|
Post by Tulley Kennedy on Nov 5, 2013 20:53:58 GMT -8
Your brainstorming is decidedly pro-diplomat. Also, your plan doesn't encourage anyone to defeat Tulley in the challenge. Diplomats would just orchestrate the top 3 winners. The problem with this idea isn't so much that "its decidedly pro-diplomat" its that "poly an inactive" is difficult when put into human's hands. Better to have a "computer" evaluate. If you dont vote in X votes you suicide. Simple, fair. If you try to have actives patrol it things get complicated.
|
|
|
Post by Paula Romanetti on Nov 5, 2013 21:27:55 GMT -8
I know I am decidedly old skool, but I relish the first couple of games we played that were "Survivor" style. Teams worked on the challenges together...losing team had to vote one of their own members off (this got rid of non-participants real quick) ....team strategies as well as personal strategies were constantly in play. Like the TV game, teams "merged" at some point and it was every player for themselves.....previous transgressions were duly punished! Good times all around! Just thinking on all the previous games makes me appreciate all the effort that Evan has put in over the past years....thanks again big daddy !
|
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Nov 6, 2013 14:27:35 GMT -8
Daddy indeed. Attachments:
|
|
Super Sarah
Super Person
Dancer
Mildtropolis: safe from Coronavirus but the crowd will kill you!
Posts: 381
|
Post by Super Sarah on Nov 6, 2013 14:35:27 GMT -8
AAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!
|
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Nov 6, 2013 14:57:50 GMT -8
You think that one was cute... Attachments:
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Nov 6, 2013 15:27:42 GMT -8
Have you figured out which one is the evil twin, yet?
|
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Nov 6, 2013 15:58:37 GMT -8
Have you figured out which one is the evil twin, yet? ... Isn't it obvious?
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Nov 22, 2013 10:54:22 GMT -8
What about this, I smashed Mildville, Survivor, and the Mole together. Does this hold water: Each week the citizens must earn the right to polygraph by completing a group challenge with lots of people participating. This would give them impetus to kick out the non-playing members first, no?
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Nov 22, 2013 12:44:02 GMT -8
I think it's more likely that people stuck in a group of non-players will feel disadvantaged and be less likely to play hard.
What about this:
The weekly challenge will grant immunity to half of the current population. This means that only non-players and people who do poorly on the challenge will be killed off each week. Everyone will vote to eliminate one of them, and the spies will eliminate another. Dead people can also participate in challenges, which could force more people into the non-immune group.
It's a win-win-win: Eliminate non-players, protect strong players, promote challenges.
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Nov 22, 2013 12:47:44 GMT -8
I think it's more likely that people stuck in a group of non-players will feel disadvantaged and be less likely to play hard. I don't understand. How do you get stuck in a group of non-players when everyone's on the same team?
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Nov 22, 2013 13:37:58 GMT -8
I think it's more likely that people stuck in a group of non-players will feel disadvantaged and be less likely to play hard. I don't understand. How do you get stuck in a group of non-players when everyone's on the same team? Oh. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying people were being placed in groups for the challenge and were thus motivated to eliminate non-players within their own group. I'm not understanding how your method creates any motivation to kill non-players.
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Nov 22, 2013 13:50:47 GMT -8
Because the citizens have to earn the right to polygraph by completing a challenge that involves the group. So the more active the player base is, the more likely they are to complete said challenge.
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Nov 22, 2013 16:28:32 GMT -8
Not being able to polygraph this week isn't much of a threat. I don't see how you've given the active players an incentive to vote for non-players, which is the problem we have this season. This also seems reliant on group challenges, which may be difficult to implement.
The system I proposed forces people to compete or be put on the chopping block. You can survive the chopping block, but you certainly don't want to be there. Meanwhile, the active players have to choose from the non-players, but it's not very restrictive — half of the town is in there. What did you not like about that system?
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Nov 24, 2013 6:51:40 GMT -8
So if I understand you correctly. All citizens are divided into two teams, the teams compete and loser has to vote one of their own off?
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Nov 24, 2013 14:28:24 GMT -8
No. You have diplomats and spies, like you do now, but the immunity challenge won't be won by just one person — half of the living players will win. They're not on teams. The people with the highest scores win. That means half of the living players are guaranteed to live one more week — the half that competes well in the challenge.
As normal, the town will vote to kill someone, and the spies will secretly kill someone, but they can't kill anyone with immunity. This means that only non-players and weak player will be eliminated each week (although, even good players can lose a challenge and become a target on any week).
Because the number of players who wins immunity each week is equal to half of the population, the number of people who can win is reduced each week, so it becomes progressively harder to win immunity, and both the spies and diplomats will be forced to compete well in order to remain safe.
Playwise, it's the same as it is now, except that there will be multiple immunity winners each week instead of just one. Functionally, it will force everyone to compete, while preventing good players from being eliminated early, and progressively increasing the likelihood of non-players being killed each week.
An example:
20 players: 16 diplomats and 4 spies.
In week 5, 8 people will be dead (two killed each week), and 12 people will be living. This week's challenge will be to list as many cities as you can, using only the letters of 4 Mildville player names. The people with the 6 highest scores win immunity. On Wednesday, the spies assassinate one of the 6 people who didn't win immunity. On Thursday, everyone votes to kill one of the remaining 5 people who didn't win immunity.
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Nov 25, 2013 7:03:35 GMT -8
No. You have diplomats and spies, like you do now, but the immunity challenge won't be won by just one person — half of the living players will win. They're not on teams. The people with the highest scores win. That means half of the living players are guaranteed to live one more week — the half that competes well in the challenge. As normal, the town will vote to kill someone, and the spies will secretly kill someone, but they can't kill anyone with immunity. This means that only non-players and weak player will be eliminated each week (although, even good players can lose a challenge and become a target on any week). Because the number of players who wins immunity each week is equal to half of the population, the number of people who can win is reduced each week, so it becomes progressively harder to win immunity, and both the spies and diplomats will be forced to compete well in order to remain safe. Playwise, it's the same as it is now, except that there will be multiple immunity winners each week instead of just one. Functionally, it will force everyone to compete, while preventing good players from being eliminated early, and progressively increasing the likelihood of non-players being killed each week.
An example: 20 players: 16 diplomats and 4 spies. In week 5, 8 people will be dead (two killed each week), and 12 people will be living. This week's challenge will be to list as many cities as you can, using only the letters of 4 Mildville player names. The people with the 6 highest scores win immunity. On Wednesday, the spies assassinate one of the 6 people who didn't win immunity. On Thursday, everyone votes to kill one of the remaining 5 people who didn't win immunity. I like it. Now, let's try to shoot holes in it.
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Nov 25, 2013 13:35:37 GMT -8
I like it. Now, let's try to shoot holes in it. Me, too. The first thought that came to me was that the spies could work together to win the challenges as a group. This means that none of them would ever be eligible for elimination. I don't think that this is practical, however. It's based on the assumption that the spies could consistently come up with the highest score. Also, if they all report the same score, it will give them away as a group, and everyone else will be able to team up and defeat them. In a perfect world, perhaps this could work, but I don't think it will really be an issue. Another thought is that all of the immunity challenges must be able to have multiple winners. Does this make constructing challenges harder? Are there traditional challenges that won't work anymore? I imagine that most, if not all, of them could be given some sort of tie breaker which would create a gradient-score. You could always use submission time as a final tiebreaker. I haven't consider the assassin in this system because … I don't like the assassin. If you want to add him, it might create some issues. I'd like dead people to be able to play in the challenges. If they win, they occupy one of the immunity spots. This means that more than half of the town could become eligible for elimination. It lets dead people continue to play, while adding a potential tactical advantage. I'm not sure if this gives an inherent advantage to the spies or not, though. I think that everyone's challenge submissions should be made public each week. I think that this, more than anything, will serve as "evidence" in determining someone's true identity. I can't really see any holes. The game is barely different than the current system, and we've had multiple immunity-winners a few times this season.
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Nov 26, 2013 3:59:55 GMT -8
But won't people just vote out the most active & suspicious non-immunity winner? "Hey Amer didn't win immunity this week, we'd better get him out now while we have the chance."
Also feels like I'd have to switch to giving out one immunity eventually, otherwise spies could conceivably hide in the top half every week?
I think it'd be better if I just said "if you don't vote for 2 elections, you get booted"
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Nov 26, 2013 13:18:31 GMT -8
My mom and i talked about Mildville for a few hours today, we came up with this twist on Amer's good idea: Three teams: Team A team B and team spy. Team A is half the players, Team B is half the plYers. Team spy is mixed in with Team A and Team B. The goal as usual is to eliminate everyone not on your team. Each week team a and b compete and the loser had to vote someone out, also there is a spy kill every week.
I think this provides a lot of emphasis on voting out non players.
What does everyone think?
|
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Nov 26, 2013 14:17:00 GMT -8
My mom and i talked about Mildville for a few hours today, we came up with this twist on Amer's good idea: Three teams: Team A team B and team spy. Team A is half the players, Team B is half the plYers. Team spy is mixed in with Team A and Team B. The goal as usual is to eliminate everyone not on your team. Each week team a and b compete and the loser had to vote someone out, also there is a spy kill every week. I think this provides a lot of emphasis on voting out non players. What does everyone think? Sounds a little like Mildville, Season 4 (New World). We had the Natives and the Pilgrims with witches dispersed across both. I think the difference was that each week the pilgrims and natives had to vote someon out. I like it .
|
|