Why does it have to be that either you are both bad or both civvies?Nevinera wrote:That was not the point I was trying to make. If he thought the game had originally been unbalanced, then sure - he might try to balance it back out by adding someone to the losing team. But he's not going to take a game that was essentially fair, but has one side starting to win, and then 'balance' it so that the team that has established its lead loses that lead.
Now, unless you think that *both* of the roles in question were evil, the_untamed having left couldn't unbalance things in favor of the civs - at worst it would make things even again, since IMC also left. It makes much more sense the other direction - IMC and untamed were both civs, and he is trying to balance the game back up by adding one of them back in. Which do you think is more likely - both civs, or both bads?
I believe that Epignosis would not launch a game that he and the mod did not believe to be balanced. I think that because we had so many players not participate, the game may have become unbalanced. You mentioned that he brought you in as a replacement simply because you wanted to play. I am thinking that IMC was civvie and untamed was baddie and that Epig had to weigh his options. (For the record, we had other inactive players other than the two roles I just mentioned. For example, Dom was pretty inactive and was civvie.) As Epignosis was deciding where to place you, he may have thought to himself, "I have a new player...do I give him a civilian or a mafia role?" As civvies are close to winning, he most likely thought it unfair to give you the civvie role. That would mean favoring civvies. So, he opted to give you the baddie role. Now we must lynch you.
