[Murder Mansion] An Experimental Phalla-esque Game Over (NoizRnel Victory!)

Egos

wait I thought you only got judgement if you voted the person off? huh

Phyphor

Yeah none of my kills went through to begin with, so my last hope was to get the final kill, inherit hopefully more points and escape the last vote

discrider

Egos wrote: »

wait I thought you only got judgement if you voted the person off? huh

You got judgement from killing someone and stealing their judgement points.
Not sure if you got any points from killing someone because they were wrong though.

And seriously guys. Judgement points? Really?
You should have just kept me alive and then tried to snipe me all for yourselves the next day.

Phyphor

Nope, only if you actually make the kill itself

discrider

Ah, ok. Not sure how often that would have killed the vote leader before everyone realised though.

The Anonymous

So basically there was no way for me win whatsoever? That kinda sucks.

Assuran

It was pretty hard to guess who killed who and like I pointed out in thread it was actually better to not vote for someone close to winning at all because your odds of dying increased if you were wrong.

I think there is something to this game, but it needs some refinement.

Zombie Hero

There was very little incentive to vote for the winner, since the penalty for voting for the wrong person was too harsh, and judgement points could be stolen. Also, when you are innocent you want to collect votes because its hilarious.

Egos

Ah yes forgot about absorption

mi-go hunter

That's a good point, that's the one main thing I wanted to fix.

Any suggestions? I'm in class right now and will get back to this later in the day.

discrider

Zombie Hero wrote: »

There was very little incentive to vote for the winner, since the penalty for voting for the wrong person was too harsh, and judgement points could be stolen. Also, when you are innocent you want to collect votes because its hilarious.

There was every incentive to vote for the winner, because hey, free judgement point if you're right, and some 1 in remaining players - 1 chance that you get killed.
But no-one seemed to use this strategy either.

Zombie Hero

discrider wrote: »

Zombie Hero wrote: »

There was very little incentive to vote for the winner, since the penalty for voting for the wrong person was too harsh, and judgement points could be stolen. Also, when you are innocent you want to collect votes because its hilarious.

There was every incentive to vote for the winner, because hey, free judgement point if you're right, and some 1 in remaining players - 1 chance that you get killed.
But no-one seemed to use this strategy either.

I'll take 0% chance of being killed to 1/x almost every time.

Well, you don't want to be on a winning wagon, because that is bad news. So is it worth it to be on a leading wagon on the chance that you are right? Maybe for a risk taker, but being right has the side effect of putting a bullseye on your head because your killer gets more points for the steal.

I think things would be better if the vote winner always died, justice points handed out in secret, so you could vote for whoever. Alternatively, not limiting who the falsely accuse could kill would at least not make people shy about voting.

NoizRnel

YEY.

It's good for a simple party game, but you could build on the idea more - I don't know how exactly, but maybe having more clues to follow on in the trials (I think most of the time it was a lot of random guessing).

mi-go hunter

Zombie Hero wrote: »

discrider wrote: »

Zombie Hero wrote: »

There was very little incentive to vote for the winner, since the penalty for voting for the wrong person was too harsh, and judgement points could be stolen. Also, when you are innocent you want to collect votes because its hilarious.

There was every incentive to vote for the winner, because hey, free judgement point if you're right, and some 1 in remaining players - 1 chance that you get killed.
But no-one seemed to use this strategy either.

I'll take 0% chance of being killed to 1/x almost every time.

Well, you don't want to be on a winning wagon, because that is bad news. So is it worth it to be on a leading wagon on the chance that you are right? Maybe for a risk taker, but being right has the side effect of putting a bullseye on your head because your killer gets more points for the steal.

I think things would be better if the vote winner always died, justice points handed out in secret, so you could vote for whoever. Alternatively, not limiting who the falsely accuse could kill would at least not make people shy about voting.

I was thinking of eliminating the stealing points mechanic entirely and just give the murderer one point for killing. Or alternatively, steal points from the Killing meter only.

Hmm, I want to keep the trials' concept the same. However you're right, the best changes would be either:
a) The falsely accused gets to kill whoever
b) The murderer gets to PM me who he/she wants to off.
I'm leaning towards a.

I am also considering to encourage communication, sending weapon types in PMs instead of public information in the OP? That might make things more interesting.

Phyphor

a) means that everybody will pile of the majority wagon - in that case you might as well because hey you might get a point, and if you don't you might get killed anyway

archivistkitsune

Was following this more or less. Maybe to prevent a dog pile, have a setup, where judgment points aren't awarded if 90-100% of the remaining players pile on the same wagon and the total number exceeds 8. That would probably discourage everyone picking the same bandwagon and maybe encourage people to think about there vote chooses. Still kind of screwed because people are taking a guess based on limited info and the vote record is useless.

discrider

Zombie Hero wrote: »

discrider wrote: »

Zombie Hero wrote: »

There was very little incentive to vote for the winner, since the penalty for voting for the wrong person was too harsh, and judgement points could be stolen. Also, when you are innocent you want to collect votes because its hilarious.

There was every incentive to vote for the winner, because hey, free judgement point if you're right, and some 1 in remaining players - 1 chance that you get killed.
But no-one seemed to use this strategy either.

I'll take 0% chance of being killed to 1/x almost every time.

Well, you don't want to be on a winning wagon, because that is bad news. So is it worth it to be on a leading wagon on the chance that you are right? Maybe for a risk taker, but being right has the side effect of putting a bullseye on your head because your killer gets more points for the steal.

I think things would be better if the vote winner always died, justice points handed out in secret, so you could vote for whoever. Alternatively, not limiting who the falsely accuse could kill would at least not make people shy about voting.

If everyone had just dogpiled on the leader early game, then no-one would have a target on their head because everyone would have got +1 Justice if they were right.
Late game, you have to ask yourself whether it's worth it, but while people are killing for grudges or what not, why would it matter if you were on the firing line if the guy doing the public free killing has no reason to target you?

Phyphor wrote: »

a) means that everybody will pile of the majority wagon - in that case you might as well because hey you might get a point, and if you don't you might get killed anyway

People should have been doing this anyway, because the only people who might care about dying are those with a lot to lose.

Zombie Hero

discrider wrote: »

Zombie Hero wrote: »

discrider wrote: »

Zombie Hero wrote: »

There was very little incentive to vote for the winner, since the penalty for voting for the wrong person was too harsh, and judgement points could be stolen. Also, when you are innocent you want to collect votes because its hilarious.

There was every incentive to vote for the winner, because hey, free judgement point if you're right, and some 1 in remaining players - 1 chance that you get killed.
But no-one seemed to use this strategy either.

I'll take 0% chance of being killed to 1/x almost every time.

Well, you don't want to be on a winning wagon, because that is bad news. So is it worth it to be on a leading wagon on the chance that you are right? Maybe for a risk taker, but being right has the side effect of putting a bullseye on your head because your killer gets more points for the steal.

I think things would be better if the vote winner always died, justice points handed out in secret, so you could vote for whoever. Alternatively, not limiting who the falsely accuse could kill would at least not make people shy about voting.

If everyone had just dogpiled on the leader early game, then no-one would have a target on their head because everyone would have got +1 Justice if they were right.
Late game, you have to ask yourself whether it's worth it, but while people are killing for grudges or what not, why would it matter if you were on the firing line if the guy doing the public free killing has no reason to target you?

Phyphor wrote: »

a) means that everybody will pile of the majority wagon - in that case you might as well because hey you might get a point, and if you don't you might get killed anyway

People should have been doing this anyway, because the only people who might care about dying are those with a lot to lose.

I voted for myself that day because i had a chance to win the vote and murder someone. I was sooo close too, in fact i miscounted and thought i had won. Being able to choose who dies is more fun that being on the possible chopping block, even with relative safety in numbers.

Btw, thanks for the game, migo. I think this could be something really really cool once you hammer some things out.

mi-go hunter

Zombie Hero wrote: »

Btw, thanks for the game, migo. I think this could be something really really cool once you hammer some things out.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'll think some things over once I have the time, this week is busy for me. This thread will still be open to suggestions.

Phyphor and Mill make good points, dogpiling one person after another would make for really boring trials.

Assuran

I really do think adding a location element to the game would help.

discrider

I really think this game could have been interesting if super elements had formed (poison blade or blunt explosive for example), making the game 2v2 with the wildcard faction trying to disrupt everything and reorganise the meta around itself, but that didn't happen because risk, and so it was just 1v1v1v1v1 with RNG.