Post by Alydar on Jul 18, 2013 21:19:21 GMT
Don't worry. He probably meant "or." Anyway, the $60 would work fine on its own (2 big, 2 small). Also, he seems to have misread my 5 as a 3. It's possible that having 3 wins counteract a shot would be good (since there's a 3:1 ratio of empty to filled chambers), but you do want some caution, right? And yes, the $100 penalty was slightly overdone. When I first read it, I was thinking a net change of $100 for my mini-calculations (a different math fault than yours!). Then it actually happened, and I realized it was $200 net change... You want cautious players, but you don't want to penalize taking risks.
If you have one player passing entirely (say that's the "inactive" player, since the inactivity penalty is too large imho and should probably just be made into an auto-pass), it would be evened out by either another inactive or someone who shot every max shot. Someone who's playing with some skill and realizes where a bullet is in order to skip over it should defeat that strategy. And the reverse should be the same. If you have one player shooting every max shot, someone who's playing with some skill and realizes where a bullet is not and takes a shot there should defeat that strategy.
Basically, the ideal situation in this game is to have both players shooting often enough in an attempt to prevent the other player from getting a lead from empty chambers that it allows players to actually strategize with tricking people into shooting filled chambers or scaring them into allowing you to shoot empty ones. I was able to a little with Freih because of a few PMs and his dislike of giving money to the LGT. And I agree with not wanting to just give money to the LGT. I know the "LGT wins" is fluff, but it should be avoidable instead of good strategy. Yes, we want caution, but we also want action. If anyone disagrees, I'd be more than happy to open up an argument of what's intended with this game!
(Also, 1000th post! *fanfare and confetti* )
If you have one player passing entirely (say that's the "inactive" player, since the inactivity penalty is too large imho and should probably just be made into an auto-pass), it would be evened out by either another inactive or someone who shot every max shot. Someone who's playing with some skill and realizes where a bullet is in order to skip over it should defeat that strategy. And the reverse should be the same. If you have one player shooting every max shot, someone who's playing with some skill and realizes where a bullet is not and takes a shot there should defeat that strategy.
Basically, the ideal situation in this game is to have both players shooting often enough in an attempt to prevent the other player from getting a lead from empty chambers that it allows players to actually strategize with tricking people into shooting filled chambers or scaring them into allowing you to shoot empty ones. I was able to a little with Freih because of a few PMs and his dislike of giving money to the LGT. And I agree with not wanting to just give money to the LGT. I know the "LGT wins" is fluff, but it should be avoidable instead of good strategy. Yes, we want caution, but we also want action. If anyone disagrees, I'd be more than happy to open up an argument of what's intended with this game!
(Also, 1000th post! *fanfare and confetti* )