|
|
Post by Tulley Kennedy on Jul 29, 2011 11:09:39 GMT -8
If a week goes by, and you don't make any posts or votes, you are summarily executed, in addition to whatever other eliminations happen. I am sick of people who do nothing skating by to later portions of the game, while people who actually contribute become targets simply because they are the only ones saying anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Son Anheuser on Jul 29, 2011 11:12:37 GMT -8
I agree, the game is much more entertaining when we get some decent flame wars going. The sound of crickets is soothing, but not fun. Plus, if there are witches/aliens etc trying to blend into the wallpaper this eliminates that option and allows for more potential clues
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372 
|
Post by Amer on Jul 29, 2011 11:31:47 GMT -8
The game does seem to boil down to "Eliminate everyone who isn't talking. OK, now kill anyone who talks too much!! That didn't work out... back to the non-talkers. That guy's talking to much!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Tulley Kennedy on Jul 29, 2011 12:29:10 GMT -8
They are ruining strategies already. Witches can just sit there doing nothing and we can't do anything to ferret them out because of the people already sitting there doing nothing. Its already stupid, at least this would get the chaff out of the way early, so I dont wind up in a position like I did at the end of last game, where I had to choose between chris and someone who wasn't playing and I went with the non player cuz damned if im going to let someone n/a their way to a victory. And yes it cost me my victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Jul 29, 2011 12:33:22 GMT -8
Agreed. This is definitely top priority and needs correcting before next season. I'll poke the people that are snoozing and get them to be involved.
I'd love a long-term solution that deals with the following two problems:
1. Eliminating non-players means a high ratio of humans will be eliminated. In the past, some villains have stayed quiet, but most of the non-players have been human. So, in order to do Tulley's idea, I would need to set an initial ratio of humans-to-villains that can accurately handle the random number of mostly-humans who will drop out. It may be mathematically possible, but I get so scared.
Example: I make a group with 6 humans and 2 villians. Then I cut a random number of humans, I don't know if I'm going to end up with too many humans (6) or too few (3).
2. It is quite difficult to predict who will play from season to season. Sometimes people who were the most involved one season drop off the face of the Earth the next (Meagan). While most people follow the law that "if you play alot one year, you'll play alot every year." But it only takes one or two violations of that law to make things weird. Brad was a fierce competitor last time he played, and this time he has like 2 posts.
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Jul 29, 2011 13:20:02 GMT -8
Perhaps you can make the game more like Survivor; more individual based than team based, so there is always just one person who wins in the end. You could still use teams, both overt and covert, but in the end, it's every man for himself.
Instead of people getting permanently killed each week, you put them in a competion with other 'dead' people to get back into contention. Like each week, three people are kicked out, but one person returns. That way, people who want to play can still compete after they've been 'eliminated', while non-players stay eliminated.
You could replace the vampire/werewolf with a 'powerup'. Each week, whoever wins the powerup challenge will be able to kill someone off, but no one will know who won the challenge, so it's like a new person is vampire each week.
Also, everyone throws in $10 and winner takes all! That'll get them to pay attention!
|
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Jul 29, 2011 13:55:32 GMT -8
Perhaps you can make the game more like Survivor; more individual based than team based, so there is always just one person who wins in the end. You could still use teams, both overt and covert, but in the end, it's every man for himself. Instead of people getting permanently killed each week, you put them in a competion with other 'dead' people to get back into contention. Like each week, three people are kicked out, but one person returns. That way, people who want to play can still compete after they've been 'eliminated', while non-players stay eliminated. You could replace the vampire/werewolf with a 'powerup'. Each week, whoever wins the powerup challenge will be able to kill someone off, but no one will know who won the challenge, so it's like a new person is vampire each week. Also, everyone throws in $10 and winner takes all! That'll get them to pay attention! We're solely trying to solve the non-participation problem. The first Survivor I ran cost $5 and the winner took all. Nobody cared. The big hook to Mildville is trying to figure out everyone's identity, that mechanic needs to stick around, in some form. |
|
Super Sarah
Super Person
Dancer
Mildtropolis: safe from Coronavirus but the crowd will kill you!
Posts: 381
|
Post by Super Sarah on Aug 1, 2011 11:32:20 GMT -8
I think if a person doesn't vote for 2 weeks in a row they should be either:
a) automatically out
b) unable to vote for the rest of the game, or
c) replaced by a dead person or since the dead person's identity is known... a dead person can take their vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Aug 1, 2011 16:59:43 GMT -8
Tulley and I discussed it, and we were thinking maybe keep things exactly as they are, except don't give out people's groups until after the immunity challenge. Then we could cull the people who didn't play without risking a big skew in the ratio.
Thoughts?
|
|
Super Sarah
Super Person
Dancer
Mildtropolis: safe from Coronavirus but the crowd will kill you!
Posts: 381
|
Post by Super Sarah on Aug 1, 2011 17:37:52 GMT -8
So the first immunity challenge would be a qualification of sorts, whoever doesn't participate can't join the game? I think that would work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Aug 10, 2011 17:42:42 GMT -8
I'm also thinking of buying a murder mystery game and assigning everyone a character. Or writing one, myself, but probably not.
My mom (Judy) says she remembers murder mysteries where, once you died, you got to go to a separate area where there was, like a sub-game with interesting new clues to keep you going, but it wasn't as good as being alive. I think that's pretty cool. I am completely attached to the idea of people dying and never coming back, but the dead deserve a sub-game, because so many great participants die early.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paula - old account on Aug 10, 2011 22:17:50 GMT -8
so many great participants die early. Well, tickle them ivories Evan....you sound like Billy Joel... "So come on Vampire show me a sign
Send up a signal and I'll throw you the line.....
...I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
the sinners are much more fun...
you know that only the good die young!" |
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Aug 11, 2011 5:57:20 GMT -8
I'm also thinking of buying a murder mystery game and assigning everyone a character. Or writing one, myself, but probably not. My mom (Judy) says she remembers murder mysteries where, once you died, you got to go to a separate area where there was, like a sub-game with interesting new clues to keep you going, but it wasn't as good as being alive. I think that's pretty cool. I am completely attached to the idea of people dying and never coming back, but the dead deserve a sub-game, because so many great participants die early. How would this take care of the non-participation problem? If everyone has a character and that character has specific evidence about the murder, aren't we all screwed if a non-player gets the key evidence for solving the crime? (Last time I played one of those games I was 11 so maybe I'm not understanding how such games are played). |
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Aug 11, 2011 6:21:34 GMT -8
I'm also thinking of buying a murder mystery game and assigning everyone a character. Or writing one, myself, but probably not. My mom (Judy) says she remembers murder mysteries where, once you died, you got to go to a separate area where there was, like a sub-game with interesting new clues to keep you going, but it wasn't as good as being alive. I think that's pretty cool. I am completely attached to the idea of people dying and never coming back, but the dead deserve a sub-game, because so many great participants die early. How would this take care of the non-participation problem? If everyone has a character and that character has specific evidence about the murder, aren't we all screwed if a non-player gets the key evidence for solving the crime? (Last time I played one of those games I was 11 so maybe I'm not understanding how such games are played). It wouldn't. It wouldn't at all. I guess I went on a tangent, there. |
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Aug 11, 2011 7:18:18 GMT -8
It wouldn't. It wouldn't at all. I guess I went on a tangent, there. Sounds like fun though.  |
|
alex
Super Person
Posts: 6
|
Post by alex on Aug 11, 2011 7:29:38 GMT -8
I like this murder mystery idea thing and the money incentive idea is interesting, too. I would also say that in past games I was more active. Due to other circumstances I haven't been nearly as invested.
|
|
Super Sarah
Super Person
Dancer
Mildtropolis: safe from Coronavirus but the crowd will kill you!
Posts: 381
|
Post by Super Sarah on Aug 11, 2011 10:16:43 GMT -8
I really like the idea of a sub-game ;D
|
|
Amer
Super Person
My super power is tremendous wealth.
Posts: 372
|
Post by Amer on Aug 11, 2011 10:24:45 GMT -8
I say, when someone dies in the game, they die in real life. That'll get them to participate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Son Anheuser on Aug 11, 2011 11:43:06 GMT -8
I say, when someone dies in the game, they die in real life. That'll get them to participate. Would be hard to keep having games, plus I don't know if Evan could bring himself to kill Annie. |
|
Annie McClarabow
Super Person
Owner of "All-Night Library"
Pay your library tab, errr I mean fines
Posts: 531
|
Post by Annie McClarabow on Aug 11, 2011 11:59:21 GMT -8
I say, when someone dies in the game, they die in real life. That'll get them to participate. Would be hard to keep having games, plus I don't know if Evan could bring himself to kill Annie. I think by suggesting it, Amer was volunteering to don the executioner's mask and pick up the axe. |
|
