|
Post by Watsuki Shichiro on Dec 1, 2011 22:20:04 GMT
Another communication issue is PMs... How often do dealers read them? And when they do, do they at least remember to respond to them? I've resorted to using the C&Cs in order to ask questions, but even then it takes a while for a response. And when I have a question for a specific dealer, I have to hope that he reads his inbox and remembers to respond.
|
|
|
Post by Aitou Kaichi on Dec 2, 2011 3:07:11 GMT
I had the reverse... I think I had better luck getting questions answered by PM than I did by vault...
|
|
|
Post by Barbaro on Dec 2, 2011 3:39:21 GMT
Well, don't you know I want the discussion to go on for a bit before giving input? There have been lots of great points made.
Good to know the Switcheroo can actually affect someone's game. Unfortunately it was you.
We intentionally wanted running to be a double-edged sword that you had to manipulate carefully. I believe most players managed to avoid getting killed by a Move and Kill, but there was still plenty of running.
And yes, having an ally as your pursuer is an advantage. But, your ally has to stay safe, which ultimately gives them more responsibility than simply staying inactive. Avoiding your killer is a huge part of this game, and the best way to do that is knowing information.
Ultimately, this is an information-swapping game. Get the intelligence you need to make informed decisions.
What do you think caused this? The indicator of how many rooms away your target is? How do you think the game would've ran if you didn't have that indicator?
It's nice to see differing opinions on the mansion size. We wanted it to be small in order to reduce lag time. If this were a 4x4 grid of rooms, the game would have been longer but also a lot less eventful. We wanted a game that picked up some pace, especially after coming off of Notoriety.
Closing the rooms was also a necessary addition. With less players comes more room in the mansion, and thus less chances of things happening. By closing the rooms slowly we caused the map to constantly change, and made some rooms less advantageous than they would when the game started. The map was created with care to allow differing strategies, as well as cause chokepoints in low-risk areas by having less doors and high-risk areas with more doors.
Which brings us to the doors thing. In hindsight, this should've been simply an informational thing, and in the next round you could Move and Kill now that you've switched rooms. However, the way that we described it was that as you go through the door, you feel a sharp pain (the killer slashed you as you walked past), but manage to keep walking until you get to the room, see blood dripping down your leg, and pass out. It's a delayed death!
There were surprisingly a lot less kills from above than expected.
Killing from above means you need to be positioned perfectly (especially in the case of the Gallery/Ballroom combo), and your target needs to be careless enough to enter a high-risk area where they could be killed helplessly by someone they would never be able to track. ...Which now that I think about it, yeah. With players avoiding those rooms, it's harder to kill that way. BUT, arguably, because it's that difficult, the killer should be rewarded with a stealthy getaway.
But, if anything, it created a nice obstacle for you all to work around. If you wanted to get to corner rooms (which were arguably the safest because there's less traffic) you'd have to go through either the West Wing, East Wing, or Ballroom, or through the Living Room or Foyer (high traffic areas).
Originally we were going to allow them for free. Until we realized it could be abused to a game-stopping degree. So we wanted the price to be jacked up to the 100M you're given at the beginning of the game. If you win the game, you likely made more than 100M anyway, plus your contract should be a master plot to take over the entire game and ensure you get your share back.
Ultimately, as Dealers, we have to take immense care with contracts because they can ruin the game's foundation entirely. I can't begin to tell you how many times we end up discussing "Wait! They can just do this in a contract and win the game in one turn." So when we set conditions to them, they're for a reason: to make the game challenging for everyone.
Then perhaps those players should win yen! The players who take home large amounts of yen deserve to purchase things that will buffer them. Those with less need to find a way around that to continue.
|
|
|
Post by Watsuki Shichiro on Dec 2, 2011 4:06:02 GMT
Well, that's, um, a lot of responses. I guess I see where you're coming from with the contracts, but I'd like to be able to use them at some point, assuming I'm not gone before then. And I do think that it was a good game, and I was more listing what went wrong and what hindered my game more than what was unbalanced... but some things did have the potential to unbalance the game, but it would take poor decisions by other players in order to do so. Overall, it was a pretty good game. And with the inventory control thing, it's still strange that it costs a marble to hand off a marble to someone. That would take interference on your parts because they're small and easy to slip off to another person. And of course they can be lost! ...though I hope that would never happen in this game... And again, PMs? My question still applies... Oh, and with the lying being easily found out, it was a mix of the indicator and the large number of people in the small rooms. Because there were alliances already formed, they would gain information from many people and could easily discover a lie if it wasn't constructed well enough. I was unsure about sharing information because I figured alliances were already decided, so I didn't want to lie outright. I also didn't want to give all my information away to people that I didn't know I could trust, so I simply withheld my information. This ended up being a huge mistake and cost me my life in the game, but I couldn't really have known that at the time. So the Switcheroo was really my main problem in the game, and I have no complaints other than that I was screwed over because I "seemed nice." Oh well, what's done is done...
|
|
|
Post by Aitou Kaichi on Dec 2, 2011 4:49:41 GMT
Well, don't you know I want the discussion to go on for a bit before giving input? There have been lots of great points made. I believe our vaults/PMs were also mentioned . Good to know the Switcheroo can actually affect someone's game. Unfortunately it was you. Yeah... I doubt anyone who saw the switcheroo thought it was a bad choice from the mystery round where it first appeared. We intentionally wanted running to be a double-edged sword that you had to manipulate carefully. I believe most players managed to avoid getting killed by a Move and Kill, but there was still plenty of running. Yeah. Only move+kills I saw were the ones from inactivity/sitting still. And yes, having an ally as your pursuer is an advantage. But, your ally has to stay safe, which ultimately gives them more responsibility than simply staying inactive. Avoiding your killer is a huge part of this game, and the best way to do that is knowing information. Yeah... Staying alive was insanely difficult... Killing was relatively easy. Ultimately, this is an information-swapping game. Get the intelligence you need to make informed decisions. Yeah. Get the intelligence I need to make informed decision... *glares at you* What do you think caused this? The indicator of how many rooms away your target is? How do you think the game would've ran if you didn't have that indicator? Hilariously! (Considers making a side game for this purpose) In any case, that wasn't the only reason that lying was minimal in terms of information swapping... People were already in alliances and most discussion was between friends. It's nice to see differing opinions on the mansion size. We wanted it to be small in order to reduce lag time. If this were a 4x4 grid of rooms, the game would have been longer but also a lot less eventful. We wanted a game that picked up some pace, especially after coming off of Notoriety. Closing the rooms was also a necessary addition. With less players comes more room in the mansion, and thus less chances of things happening. By closing the rooms slowly we caused the map to constantly change, and made some rooms less advantageous than they would when the game started. The map was created with care to allow differing strategies, as well as cause chokepoints in low-risk areas by having less doors and high-risk areas with more doors. Which brings us to the doors thing. In hindsight, this should've been simply an informational thing, and in the next round you could Move and Kill now that you've switched rooms. However, the way that we described it was that as you go through the door, you feel a sharp pain (the killer slashed you as you walked past), but manage to keep walking until you get to the room, see blood dripping down your leg, and pass out. It's a delayed death! I never really considered the size of the mansion. Maximum distance between 2 rooms was 5, I believe, but that was difficult to arrange. A 4x4 mansion would be similar. I figured you just got the map from a game. There were surprisingly a lot less kills from above than expected. Killing from above means you need to be positioned perfectly (especially in the case of the Gallery/Ballroom combo), and your target needs to be careless enough to enter a high-risk area where they could be killed helplessly by someone they would never be able to track. ...Which now that I think about it, yeah. With players avoiding those rooms, it's harder to kill that way. BUT, arguably, because it's that difficult, the killer should be rewarded with a stealthy getaway. But, if anything, it created a nice obstacle for you all to work around. If you wanted to get to corner rooms (which were arguably the safest because there's less traffic) you'd have to go through either the West Wing, East Wing, or Ballroom, or through the Living Room or Foyer (high traffic areas). I figured it was just easier to get to your target normally. If you thought they were in, say, the ballroom, you didn't know where they would move next, so it was better to be near the ballroom than the gallery. Originally we were going to allow them for free. Until we realized it could be abused to a game-stopping degree. So we wanted the price to be jacked up to the 100M you're given at the beginning of the game. If you win the game, you likely made more than 100M anyway, plus your contract should be a master plot to take over the entire game and ensure you get your share back. Ultimately, as Dealers, we have to take immense care with contracts because they can ruin the game's foundation entirely. I can't begin to tell you how many times we end up discussing "Wait! They can just do this in a contract and win the game in one turn." So when we set conditions to them, they're for a reason: to make the game challenging for everyone. We didn't see anything broken for contract use, but their use would be nice. And I hardly think you guys foresaw all contract uses... R1 would be evidence to the contrary . Then perhaps those players should win yen! The players who take home large amounts of yen deserve to purchase things that will buffer them. Those with less need to find a way around that to continue. Yeah, yen needs to be relevant. Unfortunately, contracts aren't the best way to do it, because then you need to make a contract with someone who has yen. Or transfer enough yen to them OH WAIT YOU CAN'T! As said, if contracts were easy to get into, it's easier for players to set up their victory from the beginning and make the game a go-through-the-motions waste of time. When the enjoyment of the game can be ruined like this, high costs need to be placed... and with high costs comes high penalties for those who decide to break them. If it were low cost, high penalty, everyone would get a contract and whoop-de-doo, the game loses all flavor. If you want peace of mind and security, you better be willing to fork over your winnings, and if you do it you know you have paid for an advantage that others can't afford. Splitting the cost is ruinous as well: If a 10-player game decided "let's go by the numbers and we can all win!", they'd split a 100M contract for 10M each, and the game is subverted. Why are we bothering to make games at this point? High penalties can be subverted on contract creation by saying "The penalty is X". The default is automatic game elimination. But at least we're offering them! Our offers don't have to be bargains, and I believe that while it's beneficial FOR YOU to get contracts at a steal, it's beneficial for the game AS A WHOLE to make contracts difficult. And the big picture is really what we need to keep in consideration. If ANY contract use would ruin the game, we don't offer them. But if a little bit of clever contract use from select players willing to take that risk would add layers, we will offer them. And that's what we did here. OK... I have a chocolate bar that I am selling for $10 million. Who wants it? What's the difference between that offer and me not offering any chocolate. Yes. But that player is hit with a 100M debt. Plus, the inactive is easier to get to. In theory. But when their killers keep getting killed by their killers, it does comes down to that top-of-the-chain killer to ensure that at least the inactive gets wiped out by their target before continuing the massacre. I believe there was a good example of this in one of the games, which was taken care of very well by the players involved. Actually, in the circumstance I provided, the inactive doesn't take a 100M fine. He continues to R4 with no change to his bank account. If a player realizes that his pursuer is inactive, and then starts moving a lot more aggressively, and luck just happens to fall in the pattern of the inactive's pursuer getting killed, the new pursuer wanders in the wrong direction for a round, getting killed, it is possible for the inactive's replacement pursuer to get further and further away. Of course, this is extremely unlikely. You know. Like rolling lots of 6's in liar dice. (Sagaro might remember that....) It could also be a chain of inactives followed by someone who clues on to this, in which case, the last inactive could manage to win. But that relies on there being multiple inactives and having them chain up, which is more likely than the above, but still not too likely. To be honest, Blood Money has massacred my organization of everything because the "New" tag kept popping up on everyone's boards, and considering how busy I've been I didn't have time to open them all. So if things got left behind, that's my reason. We'll be back on track with Revival Round 3. Ah. I apologize for asking questions that never came up. We were looking at possibilities. Your accounts are under the LGT. Think of us as your bankers. The yen doesn't actually belong to you yet. When we placed locks on your accounts, you aren't authorized to move anything without a certain condition (in this case, handing an LGT banker a golden marble). Plus, consider that technically, this is the only economy in the forum's world. It's not like you can go out and buy yourself a yacht or pay off your college loans or party the night away with your yen... so ultimately the entire economy is under our control anyway. What? *cancels yacht order* ... *cancels party* ... aww
|
|
|
Post by Barbaro on Dec 2, 2011 6:04:40 GMT
That I can get chocolate.
You're right. I wasn't thinking clearly on this one. Well, the inactive would be eliminated from the tournament anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Aitou Kaichi on Dec 2, 2011 6:17:34 GMT
You have $10 million? And you're not sharing it with me? Also, that would be the best inactive-sweep ever! "Congratulations to _ for winning R3 without doing anything. You win, but we also eliminate you from the tournament."
|
|
|
Post by Barbaro on Dec 2, 2011 6:18:39 GMT
A paltry sum for a man of my stature, sir.
|
|
|
Post by Aitou Kaichi on Dec 2, 2011 7:15:45 GMT
Good. You can give me some
|
|