Non-playing suicide Nov 26, 2013 14:56:06 GMT -8
Post by Amer on Nov 26, 2013 14:56:06 GMT -8
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"
Well, yes. That's what we want. People should vote for suspicious people, and suspicious people will fight to win the challenge each week. That's a hell of a lot better than just killing people who talk a lot. Also, the spies have to kill someone in the non-immune pool, and they will want to kill the least suspicious people, because that's in their best interest.
You don't have to reduce the number of immunities given out. The number of immunities automatically decreases each week. You're also assuming the spies can win the challenge each week. Still, you could just eliminate the immunity altogether when you get down to maybe 6 players.
If you just auto-kill people who don't participate, you still have the problem where strong, consistent players get killed early because everyone sees active players as suspicious.
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?
You still have people who will be targeted because they're active, because people will want to take out the spies, not to mention the spies taking out the stronger players.