|
King of Solomon posted:Looking over it again, yeah, you did. Unfortunately, taking the AB game out of the context of the Nonary Game as a whole (and the penalty of failing to escape) isn't a good idea. Uh... I think you missed the whole point of my post!
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
slowbeef posted:Uh... I think you missed the whole point of my post! Hm, maybe I did. I'm just pointing out that, by keeping the AB Game in context of the Nonary Game, while a net neutral is a lesser punishment than a loss of points, it's still a punishment and thus appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Hm, maybe I did. I'm just pointing out that, by keeping the AB Game in context of the Nonary Game, a net neutral is a lesser punishment than a loss of points (while simultaneously not really being a benefit.) Right, gotcha. Let me try to clarify what I meant. The whole idea behind Prisoner's Dilemma is both parties lose out (hence "Dilemma"). It's the best they can do because they can't guarantee getting out the sucker's bet. But it's supposed to hurt. They're supposed to lose something. If they both lose nothing in double betrayal, it's not a great application of the Prisoner's Dilemma and I'd even go farther and say "it's a little wrong if you want to do it and compare it to PD." That's my point. Yes, in the grander context, you can say the Nonary Game in general "fixes" it, but I'm just saying that makes the Ambidex Game on its own a poor implementation of PD. Furthermore, I think it would've been more interesting to tweak the numbers so double-betrayal does lose you BP, and to see the character interactions afterwards, but it's possible that doesn't quite work in the confines of the story, so who knows. edit: Eh, maybe you do have a point. I donno. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Whew, Blazed through the 999 thread and this one in the past week and it's really interesting, and I love me some game theory, but mentioning about the most recent stuff I think slowbeef's right. The best example I can give is the situation alice's in right now. A. whoever she comes against she allies with and has a non 0% chance of dying B. "gently caress you got mine until-" 1. "either I get someone elses points after they ally" 2. "you also betray, you get no points, and I get no points, and we all just jack off another round" "or someone leaves before us which makes this entire point moot because I'm behind and probably going to die anyway" it's the slow spiral down that you can't pull out of and I'm expecting someone later in the game to say "gently caress it I'm doing nothing but betraying and I'm making it obvious I don't care" What makes this interesting though is, As opposed to other game theory stuffs. You CAN win. If a pair betrays a solo, the solo loses two points, but the pair individually gains 3, each. They COULD get together and say "well we have X points, we can work it out so we will all hit 9 at the same time approximately, and if we follow these rules of making sure one person can get 3 points in a pair, lose 2 in a solo, they create 3 points for 2 people and one person loses 2, giving you +4 points flying around created from the aether. A person can donate their points until they're down to 1 or 2, then betray until some kind soul gives them and another person some points in a betrayal, then keep going around until surprise they're all at 9 at the same time! I didn't work out the math because I'm not that nerdy but I'd be interested to see a game theorist come in and say "OH yeah not only can you do that but if literally everyone betrays except for N people they can ensure that they can not only all hit 9 at the same time, but they can also make sure that person who didn't do anything but betray doesn't get any points." Short version: This is my interpretation of what makes the concept bleh and why the numbers need tweaking I think. Edit: Also forgot to mention, anyone not at 9 realizing someone will get at 9 is an "I have a non 0% chance of losing right here right now as they can just walk out and SUPER betray, I MUST betray and not let them get 9" so that would have to be another thing to look at if we're taking in the game theory stuff too, but it means that nobody will hit 9 unless whoever trusts them in are dumb, or they really want them to be able to say gently caress you and walk out. Forer fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
You know what else? If you end up with two opponents with 1 BP each, they have no choice but to betray. There's not enough gain to ally in the chance you get screwed over, and it becomes a pointless option. But if both opponents have 1 BP, and double-betrayal loses them 1 BP... guess what? Well, now they have to ally with each other right? Or they'll both die. ...Except, you know... You do have that "guarantee" they'll pick Ally. And that'd net you +3 BP and you're that much farther from death... ...wait, poo poo. Aren't they thinking that about you too? Welcome back to Prisoner's Dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
Phelddagrif posted:I'm guessing that the "auto-ally" rule for those who don't vote will have to change for the next rounds (auto-betray, perhaps?) since the players know what ally means now. Otherwise, they could just agree as a group to not play the AB game at all. Everyone stays out of the rooms, everyone allies, everyone gets 2 points risk-free. An auto-betray default seems pointless. I mean, if it says something like "If no votes are registered, everyone will auto-betray" then everyone will either vote normally, or just pick betray to avoid losing points. Auto-ally has a far greater risk and therefore more incentive for people to go into the booths to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
lotus circle posted:I have to say, I'm looking forward to the next voting round and seeing what those reading blind will choose. It'll be a different voting process than we had the first time, where you were just picking who looked interesting. Now you need to actually think on who would benefit you best during the AB Game. That makes me wonder if the voting site can be set up with a second question of "have you played this." Not to weight the vote (it would be silly to weight the vote), but just to see if there's a difference between how they vote and how the blind watchers vote. The blind guys are probably going to vote for strategy, while those who have played will likely be aiming for specific scenes. Of course there will be the "trying to find an excuse to sway public opinion without revealing something nifty happens there" factor, but I'd still be curious in seeing both sets of results.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:An auto-betray default seems pointless. I mean, if it says something like "If no votes are registered, everyone will auto-betray" then everyone will either vote normally, or just pick betray to avoid losing points. What I mean is, unless the rules change, there's nothing stopping everyone from just hanging out together outside the AB rooms until time runs out. If not participating sets your vote to ally, then everyone will be guaranteed to get 2 points. The only risk at that point is whether nobody will go through the number 9 door until everyone gets 9 BP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Phelddagrif posted:I'm guessing that the "auto-ally" rule for those who don't vote will have to change for the next rounds (auto-betray, perhaps?) since the players know what ally means now. Otherwise, they could just agree as a group to not play the AB game at all. Everyone stays out of the rooms, everyone allies, everyone gets 2 points risk-free. Yeah, if everyone agrees, but now you have the chance for that one jerk to go "I want 3 points this round..." Wait. What if that jerk's your opponent this round? Yours, Phelddagrif! In fact it's King of Solomon! And he's telling everyone it's really Prisoner's Dilemma after all! Oh no! poo poo, you can't let him get away with that, he's totally picking betray even though he said he wasn't! You can't possibly let your room auto-ally! Prisoner's Dilemma, baby!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
As for discussing whether this is a "true" Prisoner's Dilemma, it should be noted that in addition to all the game theory on the classic Dilemma, there's a lot of additional study into variants and how that changes the optimal strategy. This is a PD-style game, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:As for discussing whether this is a "true" Prisoner's Dilemma, it should be noted that in addition to all the game theory on the classic Dilemma, there's a lot of additional study into variants and how that changes the optimal strategy. This is a PD-style game, regardless. Eh, probably shouldn't have gotten into this so close to bedtime. Alright, I'll concede I haven't learned PD in years (Game Theory came up in my Defense Theory class, and we did a couple - PD was awesome.) So, sure, maybe I shouldn't have said it was "wrong" as I never went into Game Theory on its own. I will say that: 1. I like the Ambidex game because it is kinda intense when you play 2. I think it's serviceable for the story, and a great idea in general 3. The numbering system bothers the poo poo out of me. I mean +3 isn't such a great jump over +2, and again, 0 doesn't seem to do anything. I think they were still working in the confines of 9 being an important number, and it just ends up ... I don't know. Again, maybe it's my preconception of Prisoner's Dilemma. Anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
slowbeef posted:Actually VLR gets Prisoner's Dilemma a little wrong. Double betrayal should hurt both the prisoners (but less so than being betrayed). As it stands, double betrayal doesn't really do anything to the "prisoners." "Hurt" is a matter of perspective. Even without the "race to 9" aspect, the only really important thing in defining the payoffs in the Prisoner's Dilemma is that the Betrayal Payoff is greater (but not disproportionately so) than the Mutual Alliance Payoff, which is greater than the Mutual Betrayal Payoff, which is greater than the Got Betrayed Payoff. The "game" is only between the players. Absolute changes in points aren't really important. There's no rule that says you have to take any kind of loss in relation to anything other than the theoretical maximum gain - all that matters is that the payoffs are prioritized in that order. In the classic Prisoner's Dilemma, the payoffs are 3 years, 2 years, 1 year and 0 years (and 2*-1 is greater than 0-3). Here, they're -2 points, 0 points, 2 points and 3 points (and 2*2 is greater than 3-2). The proportions are a little different but all the conditions hold. The only thing that makes the AB Game different is that the payoffs and boundary conditions are framed in a way that allows for the game to continue indefinitely with everyone betraying eachother continually (something something Nash Equilibrium) but that still doesn't make it not a prisoner's dilemma formally. E:f;maybe I took a bit too long
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
slowbeef posted:You know what else? If you end up with two opponents with 1 BP each, they have no choice but to betray. There's not enough gain to ally in the chance you get screwed over, and it becomes a pointless option. In this situation if your opponent picks betray you're dead regardless of your choice. There is no real dilemma, your decision just becomes "do I kill the rear end in a top hat too or give him some safety?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:In this situation if your opponent picks betray you're dead regardless of your choice. There is no real dilemma, your decision just becomes "do I kill the rear end in a top hat too or give him some safety?" Yeah but with stakes being what they are, it's best for both of you to pick Ally. Neither of you can guarantee it and save yourselves. That's the dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
slowbeef posted:Yeah but with stakes being what they are, it's best for both of you to pick Ally. My perspective says that at the 1 BP level, leaving it at 0 points changed actually introduces a dilemma. See, in that case you have some agency. If your opponent picks betray, and you pick ally, you're hosed. But if you pick betray you're safe (and can potentially gain more points than ally, even!) but you stand a chance of killing your also-1point partner. In the case of -1, my perspective is "if he picks betray, I'm dead regardless, so I may as well pick ally" or "If he picks betray, I'm dead regardless, and I never liked him anyways, so I may as well pick Betray." There's no guarantee of salvation, but there IS a guarantee of death if your opponent picks betray, which completely removes your agency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:My perspective says that at the 1 BP level, leaving it at 0 points changed actually introduces a dilemma. See, in that case you have some agency. If your opponent picks betray, and you pick ally, you're hosed. But if you pick betray you're safe (and can potentially gain more points than ally, even!) but you stand a chance of killing your also-1point partner. The idea of multiple people each struggling to make the best decision they can in light of the perceived strategies of their opponent(s) and concluding that neither they nor their opponent(s) can afford to change their own strategy while their opponent(s) and they do not is such an intriguing one that a highly eccentric and slightly mentally ill mathematician wrote a groundbreaking paper on the subject that revolutionized the field of both economics and game theory and later had a best-selling book written about his life (which would later be adapted into an award-winning film).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:My perspective says that at the 1 BP level, leaving it at 0 points changed actually introduces a dilemma. See, in that case you have some agency. If your opponent picks betray, and you pick ally, you're hosed. But if you pick betray you're safe (and can potentially gain more points than ally, even!) but you stand a chance of killing your also-1point partner. There's no dilemma in the 1 vs 1 scenario with VLR. Look, if you have 1 BP and the other person has 1 BP, guess what? There's no choice! You have to pick betray, or you might die! If you pick betray, you can't die, so you lose nothing. There's no dilemma. You're just being an idiot if you pick Ally, because the penalty for potential loss is too high. You can't measure it in BP anymore. If you're facing death (by losing 1 BP), then you do have an option. Since you're both potentially going to die, you have a chance to save both of yourselves, by trying to convince the other guy to ally with you. And now they've actually got incentive to do it, since they don't want to die either! You can escape the dilemma! You won't definitely die! But you can't ever guarantee it. I know you're trying to say "what if the guy always betrays" but... that kinda negates any sort of argument about this (especially because he dies too.) The whole point of this is you're not supposed to know what the other person is definitely going to do. edit: Is there a graceful way I can bow out of this til tomorrow? I'm tired and I forgot why this was so important five minutes ago. slowbeef fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
slowbeef posted:edit: Is there a graceful way I can bow out of this til tomorrow? I'm tired and I forgot why this was so important five minutes ago. I get the feeling I'd just more or less quote myself if this went on anyways, so feel free. I see your point, I just don't really agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
slowbeef posted:
It may help if you think in terms of goals rather than raw numbers. If it was 2 years vs 3 years it'd be different but --2 successful betrays gets you out while it takes 3 successful allies. --Anyone betrayed in round 1 drops to 1 BP, while 2 would also be functionally identical this adds a dramatic element of hanging on the edge of death. --The punishment for mutual betraying is "you tried to kill me!" rather than getting closer to death yourself. Also that you've just lost a round and need to pull off a backstab to get out at the same time as the ideal mutual-allying folks. It's a system designed for drama rather than some overall long-run strategy. The small point differences mean that when anyone gets out it's likely someone else is one or two points behind, and second place is first dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
I'd expect this game would stabilize with everyone constantly betraying barring at least some 'Cooperative' players. I think we could use some of the principles of the Iterated PD strategy to analyze strategy in this one. Consider the goal of the Cooperative player to be 'successfully exit with as many other players as possible'. To this end, the player would: * Not exit as soon as they reach 9 if other players are under 9. * Work to let any player with few points to raise their total. * Never allow for a death, including their own. * Block any Non-cooperative players from reaching 9 before anyone else. * Ignore past betrayals if they aided cooperation. The first three are easy to satisfy: If BP is 2 or lower, always Betray. Otherwise, always Ally with an opponent who is at or under 2 BP. It's the blocking, and the decision as to who is 'Non-cooperative' that is tough. I don't think there's a good way to definitely stop a win at the high end that doesn't lock up at some point (especially since the game as a whole only has one outcome and is not repeated). At best, it may be subjective based on behavior in intermediate scores. Here's a possibility for other cases : Against an unknown or C player who is at 6 or lower, Ally. Class a player who breaks this rule as NC. Against an NC player with 6 or more points, Betray. Obviously this fails to the 'false friend' who plays as a C up until they get 7 points and Betray you. But trying to block every possible win is just going to end up with a stalemate once everyone gets to a certain level. Pairs do cause a lot of upheaval, though. Consider a pair of (C1 - NC6). If Betrayal is expected from a C player with 1 point, then blocking the NC player at 6 is probably the best route to go. On the other hand we have a fair amount of choice as to who plays against whom, so matches like this can be minimized if not avoided entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Clearly the solution here is Grim Trigger always and forever.  We don't need no stinkin' Nash Equilibrium!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
You mean this guy? severely missed naming opportunity by that artist
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
slowbeef posted:There's no dilemma in the 1 vs 1 scenario with VLR. See, this is what I was trying to disagree with. We, as humans in society, put ourselves in situations where others could kill us for personal gain all the time, and it doesn't happen that often. Certainly not three out of seven times or whatever. The issue is trust, as in 'Can I trust this person not to kill me?' And in a 1 point VS 1 point scenario, it's even less likely for somebody to pick betray; They'd have FOUR points instead of three, and would have gimped themselves for the rest of the game by showing that they're fine with betraying and killing other people, which is a big step away from betraying and putting somebody else in more danger by lowering their points. Even an utterly selfish person would understand the risk there; you have to take into account people's reactions to what you pick, as well as the numbers. Certainly, picking Ally is a bad choice in Classic Dilemma, because you don't get to talk with people. But I think, paired against somebody else with one point, going up to them and saying 'Hey, dude, let's pick Ally, eh?' would lower the chances that you'd get betrayed to negligible, assuming an intelligent actor in the other seat. ...Note that I wouldn't pick Ally in this situation against, say, Dio, because he's acting like a total rear end in a top hat, and not the brightest one. But most other people, at this point in time, seem like "safe" bets for not-murder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
How is betraying when you have 1 BP telling people you can't be trusted? It's basic survival instinct, which anyone should understand. You're doing it to save yourself. If you were starving and you killed a wild dog for food, are you telling people that you're into animal cruelty? Nope, you're doing it to survive. Allying even when you're in danger either shows that you definitely don't think the other person would betray you, or you're gullible enough to think the other person won't betray you. If I was against someone who only had 1 BP, I'd expect them to betray, and wouldn't really think anything bad about them if they did - I'd be doing the same thing. If they ally instead, it's a pleasant surprise if anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
ApplesandOranges posted:How is betraying when you have 1 BP telling people you can't be trusted? It's basic survival instinct, which anyone should understand. You're doing it to save yourself. If you were starving and you killed a wild dog for food, are you telling people that you're into animal cruelty? Nope, you're doing it to survive. If you agreed to ally with your opponent before entering the AB room, and then murdered them for an extra point (assuming a 1 BP vs 1 BP scenario), that would be a pretty good way to destroy everyone's trust. You could argue that you didn't trust the other guy to pick anything other than betray, but then you could have just told him straight out "I'm going to pick betray. You pick betray too, so no one dies." instead of agreeing to ally when you had no intention to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
ApplesandOranges posted:How is betraying when you have 1 BP telling people you can't be trusted? It's basic survival instinct, which anyone should understand. You're doing it to save yourself. If you were starving and you killed a wild dog for food, are you telling people that you're into animal cruelty? Nope, you're doing it to survive. But your opponent's not a wild dog, s/he's also starving to death, and there's a big fat boar right in front of you and you could share the meat if you killed it together. You COULD try to kill the other starving person and get even more meat, but then that makes you a murderer (and a cannibal), so now no one else in the group wants to hunt with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
DarkHamsterlord posted:If you agreed to ally with your opponent before entering the AB room, and then murdered them for an extra point (assuming a 1 BP vs 1 BP scenario), that would be a pretty good way to destroy everyone's trust. You could argue that you didn't trust the other guy to pick anything other than betray, but then you could have just told him straight out "I'm going to pick betray. You pick betray too, so no one dies." instead of agreeing to ally when you had no intention to do so. I don't think anyone's trying to claim that, if you both have 1 BP, it's okay to trick your opponent into thinking you're going to ally and then kill them by betraying. The post you were replying to didn't make any mention of discussion beforehand; it was just pointing out that a person with 1 BP would be expected to betray in most situations, and that that would be understandable. In a mutual 1 BP scenario where I didn't have time to communicate with my opponent (of course this is a situation that's unlikely to come up in the game itself), I'd trust that the opponent was going to betray and pick 'betray' myself. If they allied, I'd be horrified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
Terper posted:But your opponent's not a wild dog, s/he's also starving to death, and there's a big fat boar right in front of you and you could share the meat if you killed it together. You COULD try to kill the other starving person and get even more meat, but then that makes you a murderer (and a cannibal), so now no one else in the group wants to hunt with you. No, no, no, this is the Prisoner's Dilemma, not the Stag Hunt!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
There's an additional confounding factor here - the potential that one of the players is a traitor who is attempting to kill the others while (presumably) not being subject to the penalties themselves. That player will want to betray as frequently as they can while concealing their actions. They would always betray in the first round before the rest of the players knew the rules, and then betray as often as they could afterward to drive point totals down. They probably wouldn't kill the first player themselves, but would not hesitate to do so afterward once the precedent is set. Another confounding factor is the game master (Zero III), who may alter some or all of the rules to aid the traitor. Changing auto-ally to auto-betray on the fly (say, if people elect to stay out of the rooms) or other rules alterations can change strategies. One of the better strategies might be a mutual pact - anyone who chooses betray will be killed (or disabled if anyone finds a rope) by all the other members. Presumably the rest of the players could disable whoever the traitor was. This is further confounded by K, who may or may not be a robot that could not be disabled by humans. I advocate teaming up with K since we need to betray someone to protect Alice, and of all the players he's the one we can most easily say that we don't trust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 09:44
|
|
|
Added Space posted:
The problem with this statement is the 2 people with 1 point now. Unless they make good betrayals, someone else is going to reach 9 first before them if everyone agrees to ally. There is no reason for them to agree to the strategy unless it is also agreed that everyone will leave together, which is not going to happen with some of these people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
Fedule posted:No, no, no, this is the Prisoner's Dilemma, not the Stag Hunt! slowbeef posted:If you end up with two opponents with 1 BP each, they have no choice but to betray. slowbeef posted:Look, if you have 1 BP and the other person has 1 BP, guess what? There's no choice! Stanley Milgram posted:
 ), but within the bounds of the AB Game as we've seen so far, there is a choice - ally or betray. You may think that a particular option is dumb or that no-one would blame you for choosing betray to save yourself even knowing it might kill someone, but that doesn't stop the choice from existing. Some people would behave egotistically in a life-or-death situation, some people would behave altruistically. Most people don't know which they'd do until they have to make the choice, and what's 'they have no choice but to...' for one person could be very different from of what's 'they have no choice but to...' for another. "Anyone would have done the same" is very rarely true (see also: the bystander effect, alluded to by Added Space below).Added Space posted:There's an additional confounding factor here - the potential that one of the players is a traitor who is attempting to kill the others while (presumably) not being subject to the penalties themselves. That player will want to betray as frequently as they can while concealing their actions. They would always betray in the first round before the rest of the players knew the rules, and then betray as often as they could afterward to drive point totals down. They probably wouldn't kill the first player themselves, but would not hesitate to do so afterward once the precedent is set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
kiffkin posted:Reading back over the last few pages, it's looking more like the Milgram Experiment. There's no choice! I had to kill [person]! [authority figure] told me to do it! There's a difference, I think, between pressing the 'you might kill someone' button simply because someone in a labcoat told you to and pressing it because the alternative is the 'you might die' button. If your opponent isn't someone you know and trust, choosing 'Ally' in a 1BP-1BP situation is an incredibly brave thing to do. Doubly so because you know that it would also be an incredibly brave thing for your opponent to do. If they're not as brave as you, you'll die. If they think you're not brave enough, you'll die. (EDIT: Ah, right, sorry for misunderstanding.) Rith fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
I'm talking about the discussion in the thread, not the game itself (to start with anyway, I do come back to the game after that line); sorry I didn't make that clear. I've been away for a few days and I'm just catching up and reading most of the AB Game discussion at once, and there's a clear shift in tone as time goes on. I agree with you regarding the game, though.
kiffkin fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:I disagree, I think +/- 0 is appropriate for mutual betrayal. Consider that they are essentially in a race to 9 points. Losing points is the worst thing that can happen, and will kill you if you lose enough of them. Fail to escape, which is possible, and you are effectively dead. You aren't killed immediately like if you go below 0 points, but the number 9 door only opens once. Once it closes, escape is not possible. You will die in that facility. But it's not really a race, at least, not initially it wasn't. When everyone had equal points, an ally-ally outcome would have meant that every single player could have accrued 6 points to their goal of 9, and then left simultaneously. Once points became unbalanced, however, that's obviously out the window, somewhat. Of course, given that we're looking at a scenario where it's entirely likely that we have people who'd like nothing more than to see their companions dead, all of this 'perfect scenario' theorycrafting falls apart (as interesting as it is).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
Alright, one more short update (coupled with a meaningless poll!) and we're back to the meatier stuff. (I just really, really wanted to end updates at those two points, is all.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
VLR OST: [Sinisterness] Listen in: [English/Japanese] If I could just get my hands on that little fucker, I'd squeeze him til he popped. That sounds... gross. I don't really want to think about that. We've still got a while until the Chromatic Doors open. Maybe there's a vent or a disposal chute or something. If there's a chance Zero missed something... We lose nothing by looking, and if we find nothing we can always return and go through the Chromatic Doors. Five minutes would give us a good half-hour or so... Let's meet in front of the Chromatic Doors 5 minutes before they open, then. Any objections? After some nods and mumbling, they split up and moved off to investigate. I was the only person who stayed behind. [Music fades out] Why... Why me? ... 999 OST: [Imaginary] 999 OST: [Riddle and Puzzle] [Music fades out] Nothing happened. ...Huh? I jiggled the key in the slot and tried again. And again. And again. On the fifth try, the engine made an odd creaking noise, like metal on metal, and fell silent. Goddamnit! You stupid piece of poo poo! What the hell is this! Why is my car smoking!? poo poo! Open, goddamnit! VLR OST: [Placidity] So I shook my head to clear it, stood up straight, and headed off. I'm just gonna come right out and say that, like with the hunt for Snake in 999, this doesn't really affect much, but I figured a quick poll to decide where to go first can't hurt. Fedule fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
Just a friendly reminder that voting is being handled offsite! Find it here! Vote for however many choices you feel like voting for. We'll visit them in order of popularity, first to least. Poll'll be open for a little while but not as long as the last one. E: Please ignore that I forgot that Votes is labeled Subjects, s'too late to change it now! EE: That's long enough! Fedule fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
Rith posted:There's a difference, I think, between pressing the 'you might kill someone' button simply because someone in a labcoat told you to and pressing it because the alternative is the 'you might die' button. If your opponent isn't someone you know and trust, choosing 'Ally' in a 1BP-1BP situation is an incredibly brave thing to do. Doubly so because you know that it would also be an incredibly brave thing for your opponent to do. If they're not as brave as you, you'll die. If they think you're not brave enough, you'll die. Fedule posted:
Not that the alternative sounds much better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
There should be a real reason why Sigma is involved in the game. "Stable time loop" is not a real reason, and in this case, it would be far too repetitive. Splitting up worked really well the last time.  But then again the rules here are different. Killing someone for won't be helpful in this case because you need to get through the doors... no wait. A dead person would auto-ally, so that's 3 points for free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:There should be a real reason why Sigma is involved in the game. "Stable time loop" is not a real reason, and in this case, it would be far too repetitive. You don't need them to go through the doors, either, just their bracelet! Also, I turn away from this thread for a day and suddenly it's full of game theory. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:06
|
|
