Fun game, but...

[Cullich]

I just played a 7 player game and was the Deputy. It was the best game I ever played in because it was extremely confusing who was who. So much so that the sheriff was literally just discarding cards on his turn most of the game, because he had no idea who was who. I didn't know either until it got down to the last 3 of us, and then it was me, the Sheriff, and the Renegade. I thought we'd kill the Renegade easily and be done with it then I realized that the Sheriff still didn't know which was which, and in fact there is no way he could know, because the Renegade and the Deputy would both try to kill each other and not shoot up the Sheriff, which is what we did, while the Sheriff just passed his turns. ("The Sheriff is passed out in the saloon" I wrote in chat).

I will add that I agree with you that this is a more interesting situation. My one and only game on here ended with me as Outlaw, the Renegade and the Sheriff. The Sheriff was convinced I was the Renegade simply cause I wasn't shooting at/dumping on the Renegade every turn. I guess he assumed I was better of just killing him off, but I didn't care to have a showdown with the Renegade at the end and wanted to kind of keep it even, also making it easier for one of them to kill the other. I wasn't the Deputy so wasn't concerned about that, and I just thought it was hilarious that he thought I was the Renegade, so I said nothing more than "Maybe I have my reasons" and left it at that. Not the same as your situation cause the Deputy was lying bleeding in the streets, but there's definitely some fun in keeping things hidden.

But... It's meant to be a bluffing game so you have to accept that as well. And if someone kept shooting at me, I might insist that I'm the Deputy. I mean, why not? (I also once killed my own Deputy. I think he was honestly ticked at me over that, but it was my best assessment of the situation. He was exactly behaving like my Deputy.))

[Cullich]

I have the feeling that when I try to debate and talk strategy and game mechanism stuff, and give constructive criticism, most of the players are annoyed (by anything that is not "you played well", "everyone makes mistakes") and give the classical "chill, mad, just a game".

I mean... whenever someone literally plays bad and ruins a game, and gets the strategic well-deserved non-directly-insulting criticism for it, the perfect excuses are "chill, just a game", "be gentle", etc.

Why is that acceptable, from the point of view of the one trying to win... a game?

I thought Arena would be different, but this game really needs something... better (regarding a lot of the players).
I am sorry for them, but this is the truth.

I am sorry if anyone feels offended, there are many other games out there.

I don't feel personally offended since I have not been on the receiving end of this, but I am offended by the attitude. And this attitude can exist in any game.

You don't get to decide the best strategies for everyone else to use in a game. You cannot assume that "arena players" or other good players use the same strategies as you. There are usually more than one strategy for a given game and they can all be legit. Why do you get to be the one to decide what is "well-deserved" constructive criticism?

I've also noticed that people who make this type of complaint seem to assume that others understand these strategies, why they exist, how they work. Maybe they don't understand them, maybe they don't care, maybe they don't care if they win. It reminds me of people who accuse someone of kingmaking and then point out obvious "mistakes" they made in a game and that it must have been intentional. Who says? Some people suck at a game, some don't care. Some misclicked.

Given this is a social game, it's not a surprise that a lot of people want to just have some fun and don't feel like analyzing strategies, in which case, yes, you would end up annoying them.