king who has no reason to help us


#27

That’s until evils reach majority


#28

I mean you say that but everybody knows you’re Neutral and still elected you

Screwing BD now is screwing yourself in the future

Few took that gamble


#29

This is true, but only an unrecoverable majority in almost all cases.

If they could kingmake, it was almost always for BD.

Again, otherwise you’d be setting a dark tone for future games and harm your own future wins.

It just kinda worked tbh


#30

Either way I’m glad that was patched out :blush:


#31

Basically this is more of a point of how bad neutral king is


#32

Nah NKing is fine

PKing was needed though

Just like I’d argue Neutral Evil King may be


#33

Neutral evil king would be nice tbh


#34

Suggestion: Starting king odds should be changed to 65% Good, 20% Evil, 15% Neut king with SS wincon and count towards neutral slot discuss.


#35

Hmpf. I was stepping up as NK to become Neutral King before it was fashionable.


#36

I’m glad at least someone still has simple logic and agrees that scorned claims have no reason to be spared.

  1. All her 3 abilities (trollbox, frame, disguise) are harmful for BD and can create a huge chaos.
  2. Back in the time where scorned had to have only one BD executed, she was executed instantly after claiming. Now she has to see FOUR people executed, and people keep her alive. Logic?
  3. Yesterday I had a game where MM claimed scorned and unseen have easily won not losing a single member.
  4. In the late game, scorned usually sides against BD in 90% of games.
  5. Some people say that being “neuts out” is a bad thing and we should keep scorned because she wants to win too, but this doesn’t make any sense. Scorned now has a huge potential to win the game without claiming scorned d2 - you can disguise someone into assassin/neutral and become a confirmed sheriff/NK, you can trollbox, you can frame - you have MORE THAN ENOUGH power to win the game by doing something. Instead, people are lazy and they choose to relax and do nothing.
  6. People say executing scorned d2 is a “waste” - they say you should execute assassin or cult leader instead, but this doesn’t make any sense either. If BD don’t have any leads, it’s not a waste to execute scorned because otherwise they wouldn’t execute anyone.

I’ve seen so many games already where people let scorned live and then later her abilities and attitude go against BD and it loses BD a game. I even saw games where people executed a good king because he tried to vote up scorned, and after that accused him of throwing. Same mistakes again and again don’t teach people anything. What makes scorned so useful that she is always let alone whereas inquisitor and pretenders get executed instantly?

Whereas there are 6 reasons why scorned should always be executed, the only reasons she should not is that we have to BELIEVE that she is not gonna do anything, and then we have to BELIEVE that she will side with BD, but in reality 90% of times scorned sides with NK or unseen/cult. People’s excuse: “if neuts sides against BD and won, then BD played bad and deserved the loss. There is no reason to exe them.”

Mark my words, one day you’ll be able to claim “honest sellsword, no stonewalls I swear” and people will be okay with that. Probably one day you’ll be even able to claim “honest NK” or “honest assassin” and you’ll also be fine.


#37

Actually this statement is 100% correct. If BD is ending up in scenario when Neutral HAS to vote with BD in order to win as BD then it’s means they played badly. Simple as that.

There is always a reason to execute people who claims Evil. The problem with Scorned is about being “True Neutral” rather than “Anti-BD”.


#38

This statement is not 100% correct. It’s way harder to win when scorned simply sides against you and basically there is no difference between her and an assassin next to her. This particular vote can decide a lot, so the real mistake of BD in that game was, basically, leaving scorned alive. If BD lose, it doesn’t necessary mean that they played bad - they could just have a bad luck. Many things cad reduce their chances to win dramatically - prince dies n1-n2, the only sheriff converted n1, the only BD healer dies n1, oroginal evil king, etc. It’s the same as sheriff finding mastermind d4 reduces unseen chance to win to almost 0%. It’s not because they played bad. It’s just a bad luck. You can play very good and execute an evil member every 1-2 days and end up losing because of those mentioned above things, simply because they kill faster than you execute and one day they get numbers, and you can do nothing about it. You let scorned live d2, then she sides against you and when you realise her vote is always against you, it’s already too late. Just execute her d2 and BD will have one problem less.

What exactly makes scorned “true neutral”?
Trollbox - can lead to false execution or even prince executing a BD. BD have to copy every suspicious message to check if people really said it. 0 harm to evils.
Frame - leads to BD being executed and/or the investigator being executed as well. Almost no counterplay, except a random CW empower. 0 harm to evils.
Disguise - provides false information about what has actually happened, can create a huge chaos. 0 harm to evils.
In the late game scorned sides against BD in literally 90% of games, which is not even close to 50% which “true neutral” should be aiming. So what exactly makes her true neutral? Because I definitely missed it.

And beside that, there is no explanation why scorned is considered to be “true neutral” and inquisitor and pretender are not.
Inquisitor needs to have 3 people dead, and there can be evil/neutral amongst them. Always executed on sight.
Pretender needs to step up for king, for which he has to kill the original king, which is 35% evil. True neutral, I’d say. Nope, always executed on sight as well.
Logic?


#39

It isn’t that Scorned is true neutral. It’s that scorned is PERCEIVED as true neutral


#40

The fact she can out herself Day 1 like the Alchemist and don’t need necessary misslynch any BD members in order to win. Of course she isn’t technically True Neutral but people pretend she is which leads to D1 outing.

Blue Dragon has their own resourses to deal with Evils and they DON’T nessesary require help from Neutrals.
I don’t care if you’re agree with it or not. This is objectively correct and NOTHING will change it.