|
Post by Iain7 on Apr 17, 2012 14:02:05 GMT
Mmmm this is interesting!
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Apr 17, 2012 16:34:48 GMT
How so? Oh, and, for the uninitiated, I'm going to pick left this round. The game board is too large. Instead of 5x5, it really should be 3x3. The extra squares give too much room for error with only 7 players, and things like betrayal can have more impact on a smaller board. Or, if you wanted to keep the board size, perhaps propose a new rule: -If there are more votes in one direction than its opposite and they don't hit a wall, each of the former gets a gold token per player from those going the other direction per square won Example: 3ups and 2downs means the 3ups get +2 tokens each, the 2downs get -3 tokens each/4ups 2downs means the 4ups get +4 tokens each, 2downs get -8 tokens each. Pay each winner equally and any remainder just goes to the LGT. Not a perfect rule, but I think it would make the game a bit more interesting. Maybe propose an absolute turn limit and the two with the most gold tokens win. If we keep things the way they are now, I'd like to propose shortening the turns to 24h. Things are going to drag on if it keeps going like this, because it takes all of one moment for me to decide where I'm going. I really do not want to wait 48h. You know what? I'll go left too. Kukukukuku. I have to see where this goes... We just need everyone else to say where they are going next.
|
|
|
Post by Iain7 on Apr 17, 2012 17:08:05 GMT
It's going to get more interesting if/when the silver plaything reaches a corner! xD since I'm at a disadvantage anyway and there's no penalty I'm going to vote up. If one other person could vote down that'd be great, as then I wouldn't lose another coin, but it would bump against the edge (resetting the 3 turn limit), and make the game more interesting. You'd also have no chance of losing money~
|
|
|
Post by Barbaro on Apr 17, 2012 19:57:16 GMT
I'm not going to speed up the rounds to 24 hours. While yes, you can make your decision in a split second, that's true of any game, no matter how complex. You have 48 hours to plan and conspire.
No game should have rounds of 24 hours. We've learned our lesson from LGT2; not everyone has the time to go on the forum several times a day. Sometimes players have a plan that gets passed along 12 hours in, when they saw it, but the ally that needs to take action has already sent in an action and cannot sign in for the next 24 hours. 48 hours ensures planning can be carried out thoroughly, with just enough time to second-guess yourselves, and it's not long enough that it is boring.
Take your extra time as a gift, and plan accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Apr 17, 2012 20:15:57 GMT
The game board is too large. Instead of 5x5, it really should be 3x3. The extra squares give too much room for error with only 7 players, and things like betrayal can have more impact on a smaller board. Hmm. I do see your point, especially as players keep decreasing. However, it can't change at this point, as the game's already started. Unless... This would be up to Barbaro to decide upon, but it would work as a countdown system. Basically, every X number of turns, one row or column disappears (there's a specific order to it, probably rightmost row, bottommost column, and it switches between rows and columns) until it's a 3x3 board. If the game has not reached a conclusion by X (or 2X?) turns after the 3x3 board, the game ends with no winners. And if the ball is in the column/row that gets removed, it gets pushed up/over? And either everyone loses one point or no one does? So it would get progressively smaller: after X turns, the board is 4x5; after 2X, it's 4x4; after 3X, it's 3x4; after 4X, it's 3x3; and after 5X, the game is over. So it would work kinda like Blood Money from the LGT2. I would say that X should be at least 3 but no more than 5? or 6 if need be? This might be a good way to speed up the game, and it could reasonably be added in. Of course, it's up to Barbaro for a final call, but I'd like this to be considered at the very least. If we need a gap between the 2nd and 3rd rounds to make sure that we've decided on whether or not there will be changes to the rules, I would not object. Or, if you wanted to keep the board size, perhaps propose a new rule: -If there are more votes in one direction than its opposite and they don't hit a wall, each of the former gets a gold token per player from those going the other direction per square won Example: 3ups and 2downs means the 3ups get +2 tokens each, the 2downs get -3 tokens each/4ups 2downs means the 4ups get +4 tokens each, 2downs get -8 tokens each. Pay each winner equally and any remainder just goes to the LGT. I can't think of a way at the moment to work this into the game or to make it balanced enough. The point of the game is for the number of coins to keep decreasing, and this just keeps them the same while giving others the advantage. The point of the penalty for going 3 rounds without hitting a wall is put in place so it becomes possible (and likely) for the game to end with no winner, so long as no one takes the risk to make a move. Another problem is that the game has already started. It becomes harder and harder to implement new rules into the game as the game progresses. With this one, it would potentially have to apply to the first round (which also brings up the point of what happens when no one opposes? 0 coins?), so it's potentially workable. But it would have to be implemented next round, so at that point, it may be impossible to add it. However, I don't think that it should be. I think the board shrinkage (see above) works better... Not a perfect rule, but I think it would make the game a bit more interesting. Maybe propose an absolute turn limit and the two with the most gold tokens win. An absolute turn limit sounds reasonable, getting players to try and backstab others in an attempt to get rid of players. However, if that's the case, the win condition is still the same: when there are 2 or fewer players in the game, the game ends, and those players still left standing receive 5 poker chips each. If there are 0 people remaining, or if the turn count runs out with more than 2 players remaining, there is no winner. If we keep things the way they are now, I'd like to propose shortening the turns to 24h. Things are going to drag on if it keeps going like this, because it takes all of one moment for me to decide where I'm going. I really do not want to wait 48h. This is entirely up to Barbaro. I will support the change to 24 hour rounds, however.
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Apr 17, 2012 20:39:25 GMT
I'm not going to speed up the rounds to 24 hours. While yes, you can make your decision in a split second, that's true of any game, no matter how complex. You have 48 hours to plan and conspire. No game should have rounds of 24 hours. We've learned our lesson from LGT2; not everyone has the time to go on the forum several times a day. Sometimes players have a plan that gets passed along 12 hours in, when they saw it, but the ally that needs to take action has already sent in an action and cannot sign in for the next 24 hours. 48 hours ensures planning can be carried out thoroughly, with just enough time to second-guess yourselves, and it's not long enough that it is boring. Take your extra time as a gift, and plan accordingly. ...obviously I was writing my other post when this came out... So yes, I support the 48 hour games. Unless (as in the case of Memory) the game will go on for a minimum of, say, 18 rounds and a maximum (reasonably) of 35. If each round is 48 hours, it goes on for over a month, minimum, up to over two months... which is way too long for a single game. So when it's instead a minimum of 20 days and a maximum of 37 (b/c 1st and 2nd rounds are 48 hours), it becomes about a month, or the normal length of a game on LGT. (Off on a Memory tangent...) Of course, I apologize if some of you don't have the time to plan during every round, but plan ahead if you need to... Also, the number of cards to choose from as well as the players to choose from will keep decreasing as the game goes on. Similarly, there may be some rounds where, no matter the vote distribution, one person has to win the vote. Or needs only one vote to win. So... there's not as many things that need to be done? But I do realize that it is a lot of work and probably not enough time for planning across time zones... Once again, I apologize, but it needed to be done... (Back to Silver Plaything) So... even if we keep it at 48 hour rounds, I'd say we put some sort of limit on it? There's kind of a limit b/c of the "3 rounds without bumping" rule. If that's not enough, there's always what I talked about in the above post?
|
|
Kokuryu
Gambler #12
165 Poker Chips
Posts: 184
|
Post by Kokuryu on Apr 18, 2012 3:39:07 GMT
Hrrm... The game will slowly decrease in tokens, as more are lost every 3 rounds than can be gained. I see no reason to speed that up, as 2 tokens are lost to each player if no 'bump' happens in the course of 3 turns, This effectively removes 14 tokens from the game, which is a 1/4th of what was originally in the game. Thus the game will inevitably end. EDIT: Although this game was originally designed for 10 players, It's up to barbaro to change anything if he wants to. Iain7: A 'bump' is when the 'silver plaything' hits a wall, if no tokens are lost(and gained) it doesn't count as a bump. In the case of one up and one down in this round, they would cancel each other out, and the 'silver plaything' wouldn't even move.
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Apr 18, 2012 10:42:04 GMT
The game will slowly decrease in tokens, as more are lost every 3 rounds than can be gained. I see no reason to speed that up, as 2 tokens are lost to each player if no 'bump' happens in the course of 3 turns, This effectively removes 14 tokens from the game, which is a 1/4th of what was originally in the game. Thus the game will inevitably end. I think the problem here (board-size-wise) is that, when it gets to fewer players, it becomes harder and harder to avoid that "3-turn" clause. A player would have to willingly sacrifice him/herself, so the game can end with a winner. However, the likelihood of someone doing that isn't that good. When it's down to 4 players, if the ball is at an edge, everyone could potentially vote the same direction and lose nothing, pushing the deadline ever closer to the 3 turns. And there's more, but... I'll leave that for you to figure out! However, all edits to the game will have to be approved and added by Barbaro, so if he doesn't add them anyway, the point is moot. But it's still worth the discussion for if this game is ever run again, like on another forum.
|
|
|
Post by Barbaro on Apr 18, 2012 19:07:59 GMT
The votes are as follows: LEFT : 10k; Iain7; Kokuryu (3) RIGHT : Komatsu Tatsuya (1) UP : Alydar (1) DOWN : Perlamonta; ShadowFire (2) Inactivity : n/a -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | O | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Round 210k : 8 coins Alydar : 8 coins Iain7 : 7 coins Kokuryu : 8 coins Komatsu Tatsuya : 8 coins Perlamonta : 8 coins ShadowFire : 8 coins No wins or losses this round. If on the next round there are no wins or losses, all players lose 2 coins to the LGT. As per the discussion of the game, I will be adding the following 2 rules. These should not affect any strategies you may have already had. 1) From now on, at the end of every round, I will be removing the row or column furthest away from the silver plaything, in a row-column-row-column order. If they are equidistant, I will pick it randomly. This begins now, so the board is now officially: -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | O | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Round 22) The game will conclude at the end of the 8th round. If this happens before the 2 winners are decided, the two players with the most coins keep their coins. If there is a tie that cannot determine who wins, the tied players lose all of their coins. Time to get harsh, yes? Hope that's enough excitement for you all! You have 48 hours to send me your direction : Left, Right, Up, or Down. It is 8:07pm GMT at the time of this post.
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Apr 18, 2012 21:56:53 GMT
What the heck Iain, two players say LEFT and you jump in the same direction too?
Forget that! I'm going RIGHT this time.
|
|
|
Post by Iain7 on Apr 18, 2012 23:04:38 GMT
What can I say? I'm a daredevil Also I wanted to be sure it got in the edge/corner hahahaha
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Apr 19, 2012 0:08:28 GMT
2) The game will conclude at the end of the 8th round. If this happens before the 2 winners are decided, the two players with the most coins keep their coins. If there is a tie that cannot determine who wins, the tied players lose all of their coins. Time to get harsh, yes? Just a quick question (or a few): does this mean that the game will end with a 2x2 board? Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the number of coins that each player has bears no meaning? In other words, they don't translate over to Poker Chips? So the top two players will each get 5 Poker Chips, unless there's a tie? Am I correct in saying that? It is 8:07pm GMT at the time of this post. Once again... The post was made at 7:07 pm GMT. The visiting-forum-as-guest strategy should work for determining the time, no?
|
|
|
Post by Komatsu Tatsuya on Apr 20, 2012 5:19:00 GMT
well, it looks like i have saved all of you three from losing coins..... the question is who is going to be lucky this time?
|
|
|
Post by Iain7 on Apr 20, 2012 23:03:31 GMT
Hmmm this is difficult, if anyone wants to team up message me and we'll try and work something out, not like we have anything to lose anyway
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Apr 21, 2012 2:21:23 GMT
Yeah! How about this... someone sacrifices himself! Then that person's the only one to lose coins! ...any offers?
|
|