|
Post by Liar Game on Dec 14, 2012 23:21:34 GMT
I would like to try it. However, I have some reservations about it. The rules as stated leave little place for 'lying' (in terms of Liar Game, that is). Wat I mean is, (at least it seems) you can achieve little by talking to other people, forming (or pretending to form) teams and other such activities. Of course I could be wrong - but that's my initial impression. Some proposed changes to address that issue: 1) During the rolling phase, each player submits to the dealer an ordered list of all other players. At the end of the rolling phase, if you rolled an honest roll, the dealer sends you back the topmost name on the list that cheated. If nobody cheated, everyone gets the first name on their list. Nobody can accuse the player whose name they got. 2) As part of the accusation phase, you can also make secret accusations. For this you send the dealer a list of names you believe to be cheaters for the round. This list stays secret, but if every name on the list is actually a cheater, you may get a bonus: For each player on the list that was listed at most as many times as that name was send out, you receive 1 ante from the LGT. Then everyone pays back equal shares to the LGT (rounded up/down - you choose) to make the game (almost) zero-sum. You can secretly accuse the person whose name you got. With this, several interesting possibilities spawn - like it being beneficial to be the sole cheater. Also, since cheaters could also claim they received somebody's name (although they don't actually receive a name), such information is not 100% reliable. Due to the secret accusation mechanic you may have a reason to keep secret the name you received. Freih has been signed up (or will be shortly). As for your suggestions, they themselves lead to unbalancing in the game and devolve (more often than not) to a strictly alliance-dominating or no-cheater scenario, both of which are best avoided if at all possible (Kaitani can avoid that because he doesn't have to account for every situation). For example, an alliance of two can automatically get antes (one sends in a list with the other first, the other sends in the reverse list (putting the one player first on the list)). Add a third person to that alliance, and even a single cheater can't profit. There's almost no benefit from cheating with your rules, as the player(s) who do(es) will be targeted. Honest players will zero-out except for profit from the cheaters, and there's little reason for people to lie unless to help another person (you won't and pretty much CAN'T tell someone "Oh, I got my own name back. I must have cheated! D'oh!" Sure, it could be a bluff. I understand. But odds are, an alliance would see through that bluff easily). As for the secret accusations, it does little as well. EVERYONE will send in at least the name they received. There's no penalty for guessing wrong, and everyone could simply send in (for X players) Player 1's name X-1 times, Player 2's name X-1 times, etc. It would completely cancel out everything... It adds nothing to the game and makes it more complicated where it doesn't need to be. Sure, there may be a way to integrate this somehow into this game, but there is a beauty in a simple, understandable game that gives all players an equal chance of winning. Basically, there's no need to fix what isn't broken. There will likely be cheaters (I'd be surprised if there weren't), there will likely be winners during rounds where they didn't cheat, there will likely be successful and failed accusations (or players will just get away with cheating), there will likely be behind-the-scenes alliances and backstabbing, and it's a simple, understandable game. And even someone who is not in an alliance has a chance of winning.
|
|
Freih
Observer
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Dec 15, 2012 0:53:09 GMT
As for your suggestions, they themselves lead to unbalancing in the game and devolve (more often than not) to a strictly alliance-dominating or no-cheater scenario, both of which are best avoided if at all possible (Kaitani can avoid that because he doesn't have to account for every situation). For example, an alliance of two can automatically get antes (one sends in a list with the other first, the other sends in the reverse list (putting the one player first on the list)). Add a third person to that alliance, and even a single cheater can't profit. There's almost no benefit from cheating with your rules, as the player(s) who do(es) will be targeted. Honest players will zero-out except for profit from the cheaters, and there's little reason for people to lie unless to help another person (you won't and pretty much CAN'T tell someone "Oh, I got my own name back. I must have cheated! D'oh!" Sure, it could be a bluff. I understand. But odds are, an alliance would see through that bluff easily). Well, if nobody cheats then it's easy to be the sole cheater in which case you can't be targeted, because everybody would receive your name and they can't accuse people whose name they receive. As for any alliance, they could only generate profit if there are at least two cheaters. Of course, one person from the alliance could cheat, and then either that person from the alliance would win being the sole cheater, or there would be two cheaters, and the alliance could win again. But such alliances are not actually in Nash equilibrium, and I think they would be unstable. I may be wrong, though. You certainly have more experience than me in running games ... You missed something there. I said that you only get a bonus if all your names are correct. Frankly, I didn't exactly mean that - I meant to have the whole secret accusation list of someone who sent in a wrong name discarded. But either way, I did suggest a penalty for wrong names. If luck turns out to be a determining factor, then it would be broken. Whether or not that would happen depends on luck as well as on the players and what they do, but I do find it a likely possibility. If it doesn't turn out that way, then it would indeed be a good game.
|
|
|
Post by Liar Game on Dec 15, 2012 3:45:11 GMT
((I apologize if I've sounded harsh before or if I sound harsh in this post. I'm just trying to give objective feedback. )) Well, if nobody cheats then it's easy to be the sole cheater in which case you can't be targeted, because everybody would receive your name and they can't accuse people whose name they receive. As for any alliance, they could only generate profit if there are at least two cheaters. Of course, one person from the alliance could cheat, and then either that person from the alliance would win being the sole cheater, or there would be two cheaters, and the alliance could win again. But such alliances are not actually in Nash equilibrium, and I think they would be unstable. I may be wrong, though. You certainly have more experience than me in running games ... With a 3-player alliance, even a sole cheater isn't safe. Say there's a 6-player game with Players A-F, and Players A-C are allied. Now, Player A sends in "B, C, D, E, F," Player B sends in "A, F, E, D, C," and Player C sends in nothing. None of A, B, or C cheat. Here are the possible scenarios: No one cheats, 1 person cheats, 2 people cheat, 3 people cheat. 1) No one cheats. A gets back B. B gets back A. They know no one cheated, and they don't accuse anyone. That round falls to luck or to other people accusing falsely. 2) 1 person cheats. A and B both get that name. They know not only that that player cheated but that that player was the ONLY person who cheated. C accuses that player. The cheater loses money while C profits. A, B, and C would likely switch off with this role. 3) 2 people cheat. A and B get different names. They know at least two people cheated. A, B, and C all accuse that player. A, B, and C profit. The cheater doesn't. 4) 3 people cheat. Same as above, but one of the cheaters happens to profit. Maybe. Either way, the A-B-C alliance profits as well. Eventually, this goes on, and it devolves to either no one cheats, the other three team up (so no-one cheats), two of the others team up (so maybe one person cheats), blind accusations (so the 3-person alliance wins), or just plain luck. This is the situation I want to avoid: where there's a potential alliance that can either dominate the game or lead to a stalemate where it WILL be all luck-based. Maybe it won't happen. That doesn't matter. The thing is, it COULD. And as a dealer, I should work to prevent that. Yes, the alliance has to be solid. Yes, someone could betray. However, there's also the question of: what would they gain? I admit that there's a possibility of multiple alliances, with people spreading misinformation and manipulating the opponents for their own gain. However... in most cases, having multiple alliances like the one I suggested would lead to a standstill where it's all up to luck. In order to secure profit from running multiple alliances, it would be 3-3-2 (you're on all 3), and the 2-person alliance would be the only cheaters. IF no one figures it out. And I doubt people won't talk to players outside of their alliances... If anyone pulls off a Round 2 Fukunaga, congrats to them. But I don't see that happening. At any rate, the possibility that exists of that dominating alliance is what I want to avoid. I've seen how dull they make a game, and I would like to avoid it if at all possible. That's why I can't accept your first change. You missed something there. I said that you only get a bonus if all your names are correct. Frankly, I didn't exactly mean that - I meant to have the whole secret accusation list of someone who sent in a wrong name discarded. But either way, I did suggest a penalty for wrong names. Yes. I did miss that you needed to get ALL names on the list correct. However... all that requires is for someone to cheat and for you to state that name. Here, you only need a strong 2, and they use the A-B strategy of above. They send in either 1 or 2 names (1 if they match, 2 if they don't). They can be assured that each name they have on their secret accusations are correct. And even if there were a penalty for a wrong name (which I still don't see in your post), they'd avoid that nicely. That's why I can't accept your second change. If luck turns out to be a determining factor, then it would be broken. Whether or not that would happen depends on luck as well as on the players and what they do, but I do find it a likely possibility. If it doesn't turn out that way, then it would indeed be a good game. If luck turns out to be a determining factor, then that's all on the players. I ran a sample game with no cheating, and one player was just luckier than the others. Of course, with no cheating, that's to be expected. It's up to the players to cheat and to cheat surreptitiously where they won't be suspected. A Point X is probably about as likely to appear from a roll as from a cheat, assuming players are cheating. Even triples and 1-2-3/4-5-6 will come out randomly, so you can't just call out everyone who rolls them. It all depends on what players decide to rig, when they do so, and how good they are at deceiving others. You could even convince players that you rigged when you didn't or double bluff them. Even triple bluff. Basically, if no one's rigging their dice, it's just normal Cee-lo. And where's the fun in that? It's all on the players if they don't rig their dice without good reason. Your first suggestion (and maybe even the second) could give that reason for a luck-based game. If you can find some part of this game that dissuades people from rigging their dice AT ALL, then I'll try and fix it if I can. Otherwise, it looks good to me. Actually... there may be something to add to this game. But I'll think it over tomorrow and talk to you guys about it then. We'll also see how this game goes during the Rehearsal Round, whose rules I'll have to put out sometime as well. But I have a final that I should be desperately studying for now, so I'll get to that before doing anything else on this site. See ya, and good night!
|
|
Freih
Observer
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Dec 15, 2012 5:09:26 GMT
Don't worry at all about sounding harsh. I prefer feedback to no feedback whatever the feedback would be.
Anyway, I now see what you mean by a three-player alliance. In fact, I didn't intend to make it possible to send an empty list, just forgot to add an inactivity. Of course, forgetting to add a necessary rule still makes the rules bad.
As for the secret accusation mechanic, it was intended to introduce some risk in sharing the name you received. Assuming everyone sends the name they received, then if somebody sends an additional name (and still has all their names correct), the people who received that name would suffer.
|
|
|
Post by Liar Game on Dec 15, 2012 15:02:45 GMT
Actually... there may be something to add to this game. But I'll think it over tomorrow and talk to you guys about it then. We'll also see how this game goes during the Rehearsal Round, whose rules I'll have to put out sometime as well. But I have a final that I should be desperately studying for now, so I'll get to that before doing anything else on this site. See ya, and good night! And here it is! So, the (possibly) big problem here is that there's no specific benefit from cheating, and a player who gets ahead early on (e.g. lucky 1-2-3 first round -> all people accuse -> +20 antes -> +$100 (25 from each player); that's only 5 antes in level 3 -> people can still get ahead, even if the player simply relies on luck the rest of the game). So, in order to support cheating and rigging dice, players will have to get something out of it if they succeed, even if they don't win. Thus, my suggestion. "Any player who rigged their hand to achieve a hand better than "No Hand" and was not caught gets 1 ante from each player." If everyone cheats and no one calls anyone out, there's a net gain for everyone of zero, aside from the winner(s), who profit per usual. If someone is called out, that player loses money, the people who called them out profit, and any other cheaters may profit slightly. If someone is mistakenly called out, that player gains money, the people who called them out lose money, and any hidden cheaters may profit slightly. If no one cheats, it works as normal. If some people cheat and no one's called out, the people who didn't cheat lose money which goes to the people who did cheat. This would make cheating more profitable and would make it more reasonable for people to cheat (with lower rolls as well) and thus for people to call out others (which leads to mistaken calls). However, it also makes money change hands much more rapidly in greater sums, so I'd suggest the starting sum be changed to $250 (or maybe just 200 if you think 250's too much) if this were the case, just so people wouldn't lose all their money so quickly. Or maybe they would, in which case... well, I guess you're just bad at the game.
So, what do you guys think? Should this change be implemented? Or is there another change that works better? I think this is simple and promotes rigging while hopefully not being unbalancing (it's countered by accusations, which are balanced within by wrong accusations; however, the cost for a wrong accusation might be better lowered to 2... I'll see how it works in the Rehearsal Round, but it's really difficult to playtest strategic actions with randomization and probability...). Tell me what you think! The Rehearsal Round rules will be up later today, after I get something to eat and write them up.
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Dec 15, 2012 18:18:49 GMT
I want to disagree with "successful rigging (Point 1 or better) = +1 ante", but I'm fine with changing the starting number to $250 if that happens. I'll post my explanation in the confessional since it's related to strategy.
EDIT: I'm fine with the change if revealing the hand's true nature is optional, though.
|
|
|
Post by Liar Game on Dec 15, 2012 19:36:03 GMT
I want to disagree with "successful rigging (Point 1 or better) = +1 ante", but I'm fine with changing the starting number to $250 if that happens. I'll post my explanation in the confessional since it's related to strategy. EDIT: I'm fine with the change if revealing the hand's true nature is optional, though. Yes, it would likely be optional, to add to strategy and deception. I just hadn't thought to add that.
|
|
|
Post by Liar Game on Dec 15, 2012 20:10:11 GMT
Rigged Cee-lo: Rehearsal RoundThere will be 3 rounds. Each will last 48 hours, split into two 24-hour phases (Rolling and Accusation). It will begin on Monday, December 17th, 2012 and should end on Sunday, December 23rd, 2012, just in time for the holidays. Everyone who has signed up for Rigged Cee-lo before the game begins will participate in the Rehearsal Round. Rolling Phase: Each player sends in one of two things. 1) Something along the lines of "I do not rig my dice." This can be anything that basically says you'll leave it up to chance. OR 2) Something along the lines of "I rig my dice to be [insert roll here]." Again, anything that makes your intentions clear is fine. End-of-phase update: I will reveal each player's roll, using nice die images (the ones I used for Dice Table). It will not be revealed who cheated, or even if anyone cheated at all. Accusation Phase: Each player sends in a list of players who they believe cheated (rigged their rolls). This can be a list from zero to everyone but the player who sent in the list. Cheaters as well as non-cheaters may send in these lists. If a player cheated (with greater than a "No Hand"), that player may attempt to Fly Under the Radar. To do so, that player must PM me expressing the intention of doing so. If that player isn't accused by anyone, that player successfully Flies Under the Radar and wins the appropriate amount from each player (see payout section below). End-of-phase update: I will reveal all accusations (with the Accuser and the Accused) and anyone who successfully Flew Under the Radar. Payouts will be distributed, and the next round will begin promptly. Payouts: The currency used in this Rehearsal Round is Antes. To avoid confusion, I'm separating the payouts based on rounds and the appropriate actions. Each player begins with 0 Antes and can go as far into the positives or negatives as possible. Round 1- The winner(s) has 1-2-3 or better: Take 2 Antes from each loser. This amount is split evenly between winners, using fractions as necessary.
- The winner(s) has worse than 1-2-3 but not "No Hand": Take 1 Ante from each loser. This amount is split evenly between winners, using fractions as necessary.
- Successfully Fly Under the Radar: Steal 1 Ante from each player.
- Successful Accusation: The Accused pays 2 Antes to the Accuser.
- Unsuccessful Accusation: The Accuser pays 3 Antes to the Accused.
- Double Accusations: Two players successfully accuse each other (i.e. both are cheaters). Both Accused pay 3 Antes to the LGT.
(If you don't want to read the rest, Round 2 is twice the Round 1 amounts, Round 3 is four times the Round 1 amounts.) Round 2- The winner(s) has 1-2-3 or better: Take 4 Antes from each loser. This amount is split evenly between winners, using fractions as necessary.
- The winner(s) has worse than 1-2-3 but not "No Hand": Take 2 Antes from each loser. This amount is split evenly between winners, using fractions as necessary.
- Successfully Fly Under the Radar: Steal 2 Antes from each player.
- Successful Accusation: The Accused pays 4 Antes to the Accuser.
- Unsuccessful Accusation: The Accuser pays 6 Antes to the Accused.
- Double Accusations: Two players successfully accuse each other (i.e. both are cheaters). Both Accused pay 6 Antes to the LGT.
Round 3- The winner(s) has 1-2-3 or better: Take 8 Antes from each loser. This amount is split evenly between winners, using fractions as necessary.
- The winner(s) has worse than 1-2-3 but not "No Hand": Take 4 Antes from each loser. This amount is split evenly between winners, using fractions as necessary.
- Successfully Fly Under the Radar: Steal 4 Antes from each player.
- Successful Accusation: The Accused pays 8 Antes to the Accuser.
- Unsuccessful Accusation: The Accuser pays 12 Antes to the Accused.
- Double Accusations: Two players successfully accuse each other (i.e. both are cheaters). Both Accused pay 12 Antes to the LGT.
Disclaimer: The Antes listed here are the currency, NOT antes of the normal game. Don't get them confused. This is just a mock game with no money, so I changed it from dollars ($) to Antes.
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Dec 17, 2012 19:21:36 GMT
I'm assuming the rehearsal has started by now?
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Dec 17, 2012 19:30:43 GMT
I'm assuming the rehearsal has started by now? It hasn't. I was planning on starting it in about a half hour, so I can end on time in future days. Or at least so I can more likely end the rounds on time. I'll be posting here when it begins as well as PMing the players involved.
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Dec 17, 2012 20:01:21 GMT
The rehearsal round begins now! Each player has been (or will be soon) PMed to remind them of the game, what's needed, the rules, and the deadline. So I'm not going to say it all here. Each player must send in their decision to rig or not to rig within 24 hours. The Rolling Phase will end at 8:01 pm GMT, Tuesday December 18th, 2012, at which point the Accusation Phase will begin. Will you leave it up to luck, or will you try and cheat your way out of losing? Only time will tell... Good luck! Ahahahaha!
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Dec 17, 2012 21:45:13 GMT
Because I somehow mixed this up in the PMs I sent out, I've sent out an errata, and I'm clarifying here. The order of rankings is as follows:
Highest: Triplets (Triple-6 is higher than Triple-5 is higher than Triple-4, etc.) Middle: 4-5-6 and 1-2-3 (4-5-6 is higher than 1-2-3) Lowest: Point X (Point 6 is higher than Point 5 is higher than Point 4, etc.) A roll of No Hand cannot win a player the round.
Sorry for the mistake, and good luck! You still have around 22 hours left in the round.
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Dec 18, 2012 1:52:13 GMT
And another note: you cannot Fly Under the Radar with a rigged "No Hand." That was supposed to be in the rules, but somehow it disappeared when I wrote it up. Whoops.
|
|
|
Post by Alydar on Dec 18, 2012 20:01:21 GMT
Round 1 - Rolling PhaseAlydar takes dice from each player, putting them in cups with their respective names on them. "To show absolute fairness, I will be shaking the dice with these shaker cups. I will in no way influence the rolls! Ahahaha, that is to say, I won't be influencing them. But as you give me the dice, I can't say anything of their fairness! But it would be so much of a hassle checking each and every set of dice, so there's no reason to unless you feel something's wrong. But beware a poor accusation! If you waste our time, you'll pay the price! Ahahahahaha! Are we good? Good! Let's begin!" He picks up the leftmost shaker, marked "10k," the one containing the dice 10k handed to Alydar. The dice are shaken and cast. They roll to a stop as the onlookers watch to see how they fall. The first... a 4. The second... why, it's also a 4! There's at least a Point there! And the third? Well, it's... no, could it be? Yes, it is! A third 4! "Congratulations! It seems we start off this round with a Triplet, with this all-so-fair shaker we're using! With that, 10k will be hard to beat, but it's not impossible! Who's next?" The next one to the right is marked "Iain7," and Alydar shakes the dice and rolls... The first one lands: a 6. Following that... a 1. With not much hope left, the third die falls to rest... at 3. "And Iain7 gets a lowly No Hand. Tough luck, but I guess that's all there is: luck! Ahahaha!" The third shaker is marked "Cyrus," and it's picked up in turn. As the dice fall, they're noted: a 2, then a 5. The last one spins for a while, a two in six chance for a Point, and this one pans out! The last die is a 2! "Congratulations! Cyrus' dice come through with a great Point 5! Sadly, it falls slightly short into the current second place..." The rightmost shaker is marked "Moritaka," and it's taken last. The dice fall, first a 1, then a 1. While it could be another Triplet, it still wouldn't beat 10k's. It doesn't, as the third die is simply a 3. "Well, a Point 3 is at least something! Moritaka's dice come through for him, and land him in third place. It would appear Angelo Iain doesn't quite have as much luck in dice as with other games!" "And with that, this round has- what? You say you should have a chance? But you're just an observer! Fine, fine... your dice?" Alydar takes out another shaker from under the table and scribbles "Freih" on it, putting the dice in and shaking them. A 1, a 5, and the final die is... a 1 again! "We have another Point 5! With a tie in second place, Moritaka and Iain7 fall lower in the rankings. Oh, and welcome to the game, newcomer! We're pleased to have you here! ...and to take your money, as you allow it. Ahahahahahaha!!!" With that, Alydar informs the players that they may now Accuse anyone they wish! If they think something was unfair, just bring it to his attention, and he'll check things out. Justice will be served, and all wastes of time will be compensated for. Accuse wisely! And good luck! ((Players effectively rolled at the same time, and everything else is for story purposes. Players' dice were revealed in order of signing up at the Casino and will continue to be revealed in this order.)) Player
| Rolls
| Placement
| 10k
| | Triple 4s
| Iain7
| | No Hand
| Cyrus
| | Point 5
| Moritaka
| | Point 3
| Freih
| | Point 5
|
Rankings1st place - 10k: Triple 4s 2nd place - Cyrus, Freih: Point 5 4th place - Moritaka: Point 3 5th place - Iain7: No Hand The Accusation Phase starts now. Please send in a list of any accusations you plan to make this round if you would like to make any. In addition, if you cheated and would like to Fly Under the Radar, please PM me with your intentions to do so. As this is Round 1, Flying Under the Radar earns the player 1 Ante from each player; correct accusations win the Accuser 2 Antes from the Accused; incorrect accusations win the Accused 3 Antes from the Accuser; double accusations lose both the Accused 3 Antes to the LGT. You all have 24 hours from this post to send in your decisions by PM to me. This round ends at 8:01 pm GMT on Wednesday, December 19th, 2012. Good luck! ((Next time, someone tell me when my date's off. ))
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Dec 18, 2012 21:59:25 GMT
lawl
Hey Iain7, remember when I beat you good at Dice Table? Good times, good times.
|
|