I hope this is the right forum for game development.
There are a couple of popular “Deathpool” games going on currently(Celebrity and Themed), and I thought a “Lifepool” game might work. All picks must between 75 and 100, you get a baseline of 100 points, and the younger they are when they die the more points are deducted(1 point taken away if the pick dies at 100, down to 25 points deducted if they die at 75). The person with the most points left wins, but if you lose all your points you are knocked out of the game.
How long should the list be(8? 10? 12?)
Did I miss anything rule-wise?
Above all else: Would y’all be interested in a game like this?
Interested, no, but a couple of thoughts.
First if you lose 1 point for death at 100, you have to lose 26 for death at 75 not 25 points.
Second I’d think that 95 year olds and 96 year olds would be just about equally likely to die in a given year. Why wouldn’t I always pick the 96 year old which would cost me less. If I pick only n 100 year olds, the most I can lose is n points. One 75 year old dying in an auto accident costs 26 points.
let us make it 76-100. Yes, you would think picking straight 100’s would almost be a sure thing, but having picked people that actually been on their deathbeds before and nevertheless scored ziltch on the deadpools…let’s just say that fate loves to screw with “sure things”.
i think it would be better to get points equal to age at the end of year rather than lose points as the game goes on. So if you pick ten 100 year olds, you have the potential to win 1000 points, but it’s riskier. Picking ten 75 year olds means you can only get 750 max, but it’s a better chance. Like in March Madness when you get more points for picking upsets.
Get points? Please re-read the rules.
If we did it your way, then everyone would have posted their list by the beginning of the year, then no one would post until the year was over.
Love it, count me in!
Semi-interested and will be lurking this discussion.
Ah hell – count me in if this goes forward. I would say 10 but remember to include a specific number of alternates.
And unlike the others this one really has to be about the fun. Let’s say I pick all 98+ and you pick an assortment of people across the 25 year span. You lose one 75-year-old and I can bury my whole list and still beat you. In other words this could be fun but please – no wagering.
And while my brain is active — ly engaged with the couple shots of rye I had:
Allow duplicates from the other lists, just alternates from other lists, limit it to two from each list, no duplicates?
By Bridge List looks to be damn near eternal but it wouldn’t be much fun to just copy and paste it. Plus — if you are going to do the work to manage this shouldn’t we put some effort in as well?
It’s more fun when people die.
I don’t understand this post at all - surely your proposed game would work exactly like the existing death pools, in that everyone would post their lists before the start of the year, then the game thread would consist of death announcements and related jokes?
I agree that enalzi’s idea seems like an improvement to the original suggestion - with the ruleset posted in the OP, a likely outcome will be several players tying on 100 points (i.e. they have picked x people, none of whom have died). A better system would be to award points based on the ages of the picks still alive at the end of the year. That way, picking younger celebrities should give you more chance of picking up points, but you have fewer points available. You wouldn’t even necessarily need to have any age restrictions - go ahead and pick 10 21-year-olds if you want, but that’s unlikely to be a winning strategy. Or you could go all out and pick a list of 10 centenarians, for a possible score of over 1,000, but that’s going to be knocked down significantly if (as expected) a few of them pop off. It seems to me there’s more strategy involved that way.
Overall, I like the idea - it feels ‘nicer’ to look for healthy people than trawling the web for the cancer-stricken, which is the main strategy employed for winning a death pool.
I think I’ve found a solution to the “multiple first place winners” problem: In the case of a first place tie, the person with the highest average age of survivors wins. This should encourage people to take a chance on picks older than 76.