Junk Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 gangshoot Junko imo i'm not in the game :> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRDRHAWK Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 i'm not in the game :>I'm still shooting you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 the latter sounds like fun even though I'm sure it'll mean I'm supposed to kill my historical allies still, sounds like fun, imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinumi Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 yeah, that would be fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) If you're doing the latter, then I don't see why the person in question needs to survive to the final 3. I mean like if I needed to kill certain people AND survive to the final 3, I could probably just play like I normally do and have a REASONABLE chance of winning without altering my strategy or allying with new people. It'd make more sense if the wincon was you either kill this certain group of people and get removed from the game or you need to survive to the final 3. Also how are you going to choose what group of people everyone wants dead? Edited August 8, 2014 by Refa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riariadne Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 With some difficulty (you just match everyone to an equal amount of enemies and stuff) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Refa makes a good point that almost everyone is dying anyways, so having "targets" really isn't going to change much. Things that aren't related to other people dying might be interesting (like Kaoz's almost-wincon, or a Doc that needed to protect against X kills or s/t, or a player could need to guess a certain number of aliases or s/t). idk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xinnidy Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Yes to the latter for more challenge. It's possible some people would be caught in the awkward situation they'd need their allies dead but in an eimm it's true that they might end up dead by other means anyways. So basically I'm parroting refa. :v Yes to break up cliques. That kinda gets to you eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted August 8, 2014 Author Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) If you're doing the latter, then I don't see why the person in question needs to survive to the final 3. I mean like if I needed to kill certain people AND survive to the final 3, I could probably just play like I normally do and have a REASONABLE chance of winning without altering my strategy or allying with new people. It'd make more sense if the wincon was you either kill this certain group of people and get removed from the game or you need to survive to the final 3. Also how are you going to choose what group of people everyone wants dead? This is a valid point, although right now I have it so players need approximately 20% of the game dead to win? I'd need to check the math on how many could win total Edited August 8, 2014 by Paperblade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted August 8, 2014 Author Share Posted August 8, 2014 Math comes out to about 10 people under optimal circumstances, would like that to be about half as many... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) If Person A needs to kill Person B, will Person B also need to kill Person A? Also if kill requirements are assigned via characters and not players or alias- there should be some incentive for people to claim their actual character, or everybody will just lie. Edited August 8, 2014 by BBM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paperblade Posted August 8, 2014 Author Share Posted August 8, 2014 If Person A needs to kill Person B, will Person B also need to kill Person A? Also if kill requirements are assigned via characters and not players or alias- there should be some incentive for people to claim their actual character, or everybody will just lie. Yes As for second, the incentive is that people don't kill you for lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 opinion is: do not care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blitz Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 a little twist might be good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SB. Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 the latter, as long as there's a way to actually discern who your targets are if they're busy being inactive or not talking to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Oh, right, and in the event that the coming storm actually does more than knock over a tree branch or two. . .if I don't respond, it means that I'm relying on my fifteen rolls of toilet paper to keep me sane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blitz Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Oh, right, and in the event that the coming storm actually does more than knock over a tree branch or two. . .if I don't respond, it means that I'm relying on my fifteen rolls of toilet paper to keep me sane. ouch, that would really suck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitsuki Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 I'm against the second option. It feels like an unfair restriction to the game, where a random list assigned to you has to guide your course of action. I think the game is much more interesting if you don't have a preestablished clue on you who you should be relying in and who you need to get killed; after all, deciding on that is the strongest point of an EIMM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 you do know who you need to be relying on though: not kirsche your Trustworthy Friends if you don't know whether you can rely on your Trustworthy Friends then things are likely to be different, which is probably a good thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitsuki Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 But with that rule once you know someone's alias you know if you can rely on them or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 wellyou know if you ABSOLUTELY can't rely on themit's still unknown if you can trust them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitsuki Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 I still think that kind of trust is much more deterministic (since it's just partially based on behaviour analysis), but that's only one of the points anyways. I feel like the optimal play would be much less uncertain: find out the aliases, contact people who don't need to kill you and who need to kill the same people as you and form alliances with them. It just won't be as fun as before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Mitsuki, you have to kill people based on their character, not their alias, and as far as I can tell there's no real reason to truthfully claim your character, so we'll probably have the same cliques and then there'll be two people left at the end who're like "damn we haven't won yet that must mean we have to kill each other" and then they'll suicide on each other or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grace Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 psa: probably will not be around tomorrow. pm me if you really need to talk once the gaym starts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhaltz Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) Is it going to be double wincon then? as in, you win if you eliminate all the people on your list or if you reach the last 3p? Either way, I kinda dislike the idea of the list mostly because people who joined EiMM with no intention to use OC 24/7 are going to have a hard time getting everybody on their lists killed. I'd rather have fewer targets to eliminate, like 2-3, and be forced to shoot them at least once contributing to their death in order to reach the win. If they die before you find out who they are and shoot them then you have to stick with survival, otherwise people with lists could win entirely on accident just because other people were interested in their death. Edited August 8, 2014 by Vhaltz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.