Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Chrononauts[Phalla]-Game Over - Village Alternate Victory



  • BluecyanBluecyan ROAR Registered User regular
    Fry wrote: »
    Finally, Villagers have personal victory requirements. Each villager will have four node state requirements, of which they need to have at least half complete in order to win with the village. Some of these requirements will be Natural, some of them Recessive, however at least half will be Natural (a village alternate win guarantees all village win).

    Probably beating a dead horse, but laying the groundwork for town to be able to build a mathematical solution is IMO not a great design. If you want town to know that they can all share an alternate win, I think you need to give the mafia cover stories to fit in, or just have the rule be that villagers can share an alternate win regardless of their personal goals.

    Mafia had a complete cover story. There was also potential for them to use a villagers revealed PVD against them, but it wound up being pretty difficult to pull off. For a future game I will make that more easy on the mafia and obvious that it is possible on the villager.

  • 38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    Just remember when the future refuses to change lavos kills you all.

  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    Thanks for running this, @Bluecyan and @MrTLicious! It was interesting, if ultimately somewhat frustrating.

  • MrTLiciousMrTLicious Registered User regular
    Hey all, sorry for the thread necro, but I just got back from a situation that made me leave the game early.

    I wanted to point out that in the end the balance problem was my fault. I ran the simulations and in doing so, I made the same initial mistake that @JPants did - thinking that if something went wrong in the P/R/O strategy that there were 3 people to cast suspicion on, but as @discrider rightfully pointed out, there were only 2. That's a pretty huge oversight that I realized before the first day was over but by then it was much too late. Thanks to the mafia for sticking it out.

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    I mean there is that @MrTLicious , but there was also a -lot- of time missions to gather info from.

    Even if it were 3 suspect people, I think the strategy either boils down to Mafia blitzing it and failing all the missions all the time to prevent useful information crystallizing, or otherwise trying to eliminate village Os before they get info out and just doing enough to keep a node untrusted whilst another node is in a mafia reported 'good' state.
    Or just irreparably damaging the timeline and then doing nothing.

    Short of figuring out how to do the latter, I don't think we had enough members or little enough time to prevent the village from sounding out known good teams.

    But I would be interested to look at the sims

    discrider on
    Steam Community page:
    Oh hey! A knife!
Sign In or Register to comment.