Mafiascum.net

Actually I already decided what I was doing. don't want to do it publicly either.

There's still some time, so if you want my help, you could probably convince me. I hope you know that if I promised not to shoot you, I would keep that promise. (Unless I was scum, but I wouldn't promise in that case.)

In post 145, the worst wrote:I'm sorry it was xyzzy's fault!!
I was also the swing vote that got IPS out in 4p of survivor a couple of months ago
so there's definitely plenty of salt here /o\

....and then you killed me anyway!

(i still love you though)

i'm sorry i had to!!

you're the champ for a reason

01. the worst
02. Iprobablysuck





If I get all actions by then. Otherwise it ends at

I'm gonna truce o/
Better we both have the win than just one of us right?

gonna #truce it up

Let me know if you guys want me to end it once I get both your actions or if I should just wait for the timer

I'm down to end it anytime.

End it, we got the win together anyway (at least, )

asdfghjkl;' I would never kill you for no personal gain!!

The game is over Iprobablysuck and the worst both pmed saying to end it when both actions are recieved

They also both pmed . Iprobablysuck and the worst win

Back stage thread: viewtopic.php?f=90&t=79400

GG! Glad to finally survive to the end with you!

also, super fun game, thanks for running! I don't have any tips game design-wise though this is always a blast to play

Personally, I'd like to see less of "hey let's form a massive alliance RIGHT NOW" in this because it's kind of unfair to people who, you know, .

Gg ips<3

It's tricky. There definitely needs to be a way to introduce more chaos but at the same time ideally without being unfair to those who approach the game strategically. I'll try and think of something.

To be honest there is one new rule I am considering. Winner is player with most kills.

This rule would give value to players not in an alliance and possibly lead to someone choosing shoot over truce in the event they think they don't have most kills at game end.

Playing with that rules still encourages surviving and making alliances, because, afterall, if you die the first night, there's no way you'll have the most kills. Yet it also encourages you to be more strategic with your protects, because you have incentive to stop any kill that's not from you.

I'd certainly like to trial it.

Congrats IPS and TW
I was too slow to make my pitch I think but I was happy to see a new result

In post 167, TheBrie wrote:Playing with that rules still encourages surviving and making alliances, because, afterall, if you die the first night, there's no way you'll have the most kills. Yet it also encourages you to be more strategic with your protects, because you have incentive to stop any kill that's not from you.

I'd certainly like to trial it.

Actually now that I think of it, my idea could be counter intuitive.

Let's say we have two players alive after a long game. If one does not think they have the same number of kills, the ideal play is to shoot. This could lead to a player with lesser kills killing the current kill leader because the kill leader chose truce. BUT I think its more likely they'll both die. A kill leader has every reason to kill again when they have the lead. Especially since the game would overall encourage more killing.

So inevitably its much more likely both will die, which would lead to everyone else winning. Everyone with lesser kills would win while the two players that probably have the most would lose. So my idea is not a good one in this regard.

So instead, I think it best things remain simpler....
-You get to the end as the only player, you win without having to choose shoot or truce.
-You get the end with someone else, you both win if you select truce regardless of kill counts. If one of you selects shoot and the other selects truce then only the shooter wins
-If those in the end game all choose to shoot then all those that failed to make it to end game will win
-AND lastly the only new rule I will add, if you don't survive the game, but somehow have the most kills, you will win with anyone else who has also wins

With these rules^ its now possible to have 1 winner, 2 winners, 3 winners or have everyone win. I think that's good

Had that change already been in our game, Iprobablysuck and the worst both would have won by being the final survivors

BUT there could have been more winners. Iprobablysuck and the worst each had the same number of kills. If they both shot in the end, all dead player would have won. AND since that mechanic reads "If you don't survive the game, but somehow have the most kills, you will win with anyone else who has also wins" that would have meant Iprobablysuck and the worst would still win despite dying to each others hands. In a scenario like that ALL PLAYERS WOULD WIN!

yeah if an outcome like that was possible I would have suggested ips and I just shot each other