Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Episode 14 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 27 2017, 10:28:31 PM (1,510 Views) | |
| Lucy | May 27 2017, 10:28:31 PM Post #1 |
![]()
|
Clarence was... Spoiler: click to toggle
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Gervase | May 30 2017, 12:35:34 AM Post #91 |
![]()
Courtney (Reck)
|
wow......u mean...........................codes literally fly against the point of this whole mechanic? wow im shook |
![]() |
|
| Gervase | May 30 2017, 12:42:33 AM Post #92 |
![]()
Courtney (Reck)
|
look "go back to the original plan" or "plan b" is something because it's forced to be said publicly and then people get to see "oh hey I have no clue what Plan B means therefore I'm fucked" and can use that info couching codes among emojis and LOL/LMAO variants just means some people won't have any clue there was a code in the first place. that is very very dumb. the cool thing about the No PMs mechanic was that in order to be forthright with someone, you had to be a bit more...forthright. you had to risk saying something in front of the people you were around. it forced more "obvious" alliances that could be countered. I think "add more chat groups" is a really bad idea for this format, tbh instead, I would say to ban codes and rather than doing "chat bids" (which are pretty random tbh), do some kind of invitation-based system where people can be invited along with other people publicly and everyone sees those people wander off together you got close here but the chat bids made things nuts since other people didn't know if someone was with someone else; didn't know if someone was off searching for the idol; etc. i actually think LESS chat groups is a good thing because like, during tribe phase, it was just people in groups of 2. it left no room for a majority alliance of four to just walk away as an alliance of four and be like "here's the plan". when you artificially limit group sizes, it creates that potential problem. i love this mechanic and i think it's probably the thing that could elevate the game, but: - codes need to be straight up outlawed - chat groups need to be more based on invitation/social mechanics rather than challenge/stamina mechanics - who bid on who/invited who/who's together needs to be more public so those on the bottom have a better opportunity to see - less chat groups; larger potential chat group numbers [sliding scale?] |
![]() |
|
| Stacy | May 30 2017, 12:52:12 AM Post #93 |
![]()
Empking's Alt's Alt
|
Abolishing chat bids and making it so people would have to invite others publically is a good idea, yeah. |
![]() |
|
| Lucy | May 30 2017, 03:19:44 AM Post #94 |
![]()
|
FYI: Pre-Jury post counts: Jaclyn 419 Stephanie 870 Sierra 942 Katie 650 Tasha 174 Courtney 398 Sundra 280 Neal 253 Russell 414 Sean 49 Jimmy 32 |
![]() |
|
| Parvati | May 30 2017, 04:00:22 AM Post #95 |
![]()
|
The 6 person water alliance was one of the best parts of the game, yeah. (or rather the fallout thereof!) If you say 'all codes are illegal' is saying 'plan b' illegal because that's a code? |
![]() |
|
| Matt | May 30 2017, 06:47:36 AM Post #96 |
![]()
|
Language itself is a code |
![]() |
|
| Ken | May 30 2017, 07:25:54 AM Post #97 |
![]()
|
No |
![]() |
|
| Dawson | May 30 2017, 08:41:10 AM Post #98 |
![]()
|
It actually seems, really easy to ban codes? I'm defining "code" as something where it's explicitly said in a group that "me saying this means this". So like when you've agreed to assign a slate of emojis to each player left in the game, and then when you use one that means the vote is on them, that's a code. But if you're just like "Plan B" or something, that's not a code (unless you agreed on it as one, but that means you'd be modkilled). That means you discussed two plans and you want someone to go with the second, but you know have keyed everyone in on a switch in plans. And you can potentially bluff and say "Plan B" even though you don't want them to switch. |
![]() |
|
| Edna | May 30 2017, 09:54:23 AM Post #99 |
![]()
Steph
|
Plan A: Vote Cydney Plan B: Vote John Plan C: Vote T-Bird is that a code |
![]() |
|
| Dawson | May 30 2017, 10:00:50 AM Post #100 |
![]()
|
No. You're demonstrating to your allies that you want a plan to go in affect, and if someone who isn't your ally sees that, they know something is afoot and they need to act accordingly. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · SPECS! · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:57 PM Jul 11
|
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy















2:57 PM Jul 11