Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
aka Ami <3
Gender: Female
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 1694
It's been super chaotic lately.
Again, I'm really sorry for not being much of help, and especially sorry for not contacting y'all sooner.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
If you had truly devised a solution and believed in it, why not keep working at it? I was co-operating, the bomb kept anyone from going anywhere, there were still rooms to explore which would have given more ideas to help solve the game. You opted for an all-or-nothing incorrect solution.
"Solving the game" you did not.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
Franzise Deauxnim wrote:
You might notice it has nine letters like the others. Well, a number and eight letters, but let's not pick nits, okay? If you apply the key, 345678912, to it, you'll get 0ISNTHERE.
Wait, was the key anywhere in the game?
Pierre wrote:
To me it sounds like an attempt to shirk off any blame for making a wrong decision that ended the game in a loss for everyone. You have been confirmed to be wrong in your actual solution and now you are trying to say "well it's other people's fault we acted that way" when it was just a rash action in anyone's eyes. Backtracking to a "what if" theory that you had ages ago is not "solving the game" because ultimately you did not stick to that plan. You crumpled up that piece of paper and tossed it in the wastebin.
If you had truly devised a solution and believed in it, why not keep working at it? I was co-operating, the bomb kept anyone from going anywhere, there were still rooms to explore which would have given more ideas to help solve the game. You opted for an all-or-nothing incorrect solution.
"Solving the game" you did not.
If you had truly devised a solution and believed in it, why not keep working at it? I was co-operating, the bomb kept anyone from going anywhere, there were still rooms to explore which would have given more ideas to help solve the game. You opted for an all-or-nothing incorrect solution.
"Solving the game" you did not.
To me it sounds like you're attempting to shirk off any blame for making the wrong decision--not trusting me/figuring out what I was saying
As I told you, I didn't believe in the solution anymore because the other players were making it clear it wasn't the case. And the game wouldn't have ended had I gotten the input device. Without it, I wasn't sure that the bomb was keeping anyone from going anywhere
And as I said, you don't have to call it me solving the game. You can say:
JesusMonroe wrote:
"Jumpfight, Cold, and I realized the solution to the game on the very first phase. However, other players not realizing the solution caused us to pursue a different avenue. We feel we are not to blame here because pursuing the original avenue would be going against what the entire thread was telling us and therefore would not be a practical option. Had the other players listened, the game would've ended in three ally rounds very quickly."
You can't deny that I figured out the game sooner than any other player and YOU came to an incorrect conclusion when jumpfight explicitly told you what was going on
My "solution" only works when everyone cooperates. Nobody was willing to
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
It sounds like you cannot admit a mistake.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
Jumpfight=cooperated
Cold=cooperated
Pierre=didn't believe the solution and accused me and Cold of working with each other after hearing the solution
Slezak=didn't understand the solution
Giggles=knew the truth but chose to continue pursuing jumpfight since the alternative was that he was being lied to from the beginning
Ami=didn't realize the solution, went against the all betray plan, went afk
Nanjo=???? no clue. He realized the solution and didn't say anything
Cesar=didn't understand the solution
I can admit a mistake, but you can't say that you won't take any fault
As I said, by the end of the game jumpfight and I abandoned our original solution. That's why we believed there was a Zero in the game
Each person got a role PM saying there was a Zero in the game, the OP says "don't let Zero escape!", and the premise of the game pretty much relies on someone being Zero. It's not shocking to think that by the end of the game, we'd arrive at the solution, "Hey, maybe there is a Zero and it's the uncooperative players that are lying to us, not the GM"
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
JesusMonroe wrote:
As I said, my "solution" only worked if everybody cooperated. Pierre, tell me how I can get all these people to cooperate
Jumpfight=cooperated
Cold=cooperated
Pierre=didn't believe the solution and accused me and Cold of working with each other after hearing the solution
Slezak=didn't understand the solution
Giggles=knew the truth but chose to continue pursuing jumpfight since the alternative was that he was being lied to from the beginning
Ami=didn't realize the solution, went against the all betray plan, went afk
Nanjo=???? no clue. He realized the solution and didn't say anything
Cesar=didn't understand the solution
I can admit a mistake, but you can't say that you won't take any fault
As I said, by the end of the game jumpfight and I abandoned our original solution. That's why we believed there was a Zero in the game
Each person got a role PM saying there was a Zero in the game, the OP says "don't let Zero escape!", and the premise of the game pretty much relies on someone being Zero. It's not shocking to think that by the end of the game, we'd arrive at the solution, "Hey, maybe there is a Zero and it's the uncooperative players that are lying to us, not the GM"
Jumpfight=cooperated
Cold=cooperated
Pierre=didn't believe the solution and accused me and Cold of working with each other after hearing the solution
Slezak=didn't understand the solution
Giggles=knew the truth but chose to continue pursuing jumpfight since the alternative was that he was being lied to from the beginning
Ami=didn't realize the solution, went against the all betray plan, went afk
Nanjo=???? no clue. He realized the solution and didn't say anything
Cesar=didn't understand the solution
I can admit a mistake, but you can't say that you won't take any fault
As I said, by the end of the game jumpfight and I abandoned our original solution. That's why we believed there was a Zero in the game
Each person got a role PM saying there was a Zero in the game, the OP says "don't let Zero escape!", and the premise of the game pretty much relies on someone being Zero. It's not shocking to think that by the end of the game, we'd arrive at the solution, "Hey, maybe there is a Zero and it's the uncooperative players that are lying to us, not the GM"
I don't see why I should take fault for your bad decisions.
Besides I DID trust you at the endgame remember? I even divulged some of Trace's secrets to you, on the grounds that people need to co-operate if we are to figure this out. I started compiling lists of who people believed Zero was with the purpose of eliminating suspects.
There's things I did that were wrong sure, killing Cold was always going to be a gamble but eh it covered my back in case the "Multiple Zero" theory panned out.
If people had not believed me about my solution? I definitely wouldn't have taken an option that went against my own beliefs about a solution. I would have stuck to it and did what I could. This is shown when after failing to convince you of Cold's guilt I buckled down and took what little alliance I could get to follow through on my beliefs. Just two people. Myself and Giggles. You and Jumpfight did not however. When people were not convinced you effectively gave up the game on a plan you yourselves did not believe in. Only to claim "HAH I WAS RIGHT" later on.
Bottom line is: When you almost single-handedly lose the game by not sticking to your 'solution'. Do not gloat about how you "solved the game".
If you'd protested and insisted longer, you might have convinced more and more people of your belief. Not to mention the further revelations behind the other doors.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:14 am
Posts: 1
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
jumpfight5 wrote:
You guys know I'm a person too, right? I'm not some tool that Jesus used. I ended the game. I had no obligation to listen to Jesus.
Oh yeah Jumpy I don't have as much of a problem with that.
My main issue is in after being definitively proven wrong about ending the game prematurely. JM would go "Well I'm not one to boast but I Told ya so" without even so much as an admittance of apology beforehand.
It's alright to say "Well I guess I was right about that back then...wish I'd stuck with that plan" rather than "Well I was right, and it's everybody else's fault that I had to make a decision I KNEW was wrong."
It's his attitude that troubles me more than anything else.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
Pierre wrote:
There's things I did that were wrong sure, killing Cold was always going to be a gamble but eh it covered my back in case the "Multiple Zero" theory panned out.
If people had not believed me about my solution? I definitely wouldn't have taken an option that went against my own beliefs about a solution. I would have stuck to it and did what I could. This is shown when after failing to convince you of Cold's guilt I buckled down and took what little alliance I could get to follow through on my beliefs. Just two people. Myself and Giggles. You and Jumpfight did not however. When people were not convinced you effectively gave up the game on a plan you yourselves did not believe in. Only to claim "HAH I WAS RIGHT" later on.
Bottom line is: When you almost single-handedly lose the game by not sticking to your 'solution'. Do not gloat about how you "solved the game".
If you'd protested and insisted longer, you might have convinced more and more people of your belief. Not to mention the further revelations behind the other doors.
If people had not believed me about my solution? I definitely wouldn't have taken an option that went against my own beliefs about a solution. I would have stuck to it and did what I could. This is shown when after failing to convince you of Cold's guilt I buckled down and took what little alliance I could get to follow through on my beliefs. Just two people. Myself and Giggles. You and Jumpfight did not however. When people were not convinced you effectively gave up the game on a plan you yourselves did not believe in. Only to claim "HAH I WAS RIGHT" later on.
Bottom line is: When you almost single-handedly lose the game by not sticking to your 'solution'. Do not gloat about how you "solved the game".
If you'd protested and insisted longer, you might have convinced more and more people of your belief. Not to mention the further revelations behind the other doors.
Talk is talk. You say "I would have stuck to it and did what I could" but you're the same person who thought Cold was Zero and supposedly killed him for it, and then decided later that there possibly wasn't Zero. You went against your "beliefs" there
Theories change. It's part of these mafia-esque forum games. If you play a mafia game and stick with the same theories you formed D1, it probably won't work out
Hell, you had access to the same amount of information I did for this game
Jumpfight and I literally were screwed from the beginning. There was no chance in hell I could get everyone to cooperate in this game. I tried to get Giggles on my side many times but he always stubbornly refused because of jumpfight. I bet he'd even admit that my solution wouldn't work cause he'd never trust jumpfight
And you can't say we gave up when people weren't convinced. This game was a long process. You know that. The game was ended when we felt there weren't any alternate routes left
We would've hit the further revelations behind the other doors had well all-betrayed, as I've said
Anyway, it's clear we're not going to agree on this. All I'm saying is that I won't take fault for abandoning the correct solution (everybody works together) when it was clear that that solution was impossible--Nanjo lied, you didn't trust me or Cold even after we told you everything (you thought we were clearing each other????? Made no sense), Giggles would never trust jumpfight, and Ami was afk
Pierre wrote:
My main issue is in after being definitively proven wrong about ending the game prematurely. JM would go "Well I'm not one to boast but I Told ya so" without even so much as an admittance of apology beforehand.
It's alright to say "Well I guess I was right about that back then...wish I'd stuck with that plan" rather than "Well I was right, and it's everybody else's fault that I had to make a decision I KNEW was wrong."
It's alright to say "Well I guess I was right about that back then...wish I'd stuck with that plan" rather than "Well I was right, and it's everybody else's fault that I had to make a decision I KNEW was wrong."
The plan was impossible. It's futile to say "I wish I stuck with it"
To clarify, I'm not blaming everyone else. Sorry if it sounds like that. I don't expect everyone to come to the solution "the GM is lying."
However, you can't say that it's my fault the game ended the way it did. There's blame to share
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Quote:
Talk is talk. You say "I would have stuck to it and did what I could" but you're the same person who thought Cold was Zero and supposedly killed him for it, and then decided later that there possibly wasn't Zero. You went against your "beliefs" there
If I decided "later" that there was a possibility he wasn't Zero, how is that betraying my beliefs in the past when I killed him? It doesn't make sense. I trusted my Role PM at that point and killed him. I figured I'd either kill Zero in which case I'd be good but primarily if the rules were messed up then I'd be clear to leave (thereby guaranteeing Zero did not escape). I believed Cold was Zero, but if there was a screwy outcome to follow later down then line then at least I knew I could still escape by killing Cold. I still stayed true to my beliefs.
Quote:
Jumpfight and I literally were screwed from the beginning. There was no chance in hell I could get everyone to cooperate in this game. I tried to get Giggles on my side many times but he always stubbornly refused because of jumpfight. I bet he'd even admit that my solution wouldn't work cause he'd never trust jumpfight
And you can't say we gave up when people weren't convinced. This game was a long process. You know that. The game was ended when we felt there weren't any alternate routes left
We would've hit the further revelations behind the other doors had well all-betrayed, as I've said
And you can't say we gave up when people weren't convinced. This game was a long process. You know that. The game was ended when we felt there weren't any alternate routes left
We would've hit the further revelations behind the other doors had well all-betrayed, as I've said
Why is that? You already convinced me to work together again afterwards. I was in good favour with Trace and Giggles, if you had given it time we might have solved it. You even had the time, it's not like the bomb was going anywhere. This "we should have all-betrayed to prolong the game" is a nonsense thing to say considering the only reason the game ended prematurely is because of your actions anyway. If you wanted to wait for those revelations, you could have. You had no reason to believe anyone could escape with the bomb in position. Your "all betray" plan isn't what swayed this.
With time = revelations, if you had played out the game as planned you would have gotten further to the truth and that considered, we might have all escaped. There were alternatives plainly available to see.
Quote:
The plan was impossible. It's futile to say "I wish I stuck with it"
To clarify, I'm not blaming everyone else. Sorry if it sounds like that. I don't expect everyone to come to the solution "the GM is lying."
However, you can't say that it's my fault the game ended the way it did. There's blame to share
To clarify, I'm not blaming everyone else. Sorry if it sounds like that. I don't expect everyone to come to the solution "the GM is lying."
However, you can't say that it's my fault the game ended the way it did. There's blame to share
Sure, of course Jumpy can take half of the blame as well as he's pointed out.
It just seems narrowminded to say "Well not everyone trusts everyone, therefore my plan doesn't work, therefore there is no alternative but to destroy the base,"
I guess I'm just getting flashbacks to Ami's big reasoned explanation for why she had to kill the last mafia member in the CR Mafia game. People getting absolutely convinced they are right and there is no room for doubt that ultimately causes the downfall of everyone.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
Pierre wrote:
If I decided "later" that there was a possibility he wasn't Zero, how is that betraying my beliefs in the past when I killed him? It doesn't make sense. I trusted my Role PM at that point and killed him. I figured I'd either kill Zero in which case I'd be good but primarily if the rules were messed up then I'd be clear to leave (thereby guaranteeing Zero did not escape). I believed Cold was Zero, but if there was a screwy outcome to follow later down then line then at least I knew I could still escape by killing Cold. I still stayed true to my beliefs.
When I quoted Ami's "you haven't solved the game" post, think about the context of the situation
I'm not post-game gloating. You can't deny that when Ami said "you haven't solved the game" she was wrong and I was right. That's what I was gloating about
Quote:
Why is that? You already convinced me to work together again afterwards. I was in good favour with Trace and Giggles, if you had given it time we might have solved it. You even had the time, it's not like the bomb was going anywhere. This "we should have all-betrayed to prolong the game" is a nonsense thing to say considering the only reason the game ended prematurely is because of your actions anyway. If you wanted to wait for those revelations, you could have. You had no reason to believe anyone could escape with the bomb in position. Your "all betray" plan isn't what swayed this.
With time = revelations, if you had played out the game as planned you would have gotten further to the truth and that considered, we might have all escaped. There were alternatives plainly available to see.
With time = revelations, if you had played out the game as planned you would have gotten further to the truth and that considered, we might have all escaped. There were alternatives plainly available to see.
You couldn't even convince Slezak to give me the input device
As I'm sure Giggles will admit, there's no way he would've done any sort of plan cooperating with Giggles. And when the time came for the truth to be revealed, Nanjo stayed silent about the truth he knew
Quote:
Sure, of course Jumpy can take half of the blame as well as he's pointed out.
It just seems narrowminded to say "Well not everyone trusts everyone, therefore my plan doesn't work, therefore there is no alternative but to destroy the base,"
I guess I'm just getting flashbacks to Ami's big reasoned explanation for why she had to kill the last mafia member in the CR Mafia game. People getting absolutely convinced they are right and there is no room for doubt that ultimately causes the downfall of everyone.
It just seems narrowminded to say "Well not everyone trusts everyone, therefore my plan doesn't work, therefore there is no alternative but to destroy the base,"
I guess I'm just getting flashbacks to Ami's big reasoned explanation for why she had to kill the last mafia member in the CR Mafia game. People getting absolutely convinced they are right and there is no room for doubt that ultimately causes the downfall of everyone.
That's not what happened. You seem to be stuck with a weird version of events that didn't occur. If you want the rundown from my perspective, here it is
Spoiler: Run-Down
I cut out a lot of parts but that's not exactly "no alternative but to destroy the base."
And what makes you think the game going on longer would solve anything? Do you think anybody would figure out the key "345678912"? Maybe if it was "123456789" but I'm still doubtful then
And why are you acting as if I tried harder, you could get Giggles and Slezak on my side? When I tried harder, you immediately turned against me. Furthermore, you never trusted Cold
There is an undeniable truth that you keep dancing around: if everyone trusted/listened to me, the game's outcome would've been different. You can't deny that
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Quote:
I'm not post-game gloating. You can't deny that when Ami said "you haven't solved the game" she was wrong and I was right. That's what I was gloating about
I guess my problems weren't dissolving as I thought.
The possibility that there is no Zero has probably danced through a lot of people's heads. Whether an individual subscribes to that theory or not is what determines whether they "Solved the Game." You did not, and yet you are claiming you "solved the game" anyway.
It looks like an extremely ungracious way to attempt to save face having been confirmed to bear responsibility for the failure of the game.
Quote:
You couldn't even convince Slezak to give me the input device
As I'm sure Giggles will admit, there's no way he would've done any sort of plan cooperating with Giggles. And when the time came for the truth to be revealed, Nanjo stayed silent about the truth he knew
As I'm sure Giggles will admit, there's no way he would've done any sort of plan cooperating with Giggles. And when the time came for the truth to be revealed, Nanjo stayed silent about the truth he knew
Actually the case was I did not want to speak for Slezak. I didn't even approach him about giving you the device as you'd see if the QTs are revealed. I trusted him and he'd been good to me I didn't want to unveil his secrets full-blow like that. I recognised a need for co-operation and as such did not want to betray him full-forth while he was still trusting of me. Rather than encouraging co-operation if I'd betrayed him fully and he took it the wrong way then I'd just end up trading one partner for another rather than encouraging more people to engage with one another. Besides I tried to sell him on you but then the game ended quite abruptly so I had no chance for any further attempts at the keyboard.
Your argument is entirely based on assumptions at the time. Like I said there's no guarantee people's perspectives wouldn't have changed. You not murdering Slezak in the next round would have been a good show of faith and change towards the "No Zero" belief. That might have altered his perspective and other people's. There's so many more possibilities that could have occurred.
Quote:
I cut out a lot of parts but that's not exactly "no alternative but to destroy the base."
And what makes you think the game going on longer would solve anything? Do you think anybody would figure out the key "345678912"? Maybe if it was "123456789" but I'm still doubtful then
And why are you acting as if I tried harder, you could get Giggles and Slezak on my side? When I tried harder, you immediately turned against me. Furthermore, you never trusted Cold
And what makes you think the game going on longer would solve anything? Do you think anybody would figure out the key "345678912"? Maybe if it was "123456789" but I'm still doubtful then
And why are you acting as if I tried harder, you could get Giggles and Slezak on my side? When I tried harder, you immediately turned against me. Furthermore, you never trusted Cold
You missed out the part where you disable Giggles to ensure Jumpfight can go ahead with his plan and had previously agreed that a Zero loss was better than everybody else losing despite having made the argument against martyrism to take down Zero earlier on.
The Key might have been difficult to get but we already had most of the suspicions on the "Fake Zero" trail down (barring Ami of course). We could have come forth with such a plan (once again using particular wording) and then people would know that the roles were all bogus. Alternatively they could believe in the "One Zero" theory in which case they'd be screwed as there's no more doors to push anyone through. In any case there's more possibilities. The Key is the absolute answer, but we were already picking up the breadcrumbs on the trail of truth.
Quote:
There is an undeniable truth that you keep dancing around: if everyone trusted/listened to me, the game's outcome would've been different. You can't deny that
I suppose the problem I have is that statement reeks of arrogance. Trust is earned, not given....ESPECIALLY in a Mafia-esque game. It's actively WISE to distrust other people to a degree.
You CANNOT fault other people for not trusting you.
You CAN fault yourself for going against your own true feelings to choose a plan that deep down you know isn't the right answer.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
Pierre wrote:
The possibility that there is no Zero has probably danced through a lot of people's heads. Whether an individual subscribes to that theory or not is what determines whether they "Solved the Game." You did not, and yet you are claiming you "solved the game" anyway.
It looks like an extremely ungracious way to attempt to save face having been confirmed to bear responsibility for the failure of the game.
It looks like an extremely ungracious way to attempt to save face having been confirmed to bear responsibility for the failure of the game.
I had subscribed to it at that point. That's the theory I believed. So at that point, I was right and Ami was wrong. That can't debated.
That's all I was saying and now it's turned into this huge debate
Quote:
Your argument is entirely based on assumptions at the time. Like I said there's no guarantee people's perspectives wouldn't have changed. You not murdering Slezak in the next round would have been a good show of faith and change towards the "No Zero" belief. That might have altered his perspective and other people's. There's so many more possibilities that could have occurred.
You're assuming things, too. We don't know how the game would've ended
Hypothetically, let's say Franzise realized your kill was against the rules, invalidated it, and allowed me and Nanjo to kill Slezak. I then opt to leave you and Ami behind at the doors so Cold can betray you. It would be hard for you to trust me at this point, right?
Quote:
You missed out the part where you disable Giggles to ensure Jumpfight can go ahead with his plan and had previously agreed that a Zero loss was better than everybody else losing despite having made the argument against martyrism to take down Zero earlier on.
We couldn't trust Giggles. Even Giggles knows that we shouldn't trust him. He was baffled that people did trust him because he just kept betraying
Quote:
The Key might have been difficult to get but we already had most of the suspicions on the "Fake Zero" trail down (barring Ami of course). We could have come forth with such a plan (once again using particular wording) and then people would know that the roles were all bogus. Alternatively they could believe in the "One Zero" theory in which case they'd be screwed as there's no more doors to push anyone through. In any case there's more possibilities. The Key is the absolute answer, but we were already picking up the breadcrumbs on the trail of truth.
Again, these are assumptions
Quote:
I suppose the problem I have is that statement reeks of arrogance. Trust is earned, not given....ESPECIALLY in a Mafia-esque game. It's actively WISE to distrust other people to a degree.
You CANNOT fault other people for not trusting you.
You CAN fault yourself for going against your own true feelings to choose a plan that deep down you know isn't the right answer.
You CANNOT fault other people for not trusting you.
You CAN fault yourself for going against your own true feelings to choose a plan that deep down you know isn't the right answer.
I'm giving that statement because you were talking about how Ami was SO convinced she was right in that mafia game and then shot me. You're acting like it was the same thing here
It wasn't the same thing here, because I actually was right. Ami was wrong
And if you ever did realize the solution, you'd realize that there was no reason to distrust me. Jumpfight and Cold thought correctly in this regard. You did not, opting to ignore the solution and instead distrust me for no reason
And look at that bolded part. This contradicts what you first said. This means that I WAS subscribed to the "nobody is Zero" theory
If you want a roleplay answer, you can say that Neptune realized the evil of humanity and decided to go out with his friend rather than let murderers, liars, traitors, and a super-powerful AI escape into the world
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Quote:
I had subscribed to it at that point. That's the theory I believed. So at that point, I was right and Ami was wrong. That can't debated.
Well it's a shame you didn't stick with that conviction. As such I don't really think there's any pride to be had in saying "I solved the game" if you don't accept that solution. Like I said I'm sure many people considered the "no-zero" possibility at one point or another but it's whether we entertain and stick with that plan that matters.
Quote:
You're assuming things, too. We don't know how the game would've ended
No I'm not assuming, that would imply I KNOW how things would turn out. I merely wanted to say there were definite other possibilities in a situation where you claimed there was none and that the actions had to be done to deny Zero.
Quote:
Hypothetically, let's say Franzise realized your kill was against the rules, invalidated it, and allowed me and Nanjo to kill Slezak. I then opt to leave you and Ami behind at the doors so Cold can betray you. It would be hard for you to trust me at this point, right?
I'd be more frustrated at how messy and tangled the rules had become rather than Slezak's death. I like to maintain a bit of a fourth wall after all and this would break it entirely. Also at that point I'd still believe Cold was Zero so you'd still have my trust, maybe not my respect, but my trust.
Quote:
We couldn't trust Giggles. Even Giggles knows that we shouldn't trust him. He was baffled that people did trust him because he just kept betraying
Eh I trusted Giggles...as did you for a while based on how much information you shared with him.
Quote:
Again, these are assumptions
Not assumptions, possibilities. Alternatives in a situation where you could see none.
Quote:
I'm giving that statement because you were talking about how Ami was SO convinced she was right in that mafia game and then shot me. You're acting like it was the same thing here
It wasn't the same thing here, because I actually was right. Ami was wrong
And if you ever did realize the solution, you'd realize that there was no reason to distrust me. Jumpfight and Cold thought correctly in this regard. You did not, opting to ignore the solution and instead distrust me for no reason
And look at that bolded part. This contradicts what you first said. This means that I WAS subscribed to the "nobody is Zero" theory
If you want a roleplay answer, you can say that Neptune realized the evil of humanity and decided to go out with his friend rather than let murderers, liars, traitors, and a super-powerful AI escape into the world
It wasn't the same thing here, because I actually was right. Ami was wrong
And if you ever did realize the solution, you'd realize that there was no reason to distrust me. Jumpfight and Cold thought correctly in this regard. You did not, opting to ignore the solution and instead distrust me for no reason
And look at that bolded part. This contradicts what you first said. This means that I WAS subscribed to the "nobody is Zero" theory
If you want a roleplay answer, you can say that Neptune realized the evil of humanity and decided to go out with his friend rather than let murderers, liars, traitors, and a super-powerful AI escape into the world
I think we are discussing different things at this point.
I'm comparing Ami's shot in the Mafia game to you and Jumpfight's decision to blow up the base. Both were wrong decisions.
Also at the endgame I did trust you as I stated, I was actively working towards a solution with you at the end. If anything it was you that didn't trust me (not that I blame you considering what happened) but I always trusted you throughout. There was times I didn't share things with you when I knew you were trying to kill me or Trace but I never thought you were truly villainous.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff
Gender: Female
Location: In front of you
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:42 pm
Posts: 352
I didn't give you the input device because you tried to kill me (and would have if a rule slip-up hadn't occurred.)
You tried to kill me because I went against your plan.
I went against your plan because I felt like you were being a control freak, trying to push people around. It didn't help that at the time I thought you were Zero's assistant with Nanjo.
Look, I've already admitted I should have been more curious and trusting. However, THAT. DOES. NOT. GIVE. YOU. THE. RIGHT. to act so high-and-mighty that you had "solved the game" and then unsolved it. Don't we tend to realize that our second-guesses usually end up being worse than our first instincts?
As I typed before, you're like a spoiled kid who KNOWS THE RULES OF THE GAME, and when anyone stands in his way, he grabs his ball and runs off. In this case, you planned with Jumpfight to, let's face it, ruin the game for everyone else by abruptly ending it.
Why am I even trying to reason with you? It's JUST A GAME, and you're letting it stress you out once again. Can we just drop it and remember the, I don't know, FUN TIMES we had with this game? God you all take this game so damn seriously.
Thank you for reading. I hope you have a wonderful day.
100% pure Joy.
Excellent source of puns.
Refrigerate after opening.
100% pure Joy.
Excellent source of puns.
Refrigerate after opening.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
I do need to clarify that we weren't attempting to ruin the game, though. I don't want anyone to think we had intentions that petty
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
JesusMonroe wrote:
Fine, I'll drop it
I do need to clarify that we weren't attempting to ruin the game, though. I don't want anyone to think we had intentions that petty
I do need to clarify that we weren't attempting to ruin the game, though. I don't want anyone to think we had intentions that petty
I suppose if this is true I just expected a little remorse at having goofed up at the end rather than a declaration of "I solved the game take that Ami" instead.
Though its not to say I didn't have a lot of fun with the game. I just feel the premature ending left me wanting a bit.
If anything the fact people get passionate about the ending of the game is a sure sign they were enjoying it.
People were committed and emotionally invested in the ties they made here. I do indeed look forward to the next one.
Taking this moment to make a suggestion:
It seemed really odd to me in this game how people could pretty much be outed as totally suspicious or even killers without repercussions. Same with if you knew a kill was coming you could not defend against it.
How about a "watch" mechanic? At the start of each phase the players pm someone they want to "watch". They are then immune from any actions from that person as they cannot pull any secret actions on the wary person.
This would allow for a new role " Detective". The detective garners far more information when they watch someone. They learn what actions the person does (even on other people) and who the person talks privately to and how often (although not what they talked about). The catch is they know a serial killer is in the group and the killer is out to kill them if they can. Additionally because of the effort the detective puts into "watching" (more like stalking at this point) they cannot do any secret actions involving items or otherwise (private conversations are fine) any turn they choose to watch someone.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
Pierre wrote:
I suppose if this is true I just expected a little remorse at having goofed up at the end rather than a declaration of "I solved the game take that Ami" instead.
It's not "take that Ami, you suck." It's "take that, Ami!" the way you'd say it to a sibling after you finally beat them at...Mario Kart or something
Quote:
It seemed really odd to me in this game how people could pretty much be outed as totally suspicious or even killers without repercussions. Same with if you knew a kill was coming you could not defend against it.
How about a "watch" mechanic? At the start of each phase the players pm someone they want to "watch". They are then immune from any actions from that person as they cannot pull any secret actions on the wary person.
This would allow for a new role " Detective". The detective garners far more information when they watch someone. They learn what actions the person does (even on other people) and who the person talks privately to and how often (although not what they talked about). The catch is they know a serial killer is in the group and the killer is out to kill them if they can. Additionally because of the effort the detective puts into "watching" (more like stalking at this point) they cannot do any secret actions involving items or otherwise (private conversations are fine) any turn they choose to watch someone.
How about a "watch" mechanic? At the start of each phase the players pm someone they want to "watch". They are then immune from any actions from that person as they cannot pull any secret actions on the wary person.
This would allow for a new role " Detective". The detective garners far more information when they watch someone. They learn what actions the person does (even on other people) and who the person talks privately to and how often (although not what they talked about). The catch is they know a serial killer is in the group and the killer is out to kill them if they can. Additionally because of the effort the detective puts into "watching" (more like stalking at this point) they cannot do any secret actions involving items or otherwise (private conversations are fine) any turn they choose to watch someone.
[/quote]
I want to keep the next game under wraps but I do wanna say that I'll have a mechanic to "blacken" a player. If everybody thinks a player committed a crime and votes, the person convicted of the crime is blackened and can't do a lot of functions anymore
I'll keep in mind the "watch" mechanic, but I will say the other roles probably won't be added given the ones I have written up right now
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff
Gender: Female
Location: In front of you
Rank: Medium-in-training
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:42 pm
Posts: 352
It's a conspiracy! JM wanted to end the game early so he could work on his own Nonary Game full-time! *Gasp* Why did I not realize this before?Or, perhaps it's not like that at all...
Thank you for reading. I hope you have a wonderful day.
100% pure Joy.
Excellent source of puns.
Refrigerate after opening.
100% pure Joy.
Excellent source of puns.
Refrigerate after opening.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Just another day.
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:17 pm
Posts: 1393
pretty early on in the game jm and i both worked out no zero being a possibility of course i was still overly weary of slezak and hadn't had the chance to really try and disprove he wasn't or for that matter that the real zero could have been in the game still (which he wasnt...so...yea).
i think all of you are trying to pass the blame game way to much here in the end we all messed up and we all lost for it...but hey that's how this game was designed...to keep us all paranoid of one another and that paranoia kept us all in check...heck its that same paranoia that led to a certain someone deciding to try and escape without deactivating the bomb.
instead perhaps next time this will remind us it might not be bat to be a bit more trusting early game to give us all time to work out zeros identity, or lack of one.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:48 am
Posts: 7
JesusMonroe wrote:
Though I do want to ask Nanjo why he didn't say anything by the end of the game. I was operating under the assumption that the esper roles were me/Cold/jumpfight so I have no clue what he gained from following along with the "kill Pierre and Slezak" plan when he knew I was wrong
I thought Ami was Zero. I mean you guys had 3 people with the same role right? I reconciled it the same way you did. I thought Ami was Zero/Zero Sr./Bomber/Murderer etc. Since Ami's in-game behavior was so limited, it was open to that interpretation.
I didn't think you guys were wrong because I also didn't have the three of you or any of your three targets. All four of us, (JM, Jumpfight, Cold, and I) had 4 other players (Pierre, Slezak, Ami, and Cesar), so I thought the four other players could all have detrimental roles.
At the end of the game I claimed (practically) all of this to Lucky, trying to see if he knew of anyone else with the same role because I had my doubts. Unfortunately, he didn't respond.
Here's what I wrote in the qt to Lucky:
7+6 Quicktopic wrote:
"Add on to that fact, that I know of one other player who has implied they have the same role, and that it was on someone mutually exclusive to the "x is Zero" of the other three players. AND this player implied it at the beginning of the game, before Neptune had a chance to talk with Jumpfight and Cold, even.
THAT'S four players with this role, none of them point to each other! If you were privy to knowledge like that, how would you interpret it?
So it's
Jumpy->You
Cold->Trace
Neptune->Cesar
Y->X (Very likely this one is true)
None of these names show up twice. No two of these claims are mutually exclusive to one another! (well, I mean besides for the part that says "Zero" in stead of whatever role they actually have)
So if Cold and Jumpy are lying, what are Neptune and Y doing? Why do their roles point to players other than Jumpy and Cold?"
THAT'S four players with this role, none of them point to each other! If you were privy to knowledge like that, how would you interpret it?
So it's
Jumpy->You
Cold->Trace
Neptune->Cesar
Y->X (Very likely this one is true)
None of these names show up twice. No two of these claims are mutually exclusive to one another! (well, I mean besides for the part that says "Zero" in stead of whatever role they actually have)
So if Cold and Jumpy are lying, what are Neptune and Y doing? Why do their roles point to players other than Jumpy and Cold?"
I didn't have a clever innocuous way of claiming to JM, but I saw no reason to. I had a role that still didn't contradict the three of them.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
You gave me an answer that was no because you were cautious about punishment much like I was. I was trying to decipher whether you were one of the people who had a Zero. My thinking at the time was either everyone was Zero or the one person who isn't an Esper is Zero and I was trying to patch together the 'web' of suspicions that the role PM had laid out. Trying to find a hole in it if possible. If I didn't reply after it was because I was either suspicious of you as you didn't reveal (though I don't blame you for it) and wondering how to deal with you or because the game ended suddenly.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:25 am
Posts: 3541
JesusMonroe wrote:
Franzise Deauxnim wrote:
You might notice it has nine letters like the others. Well, a number and eight letters, but let's not pick nits, okay? If you apply the key, 345678912, to it, you'll get 0ISNTHERE.
Wait, was the key anywhere in the game?
Originally I wasn't going to since I thought the fact that the last password started with a number instead of being all letters like the others, combined with all the passwords being nine characters (it's the Nonary Game folks!) would have been enough of a hint, but in the end I changed my mind and would have included it in one of the last rooms.
Spoiler: Topic Dump
Spoiler: More fun(?) stuff
Also someone mentioned needing a new version of MAMA for Nonary Games and I'm up for discussing Nonary Edition Of Mandate Against Meta-Anything (NEO-MAMA). The biggest issue I currently see is pursuing victory conditions. In the last game, nearly half the players at some point flat-out stated at one point or another that they had no problem throwing away their chances to win if it meant stopping Zero. Of course some of those could have been bluffs, but in any case, as noble as it sounds, having that many people willing to give their lives up in an actual life-or-death game seems...
Taking that into account, I'd like to propose the following for future games: Pursuing your primary victory condition takes precedence over everything else, including preventing another player from winning whose victory would cause you to lose. There could, of course, be exceptions (maybe give certain players a Heroic Sacrifice trait with their roles or something along those lines), but that seems like a good rule of thumb. I mean, in the first game, my secondary win condition was to escape if Zero died, so I technically could have just outed Nego for an easy win, but that wouldn't have been very fun.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
I still think if that rule was in place beforehand...eh. The rules of these games get really shaky when something fundamental becomes untrue (like having no mafia in a mafia game)
Spoiler: NEO-MAMA DRAFT
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:25 am
Posts: 3541
JesusMonroe wrote:
Well, you were restricted from revealing Nego's identity so you just would've been modkilled
If I was restricted in that way you never told me :p
Spoiler:
just saiyan
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Quote:
Welcome to the Nonary Game!
Your bracelet number is 7 and you're currently a blue pair! Lucky you!
You also have a special role, yay! You're the esper and your power iiiiiiisss...
You know Cold52 is Zero.
HOW-EV-ER.
You may not at any point in the game tell anyone else you know this, directly or indirectly, in the main thread or in Quick Topics. You also may not imply that you're prevented from sharing this information. Same goes for your actual role name; at all times you must claim to be a vanilla player.
If you break any of these restrictions, you will be punished~
Your bracelet number is 7 and you're currently a blue pair! Lucky you!
You also have a special role, yay! You're the esper and your power iiiiiiisss...
You know Cold52 is Zero.
HOW-EV-ER.
You may not at any point in the game tell anyone else you know this, directly or indirectly, in the main thread or in Quick Topics. You also may not imply that you're prevented from sharing this information. Same goes for your actual role name; at all times you must claim to be a vanilla player.
If you break any of these restrictions, you will be punished~
Yeah I figured the 'indirectly' bit literally came under this and was getting really confused seeing people getting away with it.
My "most interesting QT" award goes to: Giggles and Dr Nanjo. It's super interesting watching people who end up on opposite sides of the conflict still try and maintain good relations.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:14 am
Posts: 1
I have a problem with this. If another player's victory would cause you to lose, then preventing this player from winning is pursuing your victory condition. A large factor of betraying in the AB Game is your opponent possibly being Zero. The whole POINT is to to prevent Zero from winning. Plus, by escaping, I was pursuing my victory condition. Not escaping could've been seen as a MAMA violation because MY victory condition needs to take precedence over everybody else's. This should be reworded
Anyway, when's the next Nonary Game? I thought it would start soon
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
jumpfight5 wrote:
"Pursuing your primary victory condition takes precedence over everything else, including preventing another player from winning whose victory would cause you to lose."
I have a problem with this. If another player's victory would cause you to lose, then preventing this player from winning is pursuing your victory condition. A large factor of betraying in the AB Game is your opponent possibly being Zero. The whole POINT is to to prevent Zero from winning. Plus, by escaping, I was pursuing my victory condition. Not escaping could've been seen as a MAMA violation because MY victory condition needs to take precedence over everybody else's. This should be reworded
Anyway, when's the next Nonary Game? I thought it would start soon
I have a problem with this. If another player's victory would cause you to lose, then preventing this player from winning is pursuing your victory condition. A large factor of betraying in the AB Game is your opponent possibly being Zero. The whole POINT is to to prevent Zero from winning. Plus, by escaping, I was pursuing my victory condition. Not escaping could've been seen as a MAMA violation because MY victory condition needs to take precedence over everybody else's. This should be reworded
Anyway, when's the next Nonary Game? I thought it would start soon
Nah you should play for your own success not another player's detriment. That player is a person before they are "Zero" or an "Esper" or anything. If you choose to actively interfere with someone else's victory simply on grounds that "they have already won" then you are just causing a detriment to their enjoyment of the game. Even then I'd say we could break it down into more specific goals.
The primary point I think in this game is rather than prevent Zero from winning, to escape and survive. Yes you should be free to sabotage other people, but only assuming you aren't sacrificing your own success to do so.
The first goal should always be: Escape and Survive (and in this order)
Then you should be free to follow whatever sub objectives you see fit but these subobjectives should not clash with the primary goal of escape and survive (the win condition).
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:14 am
Posts: 1
Sure, there was a bomb. However, we were all lied to at the beginning by the GM. We were told there was a Zero, there wasn't. We were told there was a bomber, there wasn't. We were told the bomb would go off...how was I supposed to know it would?
This game was a fun experiment. However, the GM of a game shouldn't be lying to the players so I think this game shouldn't be taken seriously at all when it comes to MAMA violations and the like
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:14 am
Posts: 1
Also, this. Why do you get to decide the order? You're literally deciding the rules of the game the way you see fit so I'm wrong
It doesn't even matter because this game was screwed up and already messed with the basic rules of the game (as Jesus said). You can't act like I broke any rules when the GM threw the rules out the window
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
jumpfight5 wrote:
Anyway, when's the next Nonary Game? I thought it would start soon
Oh, right. I decided my idea was probably too ambitious so it's tentatively cancelled
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
jumpfight5 wrote:
"The first goal should always be: Escape and Survive (and in this order)"
Also, this. Why do you get to decide the order? You're literally deciding the rules of the game the way you see fit so I'm wrong
It doesn't even matter because this game was screwed up and already messed with the basic rules of the game (as Jesus said). You can't act like I broke any rules when the GM threw the rules out the window
Also, this. Why do you get to decide the order? You're literally deciding the rules of the game the way you see fit so I'm wrong
It doesn't even matter because this game was screwed up and already messed with the basic rules of the game (as Jesus said). You can't act like I broke any rules when the GM threw the rules out the window
No but we're talking about for future clarification not the rules for now.
And because the Escape is meaningless if you don't survive. I suppose if I was to break the goals down further it'd be like this:
1st: SURVIVE
2nd: Escape without Zero.
3rd: Ensure Zero doesn't escape.
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:14 am
Posts: 1
JesusMonroe wrote:
jumpfight5 wrote:
Anyway, when's the next Nonary Game? I thought it would start soon
Oh, right. I decided my idea was probably too ambitious so it's tentatively cancelled
Why?
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
jumpfight5 wrote:
JesusMonroe wrote:
jumpfight5 wrote:
Anyway, when's the next Nonary Game? I thought it would start soon
Oh, right. I decided my idea was probably too ambitious so it's tentatively cancelled
Why?
It's kind of a whodunnit. Basically each player would get assigned a character with their own backstory. Essentially, each person has a piece of the puzzle. Once everything is put together, it becomes obvious who Zero is, who's good, who's evil, etc
However, a good person wouldn't be so willing to share their backstory. For example, your character could be named Jane Smith. If you reveal that because you feel you have nothing to hide, someone else's win condition could be "Kill Jane Smith" and now you've lost the game
I wrote the mystery/backstories but I decided not to run the game because I figured more people wanted a casual game rather than try to solve a mystery. I also don't want to break the precedents for forum Nonary Games
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:25 am
Posts: 3541
Pierre wrote:
jumpfight5 wrote:
"Pursuing your primary victory condition takes precedence over everything else, including preventing another player from winning whose victory would cause you to lose."
I have a problem with this. If another player's victory would cause you to lose, then preventing this player from winning is pursuing your victory condition. A large factor of betraying in the AB Game is your opponent possibly being Zero. The whole POINT is to to prevent Zero from winning. Plus, by escaping, I was pursuing my victory condition. Not escaping could've been seen as a MAMA violation because MY victory condition needs to take precedence over everybody else's. This should be reworded
Anyway, when's the next Nonary Game? I thought it would start soon
I have a problem with this. If another player's victory would cause you to lose, then preventing this player from winning is pursuing your victory condition. A large factor of betraying in the AB Game is your opponent possibly being Zero. The whole POINT is to to prevent Zero from winning. Plus, by escaping, I was pursuing my victory condition. Not escaping could've been seen as a MAMA violation because MY victory condition needs to take precedence over everybody else's. This should be reworded
Anyway, when's the next Nonary Game? I thought it would start soon
Nah you should play for your own success not another player's detriment. That player is a person before they are "Zero" or an "Esper" or anything. If you choose to actively interfere with someone else's victory simply on grounds that "they have already won" then you are just causing a detriment to their enjoyment of the game. Even then I'd say we could break it down into more specific goals.
The primary point I think in this game is rather than prevent Zero from winning, to escape and survive. Yes you should be free to sabotage other people, but only assuming you aren't sacrificing your own success to do so.
The first goal should always be: Escape and Survive (and in this order)
Then you should be free to follow whatever sub objectives you see fit but these subobjectives should not clash with the primary goal of escape and survive (the win condition).
This is essentially how I feel (minus the first goal being to escape and survive part since it's possible that isn't the player's primary goal but I digress) Throwing away any chance you have at winning yourself just to screw another player out of winning is just being spiteful and against the spirit of the game.
also in my defense the only thing I "lied" about was who was zero and I admit in hindsight that probably wasn't the best way to go about doing what I had in mind for the game
I never explicitly said there was a bomber though, just that there was a bomb
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:14 am
Posts: 1
It was an accident, but accidental MAMA violations are still MAMA violations. Forgetting the rule that you created made it so Cold immediately lost the game and it was more than unfair to Jesus and Nanjo. The phase should've started over with Slezak dead. If the GM of the game is breaking the rules to give one faction an advantage over another, MAMA goes out the window at that point and the players have every right to be spiteful towards the game
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: Male
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Posts: 1546
Franzise Deauxnim wrote:
This is essentially how I feel (minus the first goal being to escape and survive part since it's possible that isn't the player's primary goal but I digress) Throwing away any chance you have at winning yourself just to screw another player out of winning is just being spiteful and against the spirit of the game.
also in my defense the only thing I "lied" about was who was zero and I admit in hindsight that probably wasn't the best way to go about doing what I had in mind for the game
I never explicitly said there was a bomber though, just that there was a bomb
We were definitely intended to believe there was a bomber, though. If not, you would've just told us it was a game mechanic (the note even alluded that it was the role of a player)
Since we were supposed to believe that, the possibility that Cold was the dead bomber existed so jumpfight was playing towards his win condition (the possible chance of escape)
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:25 am
Posts: 3541
JesusMonroe wrote:
Franzise Deauxnim wrote:
This is essentially how I feel (minus the first goal being to escape and survive part since it's possible that isn't the player's primary goal but I digress) Throwing away any chance you have at winning yourself just to screw another player out of winning is just being spiteful and against the spirit of the game.
also in my defense the only thing I "lied" about was who was zero and I admit in hindsight that probably wasn't the best way to go about doing what I had in mind for the game
I never explicitly said there was a bomber though, just that there was a bomb
We were definitely intended to believe there was a bomber, though. If not, you would've just told us it was a game mechanic (the note even alluded that it was the role of a player)
Since we were supposed to believe that, the possibility that Cold was the dead bomber existed so jumpfight was playing towards his win condition (the possible chance of escape)
Yes, implying there was a bomber was my intent. Making everyone question their assumptions was a big thing I wanted to do with the game. Again, probably could have executed it better, but like I said, this was sort of an experiment. Nothing would make me happier about this game than the next GM looking at it, seeing what works and doesn't work, and using that information to make the next game that much better.
Jumpfight, I don't know what all the hostility is about but I'm not saying you were wrong or otherwise judging your actions; the need to modify the MAMA for future Nonary Games was brought up so I added my two cents in regards to that. That's it. As far as Cold's death, I had very good reason to not reverse it and I apologized twice for the mistake.
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gender: None specified
Rank: Suspect
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:14 am
Posts: 1
Re: The Second Nonary Game (Day 3, Phase 4)
Gettin' Old!
Gender: Male
Location: Scotland
Rank: Ace Attorney
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Posts: 14363
Franzise Deauxnim wrote:
JesusMonroe wrote:
Franzise Deauxnim wrote:
This is essentially how I feel (minus the first goal being to escape and survive part since it's possible that isn't the player's primary goal but I digress) Throwing away any chance you have at winning yourself just to screw another player out of winning is just being spiteful and against the spirit of the game.
also in my defense the only thing I "lied" about was who was zero and I admit in hindsight that probably wasn't the best way to go about doing what I had in mind for the game
I never explicitly said there was a bomber though, just that there was a bomb
We were definitely intended to believe there was a bomber, though. If not, you would've just told us it was a game mechanic (the note even alluded that it was the role of a player)
Since we were supposed to believe that, the possibility that Cold was the dead bomber existed so jumpfight was playing towards his win condition (the possible chance of escape)
Yes, implying there was a bomber was my intent. Making everyone question their assumptions was a big thing I wanted to do with the game. Again, probably could have executed it better, but like I said, this was sort of an experiment. Nothing would make me happier about this game than the next GM looking at it, seeing what works and doesn't work, and using that information to make the next game that much better.
Jumpfight, I don't know what all the hostility is about but I'm not saying you were wrong or otherwise judging your actions; the need to modify the MAMA for future Nonary Games was brought up so I added my two cents in regards to that. That's it. As far as Cold's death, I had very good reason to not reverse it and I apologized twice for the mistake.
Yeah we got to remember this is only the second time the Nonary game has been run. The GM tried to put their own unique spin on it and get a little 'meta' much like the series it pays tribute to. Yeah it might not have worked out but mistakes need to be made once before they can be rectified in future renditions. Anyone who has seen this game will know the "unreliable narrator" didn't go down so well or workout too well and so it can be avoided in future.
I was actually wondering about the "Don't kill your solo partner" rule. It seems strange...and I'm guessing that's partially why no one noticed it for so long, because it seemed like a viable play. After all it's the perfect play for Zero and his Assistant to make to ensure victory, or two other selfish people to ensure their victory. Forcing people to be unable to vote is exactly the kind of thing that happens in the Zero Escape series. While I apologise for overlooking the rule when we did it I must ask what was your reasoning behind including such a rule?
Quote:
Since we were supposed to believe that, the possibility that Cold was the dead bomber existed so jumpfight was playing towards his win condition (the possible chance of escape)
It's easy to say in hindsight but then you consider that the bomb was not deactivated yet. So it was still suicide for Jumpfight.
I wouldn't mind running a more "mystery-roleplay-y" version of the 999 game with set characters and unique win conditions for everyone, and a strict crackdown on the fourth wall XD
Trouble is I'm no mystery writer. I like to see a mystery unwravel at it's own pace rather than second guess it so I doubt I could create effective twists or clues to Zero's identity (short of there being an esper in the crowd).
Made by Chesu+Zombee
You thought you could be safe in your courts, with your laws and attorneys to protect you. In this world only I am law, my word is fact, my power is absolute.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed