|
On June 22 2012 11:20 MrZentor wrote:
Tournament Mafia
Basically, you get ~60 people, host 5 games with 12 people in each. The winning team in each game advances to the next round, and the number of people and game type changes from then on depending on who wins. The last game would be great, because the best people would be there, and they would have already invested a ton of time to get there.
I like this idea
we should do it. would be intense
|
[T] [M] $$$ Stock Market Mafia $$$
There are 2 Mafia players and 7 Town players. Each player starts with a Credit Rating of AAA, a Balance of $1,000,000, and a Portfolio with 0 shares of stock (everyone is privately owned at the beginning of the game). There are two phases: the Trading (Day) phase, and the Backroom Deal (Night) phase.
Stocks represent a stake in a player's vote. Instead of each player casting a vote, each player's vote is determined by a majority of stakeholders of that player. For example, if player A refuses to offer any stocks, then player A retains monopoly control over his or her votes. On the other hand, if player A sells complete ownership of his or her stocks to player B, then player B dictates player A's votes. And in the third degenerate case, if everyone owns equal shares in everyone's stocks, then each player's vote is determined by a simple majority vote of the equally weighted participants.
So why would you ever want to give away potential control of your votes? Cash, of course! During the first Trading phase, each player makes an Initial Public Offering, the quantity of shares listed and offered being up to each player. For example,
- player A could list 1 share of A and offer 0 for sale
- player B could list 100 shares of B and offer 100 for sale at $15,000 each
- player C could list 500,000 shares of C and offer 450,000 for sale at $3 each.
All selling and buying takes place first come, first serve. At the end of the day, let's say the following has happened:
- player A buys 250,001 shares in player C, with a remaining balance of $249,997.
- player B does nothing.
- player C uses the $750,003 received from player A to buy up 100 shares of B, with a remaining balance of $250,003.
So, at the beginning of the night phase, here's what each player's voting situation looks like:
- Stock A is still privately owned and thus player A has a 100% stake.
- Stock B is completely owned by player C, who has a 100% stake.
- Stock C is split between players A and C, but player A owns the majority stake (250001 to 249999), so player A has control over player C's vote.
Now the Backroom Deals can begin. Each player's income per round is determined by the Deals that he or she votes for and against. The host will provide some number of business opportunities and their respective values, and then each player picks an opportunity and offers a bid, which can be individual or joint.
Let's say I offer a business opportunity worth $500,000, and everyone bids individually.
- Player A bids $249,997.
- Player B bids $300,000.
- Player C bids $250,003.
At face value, player B would win the deal and bankrupt players A and C. However, remember that each player's stakeholders must agree to the bid that that player puts forth. In that case, because player C owns a majority stake in B, player C would vote against player B's bid so that player C could win the deal. However, because player A owns a majority stake in both A and C, he or she could vote for A's bid and against C's bid to ultimately claim the opportunity. This would in turn bankrupt player C and leave player B with $700,000 remaining. Once joint bids are taken into consideration, however, player A can use his or her majority stake to jointly bid with all of player C's money and none of his or her own, sharing revenue so that 100% goes to player A. And that is why selling majority stakes is bad.
Actually, never mind. This should never exist. I didn't even get to leveraging or short selling 
But I still feel like posting it :D
I may not be entirely sober.
|
I actually like that! Keep working on it.
|
I was reading with eager anticipation of playing until you said no
I'm with Ace, keep it up! I'm sitting in bed reading from my itouch but I still got all your major points so it may not be as convoluted as you thought.
Come back to it when you're sober and see what you can do :D
|
On June 26 2012 11:01 EchelonTee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:20 MrZentor wrote:
Tournament Mafia
Basically, you get ~60 people, host 5 games with 12 people in each. The winning team in each game advances to the next round, and the number of people and game type changes from then on depending on who wins. The last game would be great, because the best people would be there, and they would have already invested a ton of time to get there. I like this idea we should do it. would be intense
Imagine all scum teams winning the 1st round >_> <_<
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
Codebreaker Mafia.
Ok do here's my new idea. I'm gonna call this codebreaker mafia, and I'm having some difficulty balancing it. Basically, During WW2 (and some other wars), field officers would often need to communicate to HQ or each other through lines they knew were monitored, or even using radio broadcast. As a result, they had to develop codes, to evade detection. Both sides on WW2 put effort into making and breaking codes.
I thought it would be cool to apply this idea to a game of mafia. I'm thinking a completely open setup, like this:
+ Show Spoiler [setup] +
6 VT (Allies Soldier)
6 Masons (Allies Intelligence)
6 Mafia Goon (Axis Intelligence)
1 Survivor (Anarchist)
The Masons and Goons each have a QT to communicate in, but may only post during N0, which lasts 72 hours. After that, they can't post in it any more or do any out-of-thread communications, but they can look at it. In theory they should spend that time to lay plans and set up code words and stuff to be able to communicate with each other during the game.
Scum can't shoot during N0, and have 1 kp.
In terms of just balance, this looks ok from a simulation perspective; if scum always shoot town, town can mislynch twice. Town can lynch the survivor to get an extra day at lylo (since he will vote with scum to win the game), and if scum shoots the survivor, town gets an extra day. The survivor never wants to claim, except maybe to save his own life if there's only one scum left.
+ Show Spoiler [simulations] +
d1 12/6/1 Mislynch..
n1 11/6/1 shoot town
d2 10/6/1 Mislynch..
n2 9/6/1 shoot town
d3 8/6/1 LYLO ;_; since the survivor will win with scum if town mislynches here
If scum accidentally waste a shot on the survivor, d3 will look like 9/6 instead, and town will have one extra mislynch.
And obviously, if town lynch scum at any point, that delays LYLO by a day.
If town lynches the survivor during d1 or d2, d3 will look like 9/6 instead of 8/6/1, and town will have one extra mislynch. Also, if town lynches the survivor during d3 LYLO, they enter d4 at 7/6, which is still LYLO.
What I'm having trouble dealing with are 2 things:
1) what mechanism should mafia use to send in NKs? PM me their vote on who to kill? Maybe one of the mafia is the "gunman", and when he dies, the next guy picks up his gun? Remember mafia will not be allowed to communicate out-of-thread after N0.
2) aside from a purely mechanical standpoint, I'm not sure how balanced this game is, given that scum can't communicate out of thread. The 6 Masons being confirmed innocent to each other is an enormous advantage for town, but I compensate by giving town no DT, medic, etc, but would this game be broken by a mass mason claim? Should I maybe put the Survivor in the Mason QT as well, so that the Masons know that there's one anti-town guy among them? I want there to be a big mason group as a "counter scum" team who have to speak in code as well, but it seems very ungainly.
OK, after some thinking I'm beginning to think that 6 masons, even though it sounds awesome, is just wayy to strong? Maybe? Because they'll never get lynched. but I guess mafia can shoot them?
|
Breaking strat:
The 6 Masons all vote for the same player off the bat. There are two options here.
A) Everyone obeys the masons. Anyone who does not votefollow them is lynched. It takes 6 mislynches for town to lose.
B) Scum counterclaim mason circle. One player from each circle is lynched, revealing who is truely mason and who is scum.
Gameover.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
Oh man, ok yeah so mass claim definitely breaks it. that's brutal. Would it be okay with 2 groups of 3 masons or something? I kinda liked the whole talking in code idea for townies.
Ok Ok I got it. What if mafia had some sort of mechanic that aggressively punished roleclaims? Like the angelic acolyte from purgatory mafia, a "called shot" killer. Or I could give that to the survivor, actually-- a gun that can only hit blues and reds, but you have to call the color.
|
I think you need to cut it to 3 masons, and cut 2 mafia out.
Sleeper cell works with a 1/3 ratio because they don't know each other.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
so If I ran it with 3 masons, 9 VT, 4 Mafia, 1 Survivor?
D1: 12/4/1 mislynch
D2: 10/4/1 mislynch
D3: 8/4/1 mislynch
D4: 6/4/1 LYLO
In this setup, town can mislynch 3 times and still win. If the 3 masons claim, and all vote someone D1, It wouldn't be nearly as strong since they dont' have as much information-- their chance of randomly hitting scum is 1/3rd rather than 1/2.
I think this is much better. Should mafia maybe be allowed to shoot during N0 to allow town only 2 mislynches?
D1: 11/4/1 mislynch
D2: 9/4/1 mislynch
D3: 7/4/1 MYLO
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 08 2012 14:30 MidnightGladius wrote:[T] [M] $$$ Stock Market Mafia $$$ There are 2 Mafia players and 7 Town players. Each player starts with a Credit Rating of AAA, a Balance of $1,000,000, and a Portfolio with 0 shares of stock (everyone is privately owned at the beginning of the game). There are two phases: the Trading (Day) phase, and the Backroom Deal (Night) phase. Stocks represent a stake in a player's vote. Instead of each player casting a vote, each player's vote is determined by a majority of stakeholders of that player. For example, if player A refuses to offer any stocks, then player A retains monopoly control over his or her votes. On the other hand, if player A sells complete ownership of his or her stocks to player B, then player B dictates player A's votes. And in the third degenerate case, if everyone owns equal shares in everyone's stocks, then each player's vote is determined by a simple majority vote of the equally weighted participants. So why would you ever want to give away potential control of your votes? Cash, of course! During the first Trading phase, each player makes an Initial Public Offering, the quantity of shares listed and offered being up to each player. For example, - player A could list 1 share of A and offer 0 for sale - player B could list 100 shares of B and offer 100 for sale at $15,000 each - player C could list 500,000 shares of C and offer 450,000 for sale at $3 each. All selling and buying takes place first come, first serve. At the end of the day, let's say the following has happened: - player A buys 250,001 shares in player C, with a remaining balance of $249,997. - player B does nothing. - player C uses the $750,003 received from player A to buy up 100 shares of B, with a remaining balance of $250,003. So, at the beginning of the night phase, here's what each player's voting situation looks like: - Stock A is still privately owned and thus player A has a 100% stake. - Stock B is completely owned by player C, who has a 100% stake. - Stock C is split between players A and C, but player A owns the majority stake (250001 to 249999), so player A has control over player C's vote. Now the Backroom Deals can begin. Each player's income per round is determined by the Deals that he or she votes for and against. The host will provide some number of business opportunities and their respective values, and then each player picks an opportunity and offers a bid, which can be individual or joint. Let's say I offer a business opportunity worth $500,000, and everyone bids individually. - Player A bids $249,997. - Player B bids $300,000. - Player C bids $250,003. At face value, player B would win the deal and bankrupt players A and C. However, remember that each player's stakeholders must agree to the bid that that player puts forth. In that case, because player C owns a majority stake in B, player C would vote against player B's bid so that player C could win the deal. However, because player A owns a majority stake in both A and C, he or she could vote for A's bid and against C's bid to ultimately claim the opportunity. This would in turn bankrupt player C and leave player B with $700,000 remaining. Once joint bids are taken into consideration, however, player A can use his or her majority stake to jointly bid with all of player C's money and none of his or her own, sharing revenue so that 100% goes to player A. And that is why selling majority stakes is bad. Actually, never mind. This should never exist. I didn't even get to leveraging or short selling But I still feel like posting it :D I may not be entirely sober.
I was inspired by the spoilered post to elaborate and make some changes. Feel free to use, change, or ignore whatever is below.
So you have everyone start out with $1,000,000. Each player can choose to invest money in another player(s) if they want, but each player retains complete control over their actions/votes. The investors will only make money on the amount they invest (keeping it means you are investing in yourself). Each day’s lynch would work a little differently; instead of a majority vote to lynch someone, a majority of the money available must be offered to lynch someone. So for a day 1 lynch with 9 people, a minimum of $5,000,000 would be required to be put up as an investment in order to lynch someone. (This is different than investing in a person. This is the opposite. You’d be investing in their death. Also, people would not be required to invest all their money in one case/lynch. They can divide their money however they want.) If the person lynched was mafia, the investment would return a percentage profit (idk maybe 20%, completely arbitrary at this point). If the person lynched was town, the investment would return a percentage loss (idk maybe 20% as well, also completely arbitrary at this point). All the money invested in someone not lynched is refunded 100%.
A random thought that I just had was that if you invested some amount in someone’s lynch but they failed to get lynched and you decided to invest that same amount of money in that person’s lynch the following day, you would get a bonus profit if the person lynched was mafia (maybe an extra 10% per additional day invested, again arbitrary). You would not lose extra money if the person was town. Also, this bonus percentage would not apply to money that was invested above and beyond the original earlier day’s amount. Any extra new money would get the standard profit rate.
For the night kills, I think mafia could choose someone to kill as in normal mafia games. Once they kill this person they would get some amount of money to be split evenly among each mafia member (maybe like 20% of initial money each player starts with; this is not dependent on how much or little this person is investing or has been invested in). When this person dies, all the money that they invested in others gets pulled out. This money then gets returned to the investors in this person. The money left over (could be more or less than the original starting amount depending on the person’s voting behavior) would be lost to the game.
I think to balance the game with mafia getting extra money each night what needs to happen is that the investor portfolio of each person is kept secret. Only each person knows his investors and how much they invested in them. Definitely you would not be allowed to disclose the amount of each investment in yourself by others, but I am on the fence if you can mention who is investing on you. What will be public record will be the votes, with each person’s money invested in lynches being known.
As for the actual investing process, I definitely think that offers for actual investments in players (not lynches) must be secret and should be PMed to the hosts. What I haven’t decided is whether or not the person being invested in should be able to reject money from investor(s). Additionally I think that there should be a distinction between your initial money and your investors’ money when investing yourself. You have complete control over the distribution/investment of your own initial money, but you can’t distinguish money from your investors and all profits/losses are shared amongst all investors. You also can uninvest in a person as well and take back your money.
I think the best format would be the standard 48 hour day divided into two 24 parts, with the first part allowing for investing in people and the second part allowing for investing in lynches.
Note: I haven’t figured out how to calculate how much money should be required to lynch someone after day 1 because there will be issues due to people losing/gaining money from the day 1 lynch as well as the mafia gaining money over night.
To list a few simple examples to give you an idea: (assume 9 players, $1,000,000 starting money, and 20% profit/loss rate)
If no one invests in anyone during the day, then the lynch proceeds as normal with everyone having equal voting power. Assuming a mislynch and six people of nine total voting in favor of the lynch, the following would be the balances at the end of the day.
Player A: $800,000
Player B: $800,000
Player C: $800,000
Player D: $800,000
Player E: $800,000
Player F: $800,000
Player G: $1,000,000
Player H: $1,000,000
Player I: $0 (was lynched)
Assuming that everyone invested in one person:
Before the lynch balances would be:
Player A: $9,000,000
Player B: $0
Player C: $0
Player D: $0
Player E: $0
Player F: $0
Player G: $0
Player H: $0
Player I: $0
After the mislynch:
Player A: $6,400,000 (the losses would be evenly distributed amongst everyone)
Player B: $0
Player C: $0
Player D: $0
Player E: $0
Player F: $0
Player G: $0
Player H: $0
Player I: $0 (dead so his money is lost)
In this instance Player A only has $6,400,000 after the lynch because he lost $1,000,000 from Player I dying and the $1,600,000 was lost in the mislynch. This means that essentially each player has $800,000 of their initial money left to control the following day.
This is all I have so far for the actual mechanics of the game. I still think there are many things that need to be changed/fixed, but I figured I would post them to give you some more ideas/things to think about. One of issues that I just realized is why would a person want to invest in someone else at all and not just vote a particular way yourself. Hmmm. There needs to be a good reason for this investment.
An aside for flavor that I think would be interesting: Each person is a company. Mafia should be companies that are trying to form a cartel to control the economy. Night kills should be some form of sudden request for cashing out of stock in the company being targeted. This request will be fraudulent in the sense that being invested in a particular company is not required to target them for a night kill. This would be the same for vigilantes. Medics could be a company that offers emergency short term loans to one company each night. Veterans could be a company that has extensive cash reserves (maybe give them double the starting money than other players, but this would need to be thought about a lot because would mean that he also has a double vote as well as some issues which I haven’t even thought about yet). Roleblockers could be patent trolls. That’s what I got for flavor right now.
|
Okay, now I'm definitely motivated to write this up properly :D Thanks for picking up where I left off, Crossfire, but that's a bit different than what I had intended, though I do agree that players should play as companies (Hong Kong-style laissez faire). More to follow later tonight or tomorrow.
|
|
|
[M] [T] Noble House Mafia
Hong Kong, 1963. Competition between Struan's and Company and Rothwell-Gornt, two massive trading conglomerates and bitter blood rivals, is more intense than ever. Struan's and Company, long dominant, is critically overextended and in need of cash to finance bad debts, and has turned to Par-Con, a pioneering American firm, for a partnership. Rothwell-Gornt thinks that it can offer them a better deal, becoming the Noble House of Asia in the process. And as for the Americans... well, you never know about Americans.
Setup:
- 1 Struan's and Company Executive
- 3 Struan's and Company Allies
- 1 Rothwell-Gornt Executive
- 3 Rothwell-Gornt Allies
- 2 Par-Con Executives (masoned)
Struan players win when they control at least a 3/4ths+1 voting majority of Struan's and Company collectively, and one player controls at least a 1/2th+1 voting majority of Rothwell-Gornt.
Gornt players win when they control a 3/4ths+1 voting majority of Rothwell-Gornt collectively, and one player controls at least a 1/2th+1 voting majority of Struan's and Company.
Par-Con players win when they control at least a 1/2th+1 voting majority of Struan's and Company collectively OR a 1/2th+1 voting majority of Rothwell-Gornt collectively.
The game consists of a 24-hour Trading Phase (Day) and a 24-hour Backroom Deal Phase (Night). In addition to their starting stock Portfolio, each player has a starting Balance and access to a Line of Credit, both of which are secret. These are relevant to the Trading Phase. Some players may also have access to Favors. These are relevant to the Backroom Deal Phase.
Whenever a player's Balance is below $0, he or she loses the game at the beginning of the next Trading Phase (Day) if his or her Balance is still below $0. If that player is not currently using his or her Line of Credit for a Short Sale, then he or she automatically gets a 48-hour emergency loan attempting to make up for the deficit. For gameplay reasons, there will be no interest on this loan.
The Par-Con night kill substitute will be a choice between forcibly buying out another player's stock, or using a liquidity shock to deplete another player's Balance. In addition, both the Struan and Gornt Executive would also have a one-shot Trading Phase ability to dismiss, or remove, another player from the game (selling their stock at the last sell price), but this would only work on Allies, not Executives (trying to do so would fail and use up the ability). As a result of these and other factors, the Mafia will be essentially "unlynchable."
Stock Market Mechanics:
There are two stocks at play, Struan's and Company and Rothwell-Gornt. Their starting composition is as follows. For simplicity, each company is listed for 100k shares in total, and shares can only be bought or sold in units of 1k.
Struan's and Company:
- 26% owned by Struan Executive
- 5% owned by each Struan Ally (15% in total)
- 9% owned by Gornt Executive
- 50% owned by Creditors (non-voting, for short sale purposes)
- Initial listing price $30/share
Rothwell-Gornt:
- 26% owned by Gornt Executive
- 5% owned by each Gornt Ally (15% in total)
- 9% owned by Struan Executive
- 50% owned by Creditors (non-voting, for short sale purposes)
- Initial listing price $30/share
Stocks represent a player's influence on the board of a company, and company business decisions are made through votes of the board. Though the initial composition reflects the Executive's ability to dictate policy, in-game events will make retaining control impossible, at which point it's all up to the players.
Trading Phase:
During the Trading Phase, players may sell stocks by PMing a host with the quantity to be sold and the asking price. This information will be posted in the thread, and players may buy stocks by PMing a host with the quantity that they wish to buy. These trades resolve as close to instantly as possible, and are handled on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Short Selling:
Players may also attempt a "short sale" of a stock. To do this, they must borrow against their Line of Credit, "sell" an equivalent amount of stock for Creditors at the latest selling price, and then "buy" it back for the Creditors at the latest selling price in 48 hours. For example, if a Struan Executive wants to sell Rothwell-Gornt short, he has a $250k Line of Credit, and the latest Gornt sell price is $25/share, then he could borrow up to $250k to "sell" 10k shares. At this point, the market looks like this:
Rothwell-Gornt: $25/share
- 50% owned by players
- 40% owned by Creditors
- 10% for sale
To simplify things and prevent screwy voting repercussions, let's just say that the 10k shares are bought by other Creditors. 48 hours later, Rothwell-Gornt players have been selling stock in a real hurry, reducing the price to $20/share. When the Struan Executive "buys back in," he pays $200k to do so. Again, let's just say that these shares are immediately returned to the Creditors, so it doesn't affect the voting balance. However, now the Struan Executive has made $50k in the process. Gains made through a short sale incur a 10% fee on profit, so the player keeps $40k. On the other hand, if Rothwell-Gornt stock prices had gone up to $30/share, then the Struan Executive would have to "buy back in" at the cost of $300k, losing $50k in the process. This would have to be repaid from the player's Balance. Fortunately, losses incurred from a short sale do not incur a fee (this is for gameplay purposes, real life is nowhere near as kind).
Backroom Deal Phase:
During the Backroom Deal Phase, the two companies bid on business Opportunities, and individual players bid for Favors.
There are three Business Sectors: Manufacturing, Agriculture, and Services. Each Night, each Sector will have an available Opportunity. For example, on the first Night, the following Opportunities may be available:
Manufacturing: +$150k for winner, -$75k for loser
Agriculture: +$400k for winner, -$250k for loser
Services: +$50k for winner, no losses for loser
Each company can bid High in one Sector and Low in another (No Bid for the third). Bids are resolved such that equal Bids for the same Opportunity result in both companies losing, High beats Low, and High or Low disregard No Bid (this does not count as losing).
The two players who own the most stock in each company each decide on a Bid. These will be PMed to each other player who owns stock in that company. Each player PMs in his or her vote, and the winning combination becomes the company's Bid. For example, using the initial conditions, the Struan Executive owns the most Struan stock, so he could offer <High:Manufacturing, Low:Services>. The Gornt Executive owns the second most stock and offers and <High:Agriculture, Low:Services). Then, the Struan Executive, the 3 Struan Allies, and the Gornt Executive vote on which Bid to submit. Votes are weighted by stock shares, so the Struan Executive could outvote all of the others if need be. Revenue made and losses incurred through these Opportunities are weighted and distributed to the players according to stock ownership. So, for example, if Struan's won on Manufacturing and lost on Services (net gain of $150k), then 51% of the $150k would go to the Executive, 10% would go to each Ally, and 19% would go to the Gornt Executive.
Each company's Bid presentations and votes occur and resolve simultaneously, so the combinations of Bids would have to be determined in the first 12 hours, and the votes made during the second 12 hours.
During the Backroom Deal Phase, individual players can also solicit and bid for Favors from other players. Favors are one-shot abilities that certain players have a limited supply of and can give to others, but not use themselves. During the Day, players choose whether or not to accept solicitations that Night. I will post all available Favors and the players offering them at the beginning of the Backroom Deal Phase. All bids are made directly by the players through PMs, and the player offering the Favor need not accept the highest bidder, or, in fact, any bidder at all. However, no non-bid communication can occur through these PMs. Favors must be used on the Night that they are obtained, so all recipients would have to be determined within the first 12 hours, and the recipients would have to use them during the second 12 hours.
I imagine that this setup would be very hard for all players involved, as the Town factions would be very hesitant to actually flip someone (they lose a Line of Credit, and Par-Con could buy up the shares being sold by the dying player). The Mafia win condition would take a lot of planning to achieve.
|
I need to sit down and read this to see if I can exploit any holes but this sounds exciting.
|
The biggest problem I foresee is low volume of trades creating price instability. If activity levels are low, a player could short a stock, wait 47 hours, and then sell a few shares way below market price for someone else to buy. In a real market with high volume trading, that buyer would immediately re-sell higher, at the market rate, to make a profit, or someone else would re-establish the previous, higher price on their own. Here, though, shorting a stock and then selling it could be rather exploitative.
|
/in
I didn't read it but it sounds awesome.
|
I like the idea of a game financially-themed game, but am 100% opposed to it being themed after James Clavell's stuff. Any James Clavell-themed game would have to end in a natural disaster once things hit LYLO, which would kill off mafia and about ~50% of the other players, so that hosts never need to resolve any of the final votes and actions.
|
On July 12 2012 00:37 MidnightGladius wrote:
The biggest problem I foresee is low volume of trades creating price instability. If activity levels are low, a player could short a stock, wait 47 hours, and then sell a few shares way below market price for someone else to buy. In a real market with high volume trading, that buyer would immediately re-sell higher, at the market rate, to make a profit, or someone else would re-establish the previous, higher price on their own. Here, though, shorting a stock and then selling it could be rather exploitative.
Wait, how do the stock change price in this game? Is there a formula that will be known or something?
Also...lol how do you play this game? Like.....why would people even try to sell their stock if their win-con is to get the most stocks?
Does each "faction" know each others members apart from the red guys? (does the blue executive know who the blue allies are?).
You know......this gives me another idea:
[M][T]Monopoly Mafia
Make it happen
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On July 12 2012 01:05 gonzaw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 00:37 MidnightGladius wrote:
The biggest problem I foresee is low volume of trades creating price instability. If activity levels are low, a player could short a stock, wait 47 hours, and then sell a few shares way below market price for someone else to buy. In a real market with high volume trading, that buyer would immediately re-sell higher, at the market rate, to make a profit, or someone else would re-establish the previous, higher price on their own. Here, though, shorting a stock and then selling it could be rather exploitative. Wait, how do the stock change price in this game? Is there a formula that will be known or something? Also...lol how do you play this game? Like.....why would people even try to sell their stock if their win-con is to get the most stocks? Does each "faction" know each others members apart from the red guys? (does the blue executive know who the blue allies are?). You know......this gives me another idea: [M][T]Monopoly MafiaMake it happen
If there's a Mafia RB in that game, he should almost certainly be named "Street Repairs", because that card was the destroyer of games and hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I9cJN.jpg)
