Vote for Zeogold!

So in this scenario, every shot has an equal probability of being successful? I kind of like that. People don't have to feel like they are "wasting" there shot at a less chance instead of waiting for a better chance later.

If a kill happens early in the day, will the day start right away or wait until the next UTC 6 PM?

It's an interesting variation, though at least as I understood the original description/setup the lower percent shots go first. So sure, #6 would have a 100% chance to hit, but only if shots 1-5 didn't hit. And while I rushed the math walking in the door and thinking about dinner, the odds of the shot dropping through to the "sure thing" is only...2%?

So the real intrigue would seem to be in the middle of the queue. Unless I screwed up the math. ;)

Also, esp. from town's perspective jumping at the 1/6th chance actually has a variety of values more than the likelihood of actually getting the kill - one it gets the conversation going.

I'd expect scum and townies with a serious bone to pick to vie for the #2-4 spots, much more than the 1 or 6 positions. Spot #3, despite only having a 50/50 chance to hit, actually looks like it has the highest marginal value.

I live in Canyon Texas, 20 miles south of Amarillo, pretty close to Kansas :)

You should expect a package in your chat Thursday somewhere between 7-10 that evening ;-)

Not more probability talk... *sigh* I'll just answer now, and JMich can correct me later, if necessary. :P

The odds should be the same as in the original format, since if the first shot misses, there will only be 5 shots left, so it will then be 1/5 chance for the next shot to fire the bullet. If that one misses, the there will be 4 shots left, and the round has a 1/4 chance of existing in the next shot. And, so on.

(If this becomes another Monty Hall problem debate, count me out. :P)

If a kill happens, the gun will be reloaded and a new firing cycle will start immediately. The deadline will be the 6pm UTC that allows for at least ~24 hours for the next "Day". There is some wiggle room in this, as, if a a deadline is reached, the next deadline will still be 6pm of the next day, (unless the moderator really drops the ball and doesn't end the "Day" in a timely manner).

At least that is how I have it in my head. It could always be changed that each "Day" must have at least 18 hours until the next 6pm UTC hard deadline. Given when the deadline is currently placed, this still aught to given everyone enough time to post. It would possibly help to speed the game along, this way. As always, your feedback would be welcome.

And here I thought we were shooting a gun by pulling the trigger, shooting something out of our ass could be messy

Man, that was only up there about 45 seconds before I edited it too!

Forget the actual percent of hitting the shot, since it's only half the equation - you also have to factor in the probability of getting to shoot. At least based on how I threw it together, the actual "value" of each shot from 1-6 is below:

16.67%
27.78%
27.78%
18.52%
7.72%
1.54%

So in order the most valuable shots are 2/3, 4, 1, 5, 6. Right? On the long drive home tonight it occurred to me that Yog's overflow game might actually run fine if it were staggered a few days. Possible 1-2 people early out of Kryp's game, or at least settled into that one, would want to try the other experimental setup.

I very likely would, just speaking for myself. Hesitant to sign up for it at this point til I see what I'm actually in for with this one.

LOL, I spend too much time trolling the threads ;-)

Each shot will still have the same percentage as the original game as it comes up (i.e.1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1). I see what you are doing... <deleted wrong-headed misinformation that I typed>

edit:
Actually, I take that back; I am not sure what you are calculating for with those numbers. I am not saying it is invalid, I am just saying I am not following your train of thought.

No matter which shot you have in the queue, the percentage chance should be identical to the rest. Thinking back, I suppose this is what cristigale meant, but it still amounts to the same odds as in the mafiascum.net game. Even there, if you had the 4th shot it would be a 1/3 chance once the queue reached that point, but you would have only a 1/2 chance of the previous 3 shots in the queue missing. Therefore, it would be a 1/6 chance at the outset.

Nevermind, I loaded the wrong chance to hit. For some reason I had it in my mind it was 1/6, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 5/6, 1.

You're right, with the 1/6, 1/5... it actually does play out squarely.

Edit - but in any case, it answers the issue of whether one should be worried about people "gaming" for a better position in line. I was saying "no" in terms of the 5v6 position, but with the correct numbers it holds for all positions.

If your functional chance of success is 1/6 at position 5 or position 6, there's no point in trying to "trade up" - if anything you run the risk of getting shut out altogether.

Yep. So, really, there isn't much reason to not just immediately queue up a shot as quickly as possible. At least in terms of raw probabilities. I'll still allow players the ability to remove themselves from the queue, however, as I think it may add a little more strategy (or at least WIFOM) to the entire affair. I no longer think it will hurt much, at any rate.

edit:
The only reason to force a waiting period is to thwart people from 'shoot-hopping'. Early on, it will allow people who may not have had an available shot to use (because they had all been taken by other players) the ability to take advantage of the newly made free shot. Later on, everyone will be able to get at least one shot regardless, so it matters much less.

Do we even need a waiting period? Do we want to allow players a time-frame in which they can poach retracted shots? Perhaps we don't have a waiting period.

edit2:
Perhaps we just say that after retracting a shot, that player must wait for at least one other player to make a shot before they can make a shot on a new target? I rather like that idea, actually.

I agree with that - and like the option to remove a shot, at least before things "close."

As long as you know how you're handling people moving on/off (like a stack, or queue, or series of slots) I think the only downside is that it makes the modding a bit more work.

Edit - saw your edit. By the same token I think the argument for some cooldown (1hr? 30 min?) is that it avoids some jackass making 30 moves off/on ;) I don't really think it's a gameplay issue as much as a mod work-load/accuracy issue.

I wouldn't make it a full 2 hr CD though - as you say a lot can happen in 90 min, esp. with deadlines cycling every 24 hours more or less.

I made an edit above which would make moderating much easier. Just require another player to queue up before allowing the player that retracted their shot to make a new shot. Much easier to moderate than having to check times of posts.

edit:
If everyone else has already made a shot that is allowed (for instance when there are fewer players than shots remaining in the gun), I suppose players could just move their votes around as much as they want while waiting for a moderator to set their shots in stone and finalize them. I don't see much problem with that either.

I think that's a pretty fair solution. It hurts town slightly more than scum but esp with an 8/2 count, I don't think it's unbalancing.